The Blackpool Herald. — 1891-10-09 (Blackpool, Lancashire, England)

THE EIFFEL TOWER APPLICATION. TO THE EDITOR.  Sis,—Kindly grant "nie-; little of your, valuable space anent " Justicia's" letter in your last issue upon the subject of the granting, by the magistrates, of a one hour eictension to 37 public houses on the occasion of the "Tower Pte." Barely this was • most extravagant permission, and well might you call it an "extraordinary application," livmi admitting that it  WAS 11tIVIS11140 to grant a one lw lies extension to a few houses, the doing so to :17 lieensed houses was beyond all reason end eoium iir sense. lint, sir, ems there any eocessity for such a Want? Was it a general holiday in reeognition of some public event No, it was , I purely a private concern. Wore the fke lestivities prolonged till midnight ! or perhaps jit was an indispensible adjunct to the Imuquet ' at the" Hydro " trow not; anal I entirely agree with "Justicia" that the 'magistrates should have !rood :mil *4l4;e:tory testimouy, as to the necessity, prior to the granting of an extension. Yet none was forthcoming. There was only a solicitor's word. But, sir, exteusions --not only in Blackpool but elsewhere—are too readily given. What was the result of this prohingation ? why that the vaults were filled, ride "Juisticia," with the labouring classes, who ,were I exchanging there hard eariwd money for the stuff that " biteth like it serpent, and stingeth like an adder." And with what .reault we have only to look at your report of the police court proceedings where you have a paragraph headed " After the Rejoieiugs ? in which we are informed that a middle-aged woman was tined lOs., and costs, for drunkennem ; and in the seine bare there ere live other cases of ihunkenness. Whore is the colasestoncy ? The magistrates first issue a 'Menu, to ko drunkards. and then tine the poor victims 10s. and costs for getting drunk! Oht when will the magistrates awake to their responsibility in this matter? Why, sir. only the other day a man (not an abstainer) said to .me: "1 wish to God an Act of Parliament were passed to-morrow to reduce the public-houses by one half I- And so wish 1, but an act is not requisite if the magistrates will use their absatite discretion wisely, and reduce the already too numerous supply of this dispensable commodity. Lot them grant no new licenses. There are too many, and yet the Tower Company seek to largely 'nemesia the supply, which said supply will equal (if granted) at least half-a-dozen fullyliceused houses. Will it he granted ? I hope not, and I sincerely welcome the refusal of a provisional license as a slight outcome of the , Sharp V. Wakefield case. As the Mere,avebe Viaiter truly says (ride your last issue), " It is monstrous to expect that the Tower can be worked with care, with satisfaction, and without accidents, if intoxicating drink has to be consumed by those who mimeo the hoists and those who ascend and descend. People who travel 400 feet in the air should take particular care that their heads are clear, and their stomachs not overloaded with what is the nation's curse." And further the Tower directors are displaying the "most wanton avarice 'I in seeking to " pay dividends out of the sale of that which causes more pauperism, , crime, rows, and murders than everything else in the universe.- No this is not tho language of a fanatic, but rather of one who seeks to do his duty in creating it sound, healthy public opinion upon this subject. Lord Randolph Churchill has used much stronger terms, and the late Duke of Albany has said that it is " England's greatest enemy," for it yearly destroys thousands of lives. Awake from your lethargy. ye inhabitants of Blackpool, and in due time oppose this application for a drinking license for the Tower, because instead of doing the town good it will undoubtedly—if the license be given—do it incalculable injury I—Yours &c., T. W. C. Blackpool, )ctober sth,