New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1874.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4206, 12 September 1874, Page 2

New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1874.

Wiiex tho session commenced the anticipation was indulged in by a largo number of persons in the community that there would be aomo fun over the Licensing Act to be introduced by the Government. To this fun it was presumed that the bon. member for Rangitikei would largely contribute. Whilst saying this we do not attempt to depreciate the value of his labors in the cause of temperance, or against the giant evil of drunkenness, but wo merely state a patent fact. We may even go a little further, and say that tho hon. gentleman, should he succeed in his mild imitation of a whisky crusade, would deserve a crown of martyrdom. Ho has rendered himself liable to numerous attacks, which his professional and practical experience would naturally lead him to anticipate. Even in his labors on behalf of barmaids, who wo are fully convinced deserved to have a champion in the Legislature, he was met by the Premier with the somewhat amusing retort that he (Mr. A r ogel) “would like to ask the honorable gentleman whether his objections were of a theoretical nature, or whether he spoke from a practical knowledge of the subject, when he said that barmaids wore an objectionable portion of the community 1 Could he say that the persons who were earning a livelihood in that way were earning it disreputably !” For the' reply to this, we have searched the pages of Hansard in vain. In future history it may be classed with the Lost Tales of Miletus, or any other missing link. Wo only adduce the query in evidence of the remark we commenced with, that Mr. Fox, it was presumed by the public,would afford a little genteel comedy to relieve the somewhat heavy drama Parliament usually presents. People were right in their calculations, and they rewarded Mr. Fox with a “bumper house” each night he was expected to play ; but, now the drama is over, we have a right to ask—as little Peterkin did in the ballad — “what good came of it at last”! and we are almost forced to tho conclusion that the reply of Old Caspar would be a correct one—“ Why, that I cannot tell.” It would ho easy to show that the Government, in bringing down a Bill to amend the clumsy Act of the preceding session, had a prudent regard for the public welfare ; and a consideration of the exigencies of politics would prove that equal discretion was manifested in dropping some of the major provisions of it. If Mr. Fox should think that in this he obtained a success, he is perfectly welcome to chant a paean over it. Prior to the House . going into Committee on the Bill, he remarked that it had been said the Act of last session had not been a success ;• but “he and the party ho represented, never expected that the measure would sweep the country by an afflatus—that it would at once, and in all respects, be perfect. They expected that, by slowly working, and by small degrees, it would gradually come into complete operation.” Such an expectation would seem ’ to bo deprived of due warrant by the Act of this session being passed. Its provisions, which very few persons seem to know, instead of “slowly working” in support of the principles held by Mr. Pox and his party, rather militate against these. But tho hon. gentleman, wo are glad to learn, is in no way daunted by this equivocal success. Ho says that he shall (probably on tho principle that travel does expand one’s ideas), proceed to England in search of information respecting his favorite creed. We are sure he contemplates taking a very wise step—one in which we heartily wish he maybe successful. His admission of the object of his journey is a move in the right direction. The Act, which we suppose is now in force, although there is not much evidence in support of the fact, really contains some important amendments upon the one passed last year. The absurd clause by which only one bar was permitted is repealed, and hotelkeepers may have as many as they please by paying for each a third of the fee charged as a license. An applicant for the renewal of a license is not required to obtain the certificate of any householders. The 17th clause provides for the issue of bottle licenses by which persons can soli any alcoholic liquors in bottles, providing that it be not drunk upon the premises. Tho 18th is tho one to which most importance was attached, and although it is a very modified one, it may be received as a fair compromise—what the whole of the Act is. It prescribes that no licensed person •“having given such notice as is prescribed by the Act in the first instance of the intention to apply for a license) shall bo required to attend any, licensing meeting for the purpose of procuring a renewal of his license, unless notice of opposition to the renewal of such license, stating the grounds thereof, shall have been given to the Clerk of the Licensing Court,” who would forward a copy of it to the person interested. This clause, we presume, Mr. Fox accepts as one calculated to bring, “by slowly working,” the measure he would support, into “complete operation.” If so, it has tho rare advantage of being likely to please both parties. In future it will be useless to oppose the renewal of a license in a town tho population of which is stationary, on tho ground that the hotel is not required. Tho Court that granted or renewed tho license cannot have its decision questioned in so insolent a fashion. The only ground, therefore, on which the renewal of a license can be opposed must bo that of bad conduct. No respectable hotelkeeper will object to this. As a matter of fact, tho, provision has been in force long enough. It is merely an old friend with a somewhat new face—merely a toy to amuse children with. If it serves this purpose, all well and good. Tho Premier, whilst bearing testimony to tho value of Mr. Fox’s labors, and tho excellent motive by which he was prompted, remarked that “ if the honorable gentleman and others who displayed so much enthusiasm for the repression of drunkenness, went in for more practical measures, they would receive much more practical support. . . . He thought

that, in tho excess of zeal of those who advocated abstinence principles, there was a tendency to exaggerate the evil.” But Mr. Vogel, as ho expressed it, wished “ to cross the t’s and dot the i’s ” of the hon. member’s Bill of last session. The 31st clause of tho Act of this year goes even a little further, and makes a decided concession ,to tho hon. member and tho party he represents. But it can scarcely bo considered in tho light of a compliment. It provides a remedy for technical errors and blunders of a temporal nature that tho opponents of licenses, whilst devoured by zeal, may commit. Should they fail to give proper notice, the Licensing Court has power to adjourn for any period not exceeding fourteen days, for tho purpose of giving them time to remedy their neglect. But this is only the case when it appears probable that a

valid objection will be raised, due notice of which will be given to tho licensee. Tho other amendments of importance are those which prohibit dancing saloons, or only permit what were known in London as Spurgeon Quadrilles, in which men had men for partners, when they “trapped the light fantastic toe,” and the 42nd clause, which _ prohibits any “ female other than the licensee, or tho wife or daughter of tho licensee, being employed in the bar - of any licensed bouse for more than ten hours iu each day of twenty-four hours ; and no female, except as aforesaid, may be employed in tho bar of any licensed bouse before the hour of eleven in the forenoon, or after the hour of eleven post meridian.” The former part of this clause is one that may be cordially supported ; the latter cannot be so readily accepted. It must cause diminution in the employment of barmaids, and, as the Premier remarked, they, “instead of making houses disreputable made them exceeding reputable, and instead of encouraging, they stopped drunkenness It was certain that the presence of such persons behind the bar would prevent excessive drinking. Common decency would prevent excessive drinking in the presence of young persons of this kind.” Therefore, we hold, they should not be banished from bars after eleven p.m., or at all. The hour named may appear late to some persons, but if is young in the day to numbers. Hotels are not closed then ; and if barmaids are banished, the hotelkeepers must provide supplementary staffs, tho cost of which must eventually be borne by tho public. Temporary inconvenience may be caused by this, but not more. The Bill is a stepping stone'towards more liberal legislation of a like character — legislation which Mr. Fox and his friends, in their peculiar way, promote and foster.