NEW LICENSING BILL'

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18352, 16 September 1921, Page 6

NEW LICENSING BILL'

EXTENSION OF HOURS. REMOVING THE BAN ON LATE SUPPERS. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, July 28. A considerable extension of hours is the chief item in the new Licensing Bill. Undier its provision public bars are to,be allowed to be open, at 11.30 a.m. to 3 p.rn. and 5.30 p.m. till 11 p.m. in London, and up to 10 pan. in the provinces. Sunday hours throughout the country are to be from 12.30 to 2.30 and 6.30 to 9.30. Tho clauses relating to drink with supper in hotels and restaurants had been anticipated with widespread interest. The issue of the Bill clearly shows that late suppers are to bo made possible; again, for it is laid down that drinks with meals may be ordered up till midnight in hotels and restaurants. The proposal in this respect is that "for one hour after that fixed as the conclusion of the permitted hours,” intoxicating liquor may be supplied for consumption at a meal supplied at the same time, but "no person shall consume or be permitted to consume any intoxicating liquor on the premises during that hour except at such meal, and any bar in the said premises shall be closed during that hour.” Outside the definition of hotels and restaurants, the supper drinks concession is extended to licensed houses and clubs, but up to only 11.30 p.m. . , Another point in the Bill is that, while dilution of spirits is still permitted up to 35 degrees, distillers are no longer prohibited from reverting to pro-war strength. The abolition of the Control Board provided for in the second part of the Bill will mean among other returns to statutory provisions, the restoration of the privileges of the bonafide traveller. , ~ _ , Hotels Like Claridge's, the Ritz, the Carlton, tho Berkeley, and the Savoy, and oig restaurants which cater for supper parties, have been waiting for some reasonable extention of hours for a long time. People will now be able to give supper parties with , a certain amount of zest—which they have not been able to do with the closing hours at 10 o’clock. It is presumed that fit supper parties people will be allowed to take alcoholic liquor up to 12.30 previded it is ordered before midnight. "We have done very little business alter 10 o’clock, ’ said a manager of a leading restaurant, ‘ but we hope to see a distinct revival in what used to be to ua one of the most profitable meals supplied during the day, and to our patrons, perhaps, tho most enjoyable.” All hotel and restaurant managers agree that the new hours will not induce excess in the consumption of alcoholic liquor, but will help people to forgot that for so many years they have been treated like children and told to go to bed at 10 o'clock.

TEMPERANCE PARTY VIEWS. When the Temperance Committee of M.P.'s met to consider the Licensing Bill it was decided not to oppose the second reading, andl to abstain from proposing in committee stage amendments which might have the effect of wrecking the Government proposals. They were willing to accept the Bill as “a temporary compromise.’’ In tbe course of an interview the secretary of the Temperance Council of tho Christian Churches, on organisation representative of the Protestant, Dissenting, and Roman Catholic Churches and the Salvation Army, oaid that the council viewed with the greatest apprehension the extension of the hours nntil 11 o’clock. The deleterious effect upon children would, it was said, bo very considerable, as they will be denied their proper allowance of sleep. Both doctors and scholastic authorities had emphasised danger. The secretary was further of opinion that only the hardened “toper” would take advantage of the hour's extension! no reasonable men wanied to drink until 11 o clock. An official of the Women’s Total Abstinence Union expressed the view' that the Bill was a retrograde measure; the lessons of the war had apparently not been learned. The supper concession was merely of advantage to an isolated section ’of the community. The effect of public-houses opening at 11 o’clock would be that women would neglect their children and the cooking of their dinner, The official had made investigations in the'East End, which had qpnvinced her that public-houses were more crowded towards the end of the" evening. She would, she said, like to see the principle of local option establi shed DOCTORS AND DRINK. Members of , the British Medical Association sitting at Newcastle-on-Tyne attended a 'breakfast given by the National Temperance League, when Sir A. P. Gould (lata Vice-Chancellor of London University and vice-president of the league) dehveied a special address on the attitude of the medical profession to the question of. the influence of alcohol on our social and national life Ho said it was common knowledge that the use of alcohol as a therapeutic agent had in the past 20 years greatly diminished in medical practice, and was employed only as a narcotic and not as a stimulant. The moderate consumption of alcohol was not necessary for the health of the most vigorous. Dr Drummond said that, while he did not possess the blue ribbon of the total abstainer, the medical profession in Newcastle and district were in sympathy, in theory and in practice, with the aim of the Temperance League. BONA FIDE TRAVELLER DOOMED. When the Bill passed its second reading without a division and now goes to a Grand Committee, Sir Gordon Hewart paid at the outset a compliment to the “admirable good humour and good sense” witli which the round table conference had considered the question. Assuming that the House was quite familiar with its contents, he fired off a number of witticisms in the space of 20 minutes, and so put his audience in great good humour. The Attorney-general described the Bill as “modest and tentative,” and “sincere and honest,” and claimed, at the end of his speech, that, even though some might describe it as “illogical, inconsistent, incoherent,, and badly drafted,” it still, in his judgment, had “all the makings of a good Act of Parliament.” The credit for the measure, ho said, was to be ascribed, “jointly and severally,” to his colleagues of the round table conference, and ho let fall the significant statement that the proposals need not be considered as "cast-iron," thus suggesting that the Government would bo willing to listen to the wishes of the House. (the Bill abolishes the Central Control Board, which had done so well, according to Sir Gordon, that “its labours ought not to bo prolonged,” and the properties belonging to it in Carlisle and elsewhere are temporarily to be transferred to the Home Secretary, in the case of English properties, and to the Secretary for Scotland in the case of Scottish. They will take over all the powers invested in the board by the Defence of the Realm Regulations. These powers were strongly objected to bv Mr Christopher Lowther, but they are purely temporary, and

