THE ROYAL COMMISSION AND TIED HOUSES.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume X, Issue 478, 21 September 1899, Page 18

THE ROYAL COMMISSION AND TIED HOUSES.

The report of the Royal Commissioners on the laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, in dealing with the tied house question, goes thoroughly and exhaustively into the subject. There is not the slightest doubt that during the last twenty years the system of tied houses has developed rapidly in the Old Country. Whether the system has done good or evil to the Trade generally is a much debated point. At the present time probably three-fourths of the licensed houses in Englmd are more or less tied. That is one of the conclusions the Commissioners have come to after

hearing 1 evidence all over the country. What are the causes leading to this tying ? Firstly, it is no doubt due—in a great many cases —to severe competition, , and then to the desire of brewing firms to secure their existing business with houses they have more or less owned or financed. Now, there is nothing morally wrong in this system, for it is practised by millers, grocers, and butchers quite as much at it is by brewers. Numbers of bakers shops are owned and run by millers who put in managers in the same way that brewers put in suitable men to manage their public houses. Provided manager and owner are both satisfied, and that the business is conducted with due regard to the law of the land why should busy-bodies, who have not the slightest interest beyond curiosity, be allowed to interfere ? The argument has been used that the tied house system leads to increased drinking because the manager has an interest in the quantity consumed. The hotelkeeper who runs a free house has just as great an inducement, for what profit he makes is his own, therefore it is quite absurd to say that a tied house is more of a drinking house than a free hotel. The remedies suggested to the Royal Commissioners to meet the tied house question were :—(1) The abolition of the system, (2) dual licenses, i.e., one license to the owner of ’ the house and another to the hotelkeeper, and (3) that the brewer or owner shall be the licensee. The Commissioners in their report decided that the first suggestion was quite impracticable, for when it was considered that the obligation might take many forms and that the tie might exist without any written contract the abolition would be inexpedient and mischievous. In regard to the second suggestion the Commissioners found that it would limit

the direct responsibility of the tenant, and also might lessen the control of the licensing authority. The Commissioners accepted the third suggestion that the brewer or owner should be the licensee in the case of managed houses. In their recommendation the Commissioners think that agreements should always be produced when applications for transfers are made and before a new license is granted, and that it should be left to the licensing authority to state whether the terms are

such as to warrant refusal of the transfer or of the granting of the new license. Where a house is conducted by a manager the Commissioners recommend that the license should be held by the employer who must be the ostensible and responsible person, and it is also suggested that the names of all managers should be registered on appointment in any manner the licensing authority may desire. In conclusion the Commissioners say that a duplicate copy of every agreement should be lodged with the clerk of the licensing authority if required. There is plenty of food for thought in the foregoing suggestions of the Royal Commissioners, and though possibly they will not all become law the ventilation the subject has received may prove beneficial to both brewer and publican.