SIX O'CLOCK CLOSING

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 141, 11 December 1918, Page 7

SIX O'CLOCK CLOSING

TO THE EDITOB, Sir, —A great deal of nonsenee is being talked and written about an alleged breach of faith on the part of thoee members who voted Jn. both Houses of Parliament on the clause moved by me, providing for the early closing of hotel bars as a part of the permanent law of the land. Firstly let me say that, so far as members of Parliament are concerned, no fact, argument, or arrangement of any kind relating to the sale of liquor has been made at any period since the commencement of the war, so consequently, there can have been no breach of faith, as suggested. It is admitted that, in 1916 an attempt was made by the conflicting elements in the House to come to an agreement regarding the hours for the sale of liquor. Many meetings were held, and those members who were trying to reduce the hours in accordance with, the recommendation of a Parliamentary Committee, were prepared to make what they deemed reasonable concessions to the Trade, aiid offered to settle the argument on the basis of 8 o'clock until 8 o'clock for the war, and six months thereafter. The utmost efforts were made to induce those supporting Trade interests to accept this reasonable compromise, but the efforts made were futile, and failure resulted. By the above, your readers will see that what has been so freely stated about a breach o£ faith,, has no foundation in fact. On the contrary, as soon as negotiations failed, the light commenced in the House, and each Side endeavoured to effect its purpose. The 8 o'clock vote was defeated by 13 votes, 9 o'clock was tried and failed by 1 vote, which was lost owing to one member being absent owing to non-delivery of a telegram. All this, of course, confirms the statement' that there was no agreement. .In 1917, there was a clamour for 6 o'clock closing, and another light took place, resulting in a land slide in favour of 6 o'clock, the majority being substantial. On this occasion, I moved that the hours of closing be fixed until altered by a polls, .1 did not, however, divide the House on this occasion. This year,'the proposals brought down \vere on entirely new lines, viz., Prohibition with compensation, and the bare majority principal became law for the first time. This, I claim shows, that as far as Parliament is concerned, no compact in regard to the duration of 6 o'clock closing was ever entered into. Further, regarding the proposals brought down this 'session, neither I, nor as far as I know, any of those who supported me, was aware of the proposals, till they were introduced into the House; not only were we not a party to the proposals, but we were not aware of their nature.

Every step taken since the commencement of the war was accompanied by a keen fight, which, of course, could not have been possible, had there been any shadow of an agreement. This now brings me to the point that there might have been an arrangement between those who represented the Trade on the one hand, and Prohibitionists on the other, and that the 6 o'clock amendment carried by both Houses of Parliament constituted a breach of that undertaking. If any such agreement was come to, it was entirely outside the knowledge of members of Parliament, who were instrumental in pushing this motion to such a successful conclusion.

Presuming some such agreement existed outside the knowledge of members of Parliament, it might be a fit and proper suggestion that this kind of thing sometimes ends in disaster. Parliament as I understand it, cannot undertake to ratify agreements entered into between outside parties without its • knowledge. In conclusion I firmly believe that the great bulk of the people of the Dominion believe that the early, closing of hotels and clubs has come to stay, and ! that it is a beneficial and helpful measure.—l am, etc., C. A. WILKINSON. 10th December.