most of them aro never likely to ho exorcised, Mr Lowther’s case being that these particular properties shoftld be disposed of at once in iho open market. Another pomt cleared up by the Attorney-general wae that relating to the Ixma-flde traveller. The bona-fide traveller is a person who takes a bona-fide walk in order to get a male-fido drink—this peculiar operation being linn led to the Sabbath Day.” There were seven Sabbath Days in the week under the Bill (as there will be a closing time every afternoon), “if the bona-fide traveller remained _ in possession of all his wicked privileges it would be possible for him to mtiintuin the status during every hour of the day.” So the bonafide traveller disappears; but his epitaph, will live. This was Sir Gordon Hewart s most successful quip. But the bona-fide traveller found several ardent supporters who will fight hard for him later on. Again, the Attorney-general said little of the "theatre supper” proposal, except that -he hoped it would adequately meet the general desire. The grant of the privilege of extension to 12.30 a.m. would depend on the nature and us© of the hotel and restaurant promisee, where "habitual provision is made for the supply of substantial meals.” MB BOTTOMLBY’S QUIPS. With, no great hope of success, Mr Bottomley moved the rejection of the Bill. Its title angered the member for South Hackney —a Bill “to amend the law relating to the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor.” "A. most offensive title to apply to one of God s ‘greatest .gifts,” ho insisted alliteratrvoly. It should read ‘'alcoholic liquor.” "A glass of beer is not intoxicating, nor a glass of decent win©, nor even a whisky -and-aoda. He urged the House to take a rational view of the licensing question. Instead of setting up these barriers, they should reform the public-houses —in fact, make the public-house a fit place for heroes to drink in. tie caused considerable laughter by saying x-at if members of the House had to undergo an examination as to character such as that to which licensed victuallers were subjected, many of the benches would be empty. least,” he added,‘‘l know that my own seat would bo vacant.” His case against the whole Bill vrga that it was a monstrous infraction of t£e liberty of grown men. “Are w© grown up,” he asked, “or not?” Sir Donald Maclean objected to levity in dealing with the drink question. It was a very serious one, and he, therefore, was proto niously solemn. He justified restrictions and called for yet more restrictions, because drunkenness was not the end] of excessive drinking, but its consequences were to be found in the gaols, the asylums, the hospitals, and the shattered homes of thousands. He supported the Bill because it prevented the rush buck to the 1913 conditions, but he greatly dloubted whether this country could afford to spend cn liquor, as wo did last year, the sum of £469,000,000. Colonel Gretton, representing the brewing interest, said that he would not oppose tile second reading, but would press for amendments in committee. He thought that the hours were unduly restricted, and; stood up for the bona-fide traveller, observing that so far as his recollection, went the conference had not advocated his abolition. Mr Eaffan, for the temperance party, was disappointed, but not hostile. He strongly opposed the proposal for enabling restaurants to keep open for the supply of liquor to 12.30 at night. If revelry was to go on in the West End of London at a late hour without interference it would be disapproved of by millions of people. Mr J. Jones: Nonsense; talk sense. Mr Raffan: Instead of revelry by night the streets.) of London ought to be quiet. He declared that the Bill was in no sense a temperance measure, inasmuch as it relaxed restriction, and was bound to result in “additional drunkenness and disorder." For this he was twitted by Mr Macquisten as being ■ on© of those who “sought righteousness by compulsion.” Mr Macquisten thought that the excessive amount of taxation extorted from the trade had much to do with the prevailing industrial discontent. AGAINST THE DISMAL SUNDAY. Later on came an interesting speech from Mr Forestier-Walker, a Monmouthshire member, protesting against Monmouthshire's inclusion with Wales for the purposes of the Bill, and hp received support from Mr Gould, of Cardiff, who boldly complained of “ the chapel hypocrisy” in */al©s and the threats with which the organised chapel organisations were bombarding those who dared take a contrary view to theirs. “Keep Monmouthshire out!” was his plea, and there will evidently bo a big fight on this subject in committee. He was not one of those who believed it was wrong to drink on Sunday but right to drink on Monday. The more dismal they. made Sunday the more empty would the churches become; They were legislating for the drunkard, who was a curse to the country, and who, if a fine did not cure him, should Hie sent to prison. Mr J. C. Gould (Cardiff) declared that the largo industrial centres in Wales were opposed to Sunday closing. There was too much hypocrisy on the licensing question in Wales, and there were more cranks there than in any other part of the country.— (Laughter.) While Mr Simm pleaded the cause of the wayside inn, Mr O’Grady distrusted the Bill ns promising to set up a tyranny more dangerous than that of the Central Control Board. Ho had scan, he said, more drunkenness in the streets of Carlisle under the board than anywhere else in the country. LABOUR’S WELCOME. Mr dynes, speaking for the Labour Party, declared that the country did not want to go back to pre-war conditions, and he welcomed the Bill accordingly as some concession to the irritated millions. A brief appeal from Mr Chamberlain foxsupport of the Bill as representing the great middle body of moderate opinion. No one, he said, desired the Control Board to continue, yet the only alternative was either a reversion to pre-war conditions, which very few desired, or some such measure as the present, which adapted war experience to the needs of the day. VARIOUS VIEWS. In reply to the inquiry, Do you consider the proposed extension of licensed hours needful or desirable in the beet interests of the country? the Bishop of London answers; “I do not consider the proposed extension of licensed hours needful or desirable, as every relaxation of hours up to new has . been accompanied by an increase of drunkenness. This adds to the enormous drink bill of the country, which is a danger to the State. The present Bill may have to be accepted as a compromise, but temperance reformers will not relinquish their efforts for something better,” •

