Letters to - the Editor TEMPERANCE REFORM [To the Editor of
the SrEcraxon.] gm,—Youir Contributor, Prudeni Futuri," claims to be an experienced student of temperance. As one whose experience is probably as great may I make some comments? Like him I. remain anonymous. When Lord D'Abernon, as chairman Of the-Liquor 'Control Board, was in actual contact with and responsible for 'dealing with' the 'drink problem, he advo-, cited State Purchaie. So did the -.whole Control Board. Their reasons were mainly that, even with D.O.R.A. powers, it was iimpoisible fully to Control the Trade in private hands or get the best results.
Carlisle " (under public ownership) not only proves that sobriety' is aided when a " Mere boozing shop " is converted into an eating house, but also that under public ownership one can get disinterested management in those houses which remain mere drinking 'places. That is very important. It is a gain that cannot be claimed so long as the Trade is in private hands.' " Carlisle " alio shoWs that it is only in a small minority of houSes that there is a demand for foOd, i.e., which can be made into Cafes (" improved public houses "). The Southborough 'Committee confirmed this. The brewers them- selves do not claim anything more than this for their policy of the " improved " public house (which policy your con- tributor is wrong in believing they as a whole oppose). So the " improved " public house policy does nothing for the large majority of houses.
The proposal to have regional monopolies by voluntary arrangement within the Trade is not new. It was suggested during the War by some of the big brewers with an additional suggestion that in case any breweries refused to be swallowed up voluntarily this amalgamation should be brought about compulsOrilY. The smaller brewers—not unnaturally—objected to this, and so a Government committee were unable to recommend it.
It is true that reformers are divided in the solution they propose, some supporting No Licence, others Reorganization, as at Carlisle. The fact that though they differ they yet unite increasingly in backing the Bishop of Liverpool's Bill, proves them 'in be deninerats, as they are ready to allow the public to choose between their rival remedies. This is more than the Trade. is willing to do.
One last observation. Your contributor calls his proposal " practical," and suggests that the necessary legislation could be' carried sPeedily. There he is entirely wrong, and shows hiniself not to be a practical politician. The necessary Bill would be highly controversial, would be bitterly opposed in the Corinnons, and although it would help to improve some *rinses would, as indicated, actually only touch the fringe of the PrOblem.—I am, Sir, &c., EXPERENTIA DOCET. .
Previous page
