The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 1863.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1091, 25 April 1863, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 1863.

Once a year the Magistrates of the province are assembled —not as a Court of Justice but as representatives of the public to consider and decide upon applications for publicans' licenses. This is one of the occasions on which a young community may be congratulated on inheriting an institution so essentially English as that of «Tustices of the Peace. In a colony where almost all power is in the hands of a numerical majority, and where there is always a fear lest the authorities should be unduly influenced by the pressure of the moment, it is very important that certain powers should be vested in a body of men entirely independent of popular suffrage. Especially is this the case where the interests of the public are to be protected in dealing with a great and exceptional monopoly. And we may assert, without fear of contradiction that, on the whole, the Bench of Magistrates in this province fairly represents the respectable public'opinion of Canterbury. It is by no means decided that the best possible mode of regulating the retail of intoxicating liquors is to make it a monopoly. But no better means have yet been devised for bringing houses, where men congregate to drink, under police control. There is much to be said on this subject, and it is to be hoped that some plan may yet be discovered for effectually checking inordinate drinking, at any rate in public houses. But however this may be, as the law at present stands, a monopoly of the retail of liquors is entrusted to those persons who obtain licenses at the annual meeting of Magistrates. It is notorious that this retail business is extremely lucrative, and that there is a strong temptation placed in the way of the publican to neglect his other duties for the development of his bar business. And there are some men, to whom unfortunately licenses have been entrusted, who would not scruple to madden a customer with their liquors, as long as the poor fool had sixpence in his pocket to pay for the poison. It is a great delusion to fancy that anyone is competent to manage a public house. We do not now speak of a really good hotel, — most people know that some experience is necessary for conducting such a house ; but we fear that too many men are under the impression that to be an ordinary publican is an easy as well as a rapid road to wealth. Now, the fact is that very few men have the qualities which are necessary for such a life— as experience of the licensed houses in this province will show. In submitting to the monopoly, the public have a right to insist on good accommodation for man and beast, good beds, good food, good liquors, good attendance, cleanliness, and civility. And the Magistrates are in duty bound to see that the licensees do not impose on the public. When a license is granted for an " accommodation house," and it is found after the lapse of a year that the accommodation provided by the licensee amounts to not much more than shelter for a man to stand up and drink in, we may be sure that a renewal of the license will be refused. When a license has been given for a hotel in a business town, and no care has been taken to provide clean beds or decent food, the compact between the public and the licensee has been broken, and the license must therefore be withdrawn. No Magistrates will knowingly license a house conducted on the " rowdy" principle, or one where the law is deliberately set at defiance. And if " mine host" instead of proving himself a steady civil man, who remembers the respect due both to himself and to his customers, turns out to be an impudent, drunken fellow, too ignorant to be civil, and too idle to attend to his business properly, the Bench would display most culpable neglect of duty in renewing his license. The comfort of the travelling public depends on the prudence shown in granting licenses, and justice not only to the public, but to respectable publicans, demands the most careful enquiry as to the character and conduct of licensed houses. There is no reason why the houses in the towns should not all be conducted as respectably as the < Royal,' the < Lyttelton,' or ' Barrett's' Hotels in Christchurch, or those in the country as well as Turton's on the Ashburton, or Leith's on the Kowai. In determining whether the applicant for a license is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the responsibility, there is another point, besides the question of character, to be considered, and that is the

degree in which the intending publican is a free agent in the conduct of his house. If anywhere, it is important that in Lyttelton —at the very threshold of the province— there should be good hotel accommodation. And it is due to so important a place to insist on good faith being kept with the public in this particular. .Now it came out in the licensing meeting in that town that at any rate one of the largest public-houses was let to the licensee on such terms as to debar him from purchasing his liquors in the open market. It has long been rumored that this was the case in regard to several licensed public-houses in the province, and more particularly in Lyttelton. "We apprehend that all such contracts in restraint of trade, if not absolutely illegal, are opposed to the spirit of British law, and it is very likely that they would be pronounced void if brought before the Supreme Court. No man who is not free to purchase the best that can be found in the market is a fit person to be entrusted with a license. A retailer who is obliged to deal out whatever liquors his landlord may be pleased to supply him with, ought not to be entrusted with a share in a great monopoly. This is very evident to all but those interested in such contracts. In this province the Bench have shown great leniency towards the publicans in the exercise of their powers; and we have recorded, year after year, warnings and hints given at licensing meetings in the hope that they would prove sufficient to keep licensees up to their duties. But this leniency has been so far misinterpreted by some of those who have enjoyed the monopoly, that we are glad to see steps taken to vindicate the rights of the public. It appears to have been assumed that a license once granted would not be taken away, however much it may have been abused; and in some cases the licensees evinced an utter contempt of law and order, and a thorough determination to neglect public convenience so long as money flowed into the bar till. We trust that the lesson given on "Wednesday, by the withdrawal of certain licenses, will teach the publicans that the public must reap some benefit from the concession of a monopoly.