MR. RITCHIE'S PROMISED BILL.
(To THY EDITOR OF TH8 "swam:m.1 Sra,—Lord Salisbury is reported as having said that "in punitive legislation against the intemperate he is inclined to go even a step further" than the Bishop of Winchester. I hope, Sir, you will try to induce Mr. Ritchie in his coming Bill to act on the suggestion. The Bishop's Bill may be of use as a thin end of the wedge, but will be ineffectual as it stands at present. In large towns identification will be im- possible, and in rural districts conviction for drunkenness is so seldom attempted that many long-experienced Magistrates have never known "three cases of conviction in one year" against any individual, or " nine cases in a lifetime." Lady Henry Somerset the other day at Hereford made easy fun of me by imagining the overworked, under-educated barmaid taking down a bulky volume of names of inebriates before serving out each whisky-and-soda. But if only it be made easy and restrictive rather than punitive, I make bold to say that no remedy will check drunkenness more effectively in country districts than a black-list of inebriates. Unless the Home Office can devise means to make Chief Constables encourage the police to shut up a drunkard till he is sober, instead of guiding him to his home, where he can do most cruel harm, the required number of convictions will, as now, be rarely obtained. And even if they are obtained, the risk of encouraging convictibns is too great. Why do so many wives tolerate the nameless horrors of having drunken husbands guided to their homes on Saturday nights without a protest? Is it not because they know that the publicity given by a prosecution to their husbands' habits might lose him the employment which wins the bread for their common family ? On the other hand, if appearance before two Justices only involved an extra precau- tion to prevent drunkenness, both employer and family would be the gainers. As I write I can think of several cases of families where the breadwinner has come back drunk and ill- treated his wife without coming under the notice of the police with a regularity that is appalling. It may be said that the Magistrates could hardly be trusted with the power of exer- cising such grave interference with a man's liberty. Surely if they can make separation orders between husband and wife they may be trusted first to try the remedy of separation between the drink and the drunkard. Mr. Ritchie has a great opportunity before him, and if he cannot attempt "sim- plification and consolidation "of Acts affecting intoxicating liquor on a large scale, he is the more free to try a small experiment. I believe that in the country districts evidence of a person's habitual drunkenness, sufficient to justify his being put on a black-list, could easily be obtained if convic- tion involved that and nothing more.—I am, Sir, &c., [We gladly support our correspondent's plea. We are most anxious to differentiate between the respectable and orderly consumer of alcoholic beverages and the drunkard. We want to leave the former in peace, but to stamp the regular drunkard as a disgrace to the community. We believe that it would be quite possible for the Magistrates to black-list drunkards, and for the police to supervise the carrying out of the judgment.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
