The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1904. TEMPERANCE REFORM

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1682, 25 May 1904, Page 49

The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1904. TEMPERANCE REFORM

During last session Sir William Russell directed attention to the fact that the consumption of liquor was increasing, despite the alleged conversion of many thousands to prohibition. Ho showed that while the opportunities for trading were diminished, the trade in intoxicants whs expanding and that public bodies were being deprived of that share in the profits which accrued to them in license fees when trading houses were more numerous. It was then Sir William’s notion that the license fee should he increased to all existing licenses, and that the increase should be set aside as a fund from„which compensation could be drawn for the benefit of those publicans who had lost their licenses through no faults ot their own but by ‘‘the will ot the people.”

The new Licensing Act Amendment Bill introduced this session into tho House of Commons embodies the very principle to which Sir William Russell gave expression last year in the New Zealand Parliament. This particular Bill is based upon the principle that* “the trade” must compensate publicans whose licenses are taken away solely on the ground of public policy—the money to be raised upon the basis of the actual value of licensed premises, a graduated duty being imposed upon hotels in the same locality, ranging from £1 to £l5O per annum. It is not proposed to pay extravagant sums by way of compensation. The measure of compensation is to be the difference between the value of the licensed premises and of the value o': the premises without a license. If a man loses his license through no fault of his own, lie will only receive such an amount by way of compensation as the existence of the license added to the value of his premises. We notice that numbers of Liberals supported this proposal, and some whose pledges prevented their giving ad hesion to any reforming temperance legislation introduced by the Unionist Government left the House of Commons when the division on the first reading was taken. That this measure commended itself to the approval of the British Parliament was apparent from the division, for out ox a House of four hundred and sixty-one, over three hundred voted for the Bill and the manciple of compensation has been virtually recognised. It will, of course, be argued that the idea of paying compensation for the withholding of a twelve month’s license to a building has already been denounced in this country; but the proposal now before the House of Commons places the matter in quite a different aspect from that usually understood, and there dees not appear any sound reason why the suggestion putforward by Sir William Russell last session should not be embodied in the amending measure likely to be introduced to alter the 13av on those points to which wo have previously diieeted attention.

When tiie Legislature is amending the licensing law of New Zealand, some consideration might well be given to the scheme put forward by the temperance reformers among the Anglican Church clergy who favour community control. In some parts of the Old Country this system of reform is finding much favour; but the absorption by municipalities of trading interests is viewed in many quarters with considerable misgiving. Tho reform that is making rapid way is that working under the designation of the Public House Trust Association. Some thirty publichouse companies are operating or about to operate in England, and there are eleven established in Scotland. Altogether there are over one hundred and thirty publichouses under company management in Great Britain, and the movement is making steady and satisfactory progress. The object of company control is the elimination of private profit, and the non-pushing of the sale of intoxicants. After paying four or five per cent, on the capital invested, the profits are devoted to public and philanthropic purposes. From the third annual report of the Associations, which reached us by last mail, we notice that the donations for

the year to public purposes from the profits of the Cowdenbeath (Scotland) Public House Society are liberal and various. A district nurse was maintained and a cottage'hospital was established. Saturday evening concerts were instituted, and subscriptions wero made tG the brass band, the Salvation Army, the public reading room, the poorhou.se, and several sports organisations. Earl Grey, the Bishop of Chester, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, Lord Avebury, the Hon. Matthew White-Ridley, Lord Newton, the Bishop of Etieter, the Rev.Canon Han key, and many others whose names are prominent in social and temperance reforms are active workers in publichouse companies. Indeed, when only four counties in England are with-* out such organisations, it is needless to say more concerning the widespread influence and reforming power these organisations are exerting in the cause of legitimate, straightforward and philan-* tliropic temperance reform.