Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1908. MR. ASQUITH'S LICENSING BILL

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 52, 2 March 1908, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1908. MR. ASQUITH'S LICENSING BILL

When Mr. Balfour's Licensing Bill was beforo tho House of Commons in 1904, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman denounced it as "a timid concession for party purposes to a great and powerful trade," and said that it would meet with his strenuous opposition at every stago. It is easier to indulge in such talk when jn a hopeless minority than to stand by it after returning to power, but "C.-B." and his colleagues may be congratulated upon tho courago with which they aro now endeavouring to redeem the pledges given four years ago. Having two such dangerous subjects to tacklo as licensing and, education, they may also bo specially congratulated on putting so bold a face upon the business and dealing with both at once. With the introduction of Mr. M'.Konna's Education Bill at the beginning of the week, and Mr. Asquith's Licensing Bill to signaliso its close, last week is likely to re* main a memorable ono in the annals of the British Parliament. To Mr. Balfour and tho "trado" for which he scorned to havo performed so valuable v servico in 1904, the Bill appears "sheer rob. bory," and the only comfort of such critics must bo in tho viow proclaimed by tho Daily Telegraph that tho Bill is bad enough to represent "tho deathwarrant of tho Government." On the other hand, Nonconformists and temperance advocates, who probably find tho inoasure a good deal more to their liking than they expected, warmly applaud ic. But approval from a quarter which in bound to approve to a greater or less degree is not nearly so significant as the fact that in the House of Commons Iho Labour members aro said to have joined with the Liberals is giving the Bill -» warm support. The Labour party has repeatedly recorded a formal approval of the demands of the Temperance reformers from, the democratic standpoint,

but its euthueiasm has been reserved for its own special programme. If Labour will remain in the lighting line throughout the struggle, tho House of Lord* alone can save the "trade"' from the danger which threatens it, and both may have to face the democracy together at the next general election. In themselves the provisions of Mr. Asquith's Bill must appear a very mild business to anybody who is familiar with the legislation which has prevailed in New Zealand for the last fourteen years. The surprising thing about the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, which Mr. Seddon, under great pressure from the Prohibition party, placed on the statute-book in 1893, is not that the right of a democratic community to control its own licenses was definitely secured, but that the right of existing licensees to receive compensation for any losses which they might suffer through tho change in the law was abandoned almost without a struggle. The three-fifths majority was probably, rogarded by ths owners and licensees of hotels as a sufficient safeguard, and now that this belief has proved a delusion, it has become practically impossible to get ik« Legislature- to retrace its .steps. But in England, though the famous case of Short v. Wakefield decided long ago that tho law recognised no vested interest in a license, Mr Asquith drew the proper distinction when in introducing his Bill last week ho "questioned the existence of the legal right of property in licenses," but added that "there had grown up outside of tho law interests which statesmen were unable to ignore." The addition did not please the temperance members of the House, but it accords with British sentiment on the subject, and with what we believe would have commanded public approval hero if the issue had over been fairly put. The practical question for the Old Country is as te the measure and duration of tho compensation that is to be given. Prior to 1904 the local justices could refuse tho issue of any publican's license at their discretion as "not required in the neighbourhood," but the power was very spasmodically applied, the absence of any provision for compensation being the chief stumblingblock. By Mr. Balfour's Act Quarter Sessions were substituted for the justices as the licensing authority ; and licenses could not be extinguished, except for misconduct and the like, without compensation baßed on the difference between value of the licensed premises immediately before the passing of the Act and their value if unlicensed. Despairing of a total repeal of this provision, the Temperance party has from the first endeavoured to secure the imposition of a time limit to its operation; and fhis the Bill pi-ovjdes. Compensation is only to operate for fourteen year-,, after which "the value of all licensea will be restored to the community, and local option, will follow." We take this to mean that, instead of the consent of the licensing authority conferring upon an applicant ft fancy value of perhaps £10,000 for tho supposed good of the community, the applicant will only get the privilege subject to the payment of its full value, and subject also to the consent of the electors of the parish in which tho premises are situated. The first of thess principles fs nn excellent ciw to which our own restrictive legislation supplies no parallel. What sensible reason can bs assigned against the State bsing paid the value of the privilege- which It confers' in this as in any other case? Of 'course, the main difficulty is as to the terms on which the State should resume the ownerihip of licenses with which it has 'already parted. On this point .Mr. Asquith proposes to substitute the annual \aluo for the capital value, ns the criterion of compensation, and artfully proposes to assess the former tit tho difference between the value returned for income tax purposes, and the vnlue of the premises if they wero unlicensed. Tho licensee must choose between paying more income tax and getting less compensation, and the Chancellor of tho Exchequer will stand to win in either event. Other points in a Bill of exceptional interest nnd importance must bo reserved for a future article.