The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, MAY 24, 1895. LICENSING.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIII, Issue 10662, 24 May 1895, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, MAY 24, 1895. LICENSING.

The Licensing Bill is one of the j principal measures to be submitted to | Parliament nest session ; and already V speculation is rife as to the proposals \ the Government will introduce, and j the reception they will receive. It ia | probable that Ministers will revive \ the Bill o£ last year. Some altera- | tions will, of course, bo made in it, j hut. these will not affect its general j scope. We do not think, however, 1 that anyone will look back upon, last | year’s effort as satisfactory. In the j first place it was unnecessary to bring Jin a consolidating Bill. The Act of 1881 remains the basis of legislation lon the subject, and including the Triennial Committees Act of 1889, and tho Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act of 1893, there are only five Licensing Acts on the Statute Book at the present time. The introduction of a consolidating measure under such circumstances merely offered to factious legislators an opportunity to impede the progress of business. In the second place the tactics followed by the authors of the Bill were not the wisest that might have been devised. The session opened on dune 21, but

I the Licensing Bill did not come down | for its second reading until September 13, when the Premier opened his I speech with the words, “ Mr Speaker, | the iong-looked-for has arrived at | last.” The House tacitly agreed not | to debate the Bill at this stage, and j the second reading was passed the | same evening. It was not until October 5 (when the House had been j sitting fifteen weeks) that the Bill ! reached Committee. The subsequent s history of the proposal is familiar to j most of our readers. Two stormy sittings were occupied in carrying the Bill as far ns Clause 11; at a "third sitting Clause 12 was passed; and then, I what everyone knew front the begin* | ning to be inevitable occurred —the Bill was dropped. Under these cirhcamstaiices.*i«ifcwiHe mi ■thfl.mrtiQE

the Government to again attempt to carry a consolidating measure? We think not, and would counsel Mr StvoLdon, in the interests of the Liberal cause, to avoid a lino of action which, while offering very little hope of success, must create unnecessary friction among his friends. We fear that the members who obstructed last session will obstruct again—whatever the character of the Bill—but it is clear that a proposal, like

that of last year, comprising 225 clauses and 13 schedules, offers far more opportunities to these gentlemen than they could obtain from a brief amending Bill of say a dozen clauses. It is obvious that the primary object of last year’s Bill was to amend the Act of 1893, Mr Seddon has admitted as much, “ The first question,” he said in the House,. “ is this : Is there a necessity for the introduction this session of this Bill, and for dealing with the liquor question ? I say there ia a necessity. The Act we passed last session was, in some respects, experimental; ia working, the details of it have proved defective. The defects are now well known to honourable members. The public mind is ripe for these defects being remedied,” It is unfortunate that Ministers did not show a truer appreciation of the position sketched out by the Premier, Considering, however, the intense feeling that prevails upon the liquor question, it would be lolly to look for a Bill which would command anything like general support. The country is divided into three camps on the question. There are (1) those interested in the liquor trade; (2) Prohibitionists, and (3) Moderates. Our opinion ia that the last-named far outnumber the other two sections combined, and if this estimate is correct it is clear that legislation should proceed on moderate lines. We must, of course, accept as a fact the use of alcoholic liquors, and therefore the right of people to buy them under proper restrictions. This right, however, must be exercised subject to the general well-being of the community, and in any town or district where there is a distinct majority against the existence of licensed houses the people should have the power to t close such establishments. The principle of loading up to this by a reduction of licenses ia fair, logical and desirable. It prevents the revulsion of feeling which would result from the sudden stoppage of the sale of liquor in a district, and it acts as a whip over the head of the owner or occupier whose house is improperly conducted. The present Act is, we think, defective on this point, in that it does not fix a ratio of reductions. At present, if a reduction poll ia carried the licenses are requited to be reduced by “ such a number, not exceeding onefourth of the total number of licenses of the same kind in the district, as the Licensing Committee shall think desirable,” The requirements of the law would be satisfied if one license were abolished out of a hundred, but this surely was not the intention of the Legislature. We think that the amending Bill should provide that reduction shall mean the abolition of a fixed proportion of the licensed houses.

Then, again, we doubt the wisdom of making electoral boundaries the boundaries of licensing districts. The anomalies under this system are many, and in some eases absurd. We know of one case in Canterbury where the dividing line of two electoral districts runs through a country town. The result is that the people on one side of the street have a voice in the retention of a licensed house twenty miles away, but none in the abolition of a bouse facing their own doors. Many such cases could be cited. On this point we should be glad to see a return to the general principles of the Act of 1881—that the districts should be (1) boroughs'?- (2) ridings of counties or (3) road districts, and that the , Governor-in-Oouncil should have power to group small contiguous districts, or to suspend the Act where no licensed houses existed. Of course the legislation of next session will largely depend upon the action of the compact band who form the Temperance Party in the House. It is well known that a Bill has been prepared by the Prohibitionists, which will be entrusted to Sir Eobert Stout, or some other prominent member of the party. This Bill is an amending measure, but some, at any rate, of its provisions will fail to command the support of all the members of the Temperance Party in the House. It proposes, for instance, to abolish the reduction poll altogether, and to submit to the electors the single issue of license or no license. This may, of course, suit extremists on both aides, but it will not be acceptable to persons of moderate views, who desire the improvement of existing conditions without going to the extreme of prohibition. There ia at present, as we have said, a compact and powerful Temperance Party in the House. Its influence should materially help to secure reform on the licensing question ; but if, in obedience to extremists outside the House, proposals are introduced which do not command general support, there will be divisions in the Temperance Party itself, and the opportunity of passing a moderate but progressive measure will be lost.