[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sia,—The Bishop of Liverpool, in the letter which you published last week, said that he was ready " by all means in his power " to encourage the brewers to reform their public houses, but that he would proceed with the policy represented. by his recent Local Option- Bill. No doubt collateral methods of reform are most helpful—but not when they are mutually destructive. A moment's consideration of the .Bishop's whole policy will show .that the one part of it destroys. the other. His Bill provided for three options : (1) No change ; (2) Reorganization (otherwise known as Public Ownership and Management) ; (3) No licence. Can the Bishop really suppose that if he proceeds with this policy the reputable brewers who are anxious to put their houses in order will take seriously his promise to help them " by all means in., his power " ? For if his -Local Option Bill were carried. the brewers and their property might be voted out of existence in any area at any of the polls to be held every- four years. Unless a brewer were qualifying -for Bedlam he would not on such conditions rebuild his old houses or build better. ones. • The ,worst public houses of all are in the-slums. There is. a fair prospect that the slums will be abolished within a very
few years. But what of the public houses ? Are they to remain contaminating the neighbourhood and dragging it down again to the old slum level ? The Bishop's policy,. if we may judge from Local Option in Scotland, would lead to indefinite delay. By Lord D'Abernon's scheme something could be done, and done quickly. Some of my correspondents have told me that I was too gloomy. I admit that I wrote in gloom. It was the result of watching Temperance Reform for many years. The Bishop's letter makes me gloomier— and sadder, too, when I reflect upon the undoubted enthusiasm and sincerity behind it.--I am, _Sir, &c., PRUDENS FEJTCTI.
Previous page
