THE LICENSING BILL

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 191, 7 May 1908, Page 7

THE LICENSING BILL

SECOND READING VOTE. A TWO-TO-ONE MAJORITY. BUT WHAT WILL THE LORDS DO? BY TELEGIIAPU—rnESS ASSOCIATION—COrYKIGnI. I London, May 5. 1 In the Houso of Commons tho amendment ■ moved by Mr. G. Cavo (Unionist member 1 for the Kingston division of Surrey) urging ( 1 the Houso not to proceed with tho Licensing ( 1 Bill, as it fails to promoto temperance, and violates tho principle of equity, was rejocted • by a majority of 250, ' ' The Bill was'road a'second time by 394 votes to 198, and was referred to a committee of the wholo House. The Second reading majority was made up as follows: — Liberals ... ... ' ... ... 333 Labour ... ... 51 i Nationalists ... ... ... 3 Unionists ... , ... ... Majority ... ... ■ ... 196 • t s In the course of the debate the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, denied that the imposition, of a time-limit for licenses was confiscatory. He. remarked that, supposing the Chancellor of tho Exchequer proposed an J i ascending scale of license duties, it would { . nqt bo called confiscation. Ho was not pro- j . posing to take the monopoly value in that way step by step, but allowed fifteen years' ■ notice, including the year granted for .the ; reassessment of licensed-premises. Many Liberals openly declare their hopo , that the House of Lords will roject the measure unless drastic amendments are made , in committee. . ' MONOPOLY VALUE. I The ''monopoly value" has been defined as 1 the additional value which ft: license gives to tho 'premises to which it is attached. _ The . licenso'duties are not nearly in proportion .to ' this value; and there are therefore two methods ,f of recovering the value to the State* which, gives the license that confers the value. One method is by increasing the duties, which, Mr. Asquith says, "would not "be. balled confiscation." The other method is that which the Government Bill adopts—the giving of a certain period of notice , to license-holders, after which period no compensation will be paid , where a license is refused. This, according to - the opponents of the .Bill, is confiscation. The length of the period of notico is, of course, ; a factor in the case.. The Bill fixes it at fourteen years, with a' year thrown in for re- t assessment. The opponents say that fourteen years is too sliort a period for "the trade" to build up a sinking fund out of which to meet tho loss of the monopoly value which is to pass from them. Consequently, the compromiseparty suggests extending the period of notice r to 21 years. Writes Sir Tlios. Whittaker:— "Licenses have a market value, because the r license duty which is charged for them is t altogether inadequate, and far less than they c aro worth." He-adds that the only way in which the nation can resume complete con- s trol over and full possession of—and there t cannot be complete control unless there is full , possession—its own licenses and prevent a re- J crudescenco of the old trouble, is by provid- -b ing that-at a given tinio all compensation shall a cease, and for all liconses then and subsequently issued, tho full monopoly value shall lie paid. a