Lady Rhondda: “The Bill con in no sense bo regarded aa a permanent solution of the drink problem. As a temporary expedient it is in some ways not an altogether unsatisfactory compromise. The extra hour to be given for the sale of' drink in restaurants and hotels after the ordinary licensed premises are closed strikes me, however, as a most undesirable step. In effect, it is to give to one section of the community a privilege prohibited to another.” General Booth: ’“The Licensing Bill is a betrayal. The increased drinking will involve the degradation - of large sections ot the people, the break-up of many homes, the increase of vice ond immorality, and the further taxation for police and poor law. When will the leaders of the nations dare to stand up openly against the abominable evils which they acknowledge end deplore in private just as earnestly as we do 7* Lord Rosebery said that the traffic was an. enslavement of the nation. The Prime Minister said that drink was a greater enemy than the Germans. Perhaps the most poignant aspect of the situation in the great cities is the horrible effects on the children. Let anyone visit the large drinking saloons just now and see what goes on. It is heart-breaking.” Sir Edward Henry (late Commissioner of Police); “During the first period of the war much harm resulted from women being served too early in the day. Children and household duties were neglected. I became so much convinced that I invited Mr F. P. Whitbread and Alderman Johnson, representing the licensed trade, to confer with me on the subject. ... I acted ultra vires, and might have been called to account. I risked this, for I deemed myself justified in the exceptional circumstances of the time in arrogating to myself and exercising powers that I did not possess. Immediate good resulted. In this instance, restriction had a markedly beneficial effect. Extension of the hours when licensed premises may be left open resulted in an increased consumption of alcoholic drink, and this cannot be beneficial to the community at large. The differentiation as between the sexes made by my order not so long after tlie suffragette agite-' tion might have proved embarrassing. The justification for it was that the men were of necessity in the workshops and factories and could not get to the public-houses, whereas the women staying at their homes could get to them.” Mr Gordon Selfridge: “I believe that the more sober, the more efficient the people of any community will become, and this, of course, applies in my judgment to the rich man and the poor man alike. I therefore hope that the good sense of the public will prevent the greater freedom from resulting in greater intemperance.”