THE ENGLISH TRADE VICTORY

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 692, 11 June 1903, Page 23

THE ENGLISH TRADE VICTORY

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GOVERNMENT. The Prohibition reformers, who even up to the eleventh hour professed to believe that the House of Commons would decline to diecountenance the evil practice which has insinuated itself into the Licensing Tribunals of this, country, received a terrible awakening at the end of April, when the House, by an overwhelming majority of two to one, pledged itself to the principle of compensation. Neither the Government nor the Trade could have hoped for a more decisive expression of opinion —neither, indeed, expected so much. But it must be remembered that it was the spirit of Mr Butcher’s Bill, and not the details, that was on its trial, and while the supporters of the measure never experienced any difficulty in recognising its purport, its opponents would appear to be still confused as to the real aim, of its movers. The “ Daily Chronicle ” frankly acknowledges that the Bill turns entirely upon the question of compensation ; but the “ Morning Leader ” regards this “insidiously-worded measure” as a hypocritically conceived, hut entirely successful attempt to put a check upon the «» action of those magistrates who have ■©recently begun to realise and act up to their grave responsibilities in connection with the necessary reduction of publicans’ licenses.” The vital object of the Bill is to do justice to a necessary, specially supervised, and unfairly treated section of the community. Directly, it sanctions the granting of compensation to publicans who have been refused the renewal of their licenses without having been guilty of misconduct in their business ; and if, indirectly, it serves “ not merely to paralyse but extinguish the discretion of the licensing magistrates,” the House decided by a majority of 138 that justice must be done even at the evanishment of the much-abused magisterial authority. If it comes to a question between extinguishing the power of the justices in licensing matters or eliminating the Trade, the pouniry will speedily convince the Legis-

lature on which foot the sacrificial boot must be placed. It is to be regretted that Parliament should have been compelled to censure an important and influential body of gentlemen for obstinately exceeding their duties to the extent of inflicting unwarrantable hardship, but the administration of a corrective could no longer be postponed. A gross injustice was being perpetrated; a wholesale spoliation of valuable interests was threatened ; and no Government at any period since the adoption of the franchise could have suffered it to continue and remain in office.

Much of the resistance that was offered to Mr Butcher’s Bill on the occasion of its second reading emanated from the quarters from which it was expected ; but more than once in the course of debate inconsistencies were revealed and admissions were made by politicians occupying seats on the Opposition benches, which must be accepted as gratifying evidences of the difficulty that honourable members; experienced in blindly supportimg the perpetuation of an indefensible and unjust state of affairs. The friends of the Trade were prepared for the vigorous denunciation of Mr Whittaker, arid the characteristic utterances! of Sir Wilfrid Lawson, but even their colleagues must have realised with dismay how little impression their opposition made upon the House. There was as much disapproval of many of its provisions expressed by speakers who were determined to vote for the measure as by those who were going into the Lobby against it; but while the Opposition cavilled at its points and criticised its details, the Government, by the mouths of Mr Long and Mr Balfour, pointed out that the division only called for an opinion upon the main purpose of the Bill ; arid Mr Chamberlain, with his customary conciseness, declared that? those who were in favour of compensation and voted against the measure were neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor red herring. Dr. Hutchinson, the newly-elected member for Rye, pathetically confessed the quandary in which he found himself. He had promised the publicans and their partisans in his constituency that he would vote for compensation, but he could not find it in his heart to give his support to this particular Bill ; Mr Asquith, on the

other hand, was in an even worse plight, for while he was bound by a pledge given to a temperance deputation to vote against this Bill, he was not opposed to the principle of compensation, provided that the grant was disbursed under the name of a “ solatium.” The publican in the eyes of the law, Mr Asquith insisted, has no property in his license, and this technical objection was met by Mr Balfour’s contemptuous, rejoinder that, whatever a license may be in the eyes of the law, it is taxed as property, rated as property, and bought and sold as property. Mr Asquith’s further contention that the Bill infringes a principle of public policy by fettering the freedom of the justices, or in other words by restricting their forfeitures! of licenses to the limit of the funds provided for the payment of compensation, was also logically countered by Mr Balfour, who pointed out that unlimited confiscation could only be compensated out of an unlimited purse, and he asked the honourable gentleman if he was prepared with a scheme for raising the necessary furids for the purpose. — (“ L.V. Gazette.”)