Letters to the Editor
THE " OXFORD " BILL [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] • SIR,—Your correspondent, Mr. Wainwright, surely takes a wrong position.when arguing against Local Option. This is refusal to have drink sold in a particular locality, but it is not Prohibition, for the inhabitant can slake his alcoholic thirst at home or outside the area ; he merely cannot thrust the means for gratifying it publicly on other inhabitants of the district.
Personal liberty is a precious heritage, it is true, but it is constantly being circumscribed by the larger liberty. Cardinal Manning said, in 1882: " Self-defence is the first law of Nature, and Local Veto is nothing more than giving every locality the power to protect itself against the Drink Traffic . . . a licensing power can place in the midst of any population a public-house whether that population wills it or not . . . we ask the power shall be given to the people of the locality to say Ycs or No." This is self-government, and were it not for the huge vested interests behind, would be axiomatic.
As long ago as 1869 the Convocation of Canterbury, cer- tainly not an extreme body of anarchical principles, declared : " A legal power of restraining the issue and renewal of licences should be placed in the hands of the persons most deeply interested and affected—viz., the inhabitants them selves, who are entitled to protection from the injurious conse- quences of the present system."—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
