THE DRINK QUESTION [To the Editor of the S:enciwrok.]
Stit,—The." wonderful move in the right direction " as regarilq convictions for drunkenness, recorded by Mr, C. W. Simon. in your issue of May 14th, relating to the Metropolitan Di,- trict, is observable in greater degree elsewhere, chiefly, I believe, in the South of England. On the other hand, tlft figures for that district since 1918 given a few weeks ago b) the Rev. H. Bucke do not show improvement during thcet eight years ; but his comparison of them with those for 1918, when large armies were abroad, and there were economic ami other restrictions in England, is scarcely helpful.
The following figures of convictions for drunkenness, taken from the official - Licensing Statistics," speak for themselves:—
Surrey Sussex
(exclusive of (exclusive of Met. Dis. County England. Surrey. and Croydon). Boroughs). 1913 .. 177,971 1,616 549 155 1918 27,785 265 53 22 1920 90,479 741 129 60 1924 75,134 691 107 51 1925 71,763 646 118 42
In this little borough there were thirteen convictions in 1913, but in the last three years there have been no prosecutions for drunkenness.
Though the above record of lessened drunkenness is en- couraging, the large expenditure on drink, even allowing for the proportion which goes in taxation, remains alarming.— I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
