The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1876-03-14 00:00:00

Correoponoence.

THE TOWN COUNCIL AND THE TREES.
To the Editor.

Slll,—May I again trouble you for • short space in
your columns to add a few remarks to those of last
week on the above subject, and on the public meeting
held last evening. The latter was very largely
attended, but a more one-sided and "cut and dried"
affair I have seldom met with. The utter absence of
any remarks favourable to building cottages for, or in
any way benefitting the working-man, was remarkable.
The mover of the first resolution was no doubt looking
after his own interest. How ter!, nice to have a
flower garden, croquet lawn, and recreation ground,
with all the pleasant etceteras facing a gentleman's
residence! H , ,•7 nice in the summer to be able to
throw open the windows and listen to the sweet
strains of the Dorchester Town Band! But the poor
hand-working, honest, plodding, working man, sir!
Ifs can huddle in a miserable hovel anywhere!
Oh, for a spark of real Christian charity and brotherly
love ! I admit that we are indebted to those gentle-
men who have come forward to protest against the
destruction of our trees. We de not desire to see
them destroyed, but, sir, we do want better and
cheaper dwellin,gs. Why, I daily pass a house occupied
bv orer 20 souls, and I Am sure there is not more than
decent accommodation for 10 or 12 of that number.
But what is a working man with a family to do? He
cannot pay £l6 or £2O a year out of a pound a week
wages, and no has to submit to this indecent crowding,
with brothers, sisters, and parent., sleeping together
in the same room!! But here is an opportunity of
remedying this evil, and at the same time preserving
the attraction to our town—the trees. The remedy I
proposed in my letter in your last issue—and I would
here say there is not a working man who would
object to walking the short distance out of the town,
to where these cottager could be built. But it is
argued the entrances to the town should be made as
attractive SA possible. Perfect bosh, sir Is the
working man and his cottages to be despised because
he happens to be poor? If poor we are respectable,
honest, and many of us God-fearing people.
We have hearts not of stone, but of sympathy
and love, and the objection that building cottages on
's Knap would create a second Grove Buildings,
altrealT
en a St. Giles's, as it was said at the meeting, is
a disgrace to those who uttered the words, and a gross
slander on us, on whom they have to depend' But
I maintain, sir, this is only a sham; the real object
being, as it leaked out at the meeting to let this land
on building leases, of 99 years, to build semi-detached
villas, and thus, as I have said, benefit the large
capitalists. And Dr. Robinson stated, as facts, what I
hinted at last weeks that £3OO, £4OO, and 1:600, would
have to be laid out in buildings on the different plots !
But how absurd is the idea! Do the Council think
that a gentleman who could afford to build, or even
rent a villa, would do so close to • fair ground? Is it
not a fact, sir, and, if not, I challenge any member of
the Coreoration to dispute it, that the present fair
ground is amply commodious for all the purposes of
such? Is it not a fact that it is being removed because
the "blaring of the Beaminster band" is too much
noise for those residing opposite? Why, the whole
affair is a farce !
_ .

But, Kr, I have trespassed largely on your
generosity. I merely want to show that we are not
being treated fairly, and to endeavour to benefit our
present position by getting better dwellings, and whilst
doing that, ensuring for the capitalist a fair return for
his money.
I am, Sir,
Yours truly,
A WORKING DIAN.
Dorchester, March 11, 1876.

THE CLOSING OF PUBLIC-HOUSES ON
SUNDAYS.
To the Editor.

Sir,—lt is almost, if not quite, impossible to urge
the adoption of the Bill now before Parliament for
closhig public-homes on Sundays without referring to
the religious argument in its favour, but I not
conceive that it was intended in the recent addresses
at the Town Hall here on the subject, to rest its
merits chiefly on that basis but rather upon the social
benefit it would produce.
Such being the case, there are two points in the
question which appear to have been left untouched,
though they are not undeserving of attention. One is,
that as regards the demand for the Act on the part of
the publicans themselves, it may fairly be said that
they have under the Licensing Act of 1872 the option
of taking either a seven-day license or a six-day one,
awl therefore have a remedy already provided for
them.

The other point is that the objectionable practice of
drinking in public-houses on Sundays might be pre-
vented by an enactment prohibiting on those days the
sale of intoxicating liquors "to be drunk on the pre-
mises," but permitting beer, ac., to be fetched at
certain limited times of the day, so that the reasonable
domestic wants of persons might not be interfered
with.
_ _ . . .

Mr. Neave s assertion in his address that the present
Gorernment were carried into ofre bi compromising the
pabti,ans, and airing them another hour longer to keep
open, is an entirely new one to me, and I have never
heard before a suggestion id the kind. The difference
between the pnwisions of the Licensing Act of 1872,
passed by the Liberal party, and these of the Licens-
ing Act of 1874: passed by the present Government,
relating t 3 closing hours will not, I think, support
such astatement. .

Under the Act of 1872, public-houses situate beyond
the metropolis were to be closed at 11 p in. m now, or,
if the liccuaing justice* directed, at any -hour not earlier
than 10 p.m. and not later than midnight.
That was the state of the law as left by the Liberal
party; I am not aware that the justices did exercise
their discretion to any great extent.
Now under the Act of 16741 to which, I presume,
Mr. Neave refers, the discretionary power vested in
the justices was taken away—for some good reason
one may fairly suppose—and the Government took
upon itself the duty of deciding in which of the places
situate beyond the metropolitan district public-houses
should be closed at 11 p.m. and in which at 10 p.m.
Accordingly under the Act, public houses situate in
towns and " populous places" are to be dossed at 11
p.m., and those in small villages and places not
coming within the definition of a town or populous
place" are to be closed at 10 p.m.
Thus you will observe that, whilst on the one hand
it may be urged that the licensing justices cannot now
limit the closing of all public-houses to 10 p.m., on the
other hand it may be answered that they have not the
power which they also had to extend the time to
midnight, and that indeed as well in the case of a
village Ad of a town.
, , .

AT, far, therefore, as the Licensing Acts are con-
cerned, there seems to be no ground for Mr. Neave's
assertion, positive as it was, and if be had other
grounds for it, he did not refer to them in his address.
Please excuse my taking up so much of your valu-
able space, and accept my thanks for the insertion of
this letter. H. S.
Dorchester, March 9th, 1876.