THE TWO MR CHAMBERLAINS ON COMPENSATION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 715, 19 November 1903, Page 26

THE TWO MR CHAMBERLAINS ON COMPENSATION.

(“ L.V. Gazette/’ Octobei' 2.)

There is nothing new in the correspondence that has been published between Mr - Joseph Chamberlain and the representatives of the Licensed Trade of Birmingham on the subject of compensation, nor in the speech which Mr Arthur Chamberlain addressed at a meeting at Aston on

the licensing question. But the correspondence has been the means of again drawing attention to the subject, and of putting the issues before the public in a concise and compelling manner. Of the speech which the other Mr Chamberlain delivered it is unnecessary to say more than that it serves to confirm us, as it

•will confirm all unprejudiced electors, in the opinion that the aims of the Birmingham J ustice are as unjustifiable as his methods are irregular. In theory his object in endeavouring to secure reductions is to promote “ the good of the city,” in practice he is actuated only by a wild-headed and fruitless desire to eliminate the licensed victualler altogether. Mr Chamberlain succeeded, by craft, in .securing the co-operation of the brewers in the adoption of a scheme for reducing the number of licenses in Birmingham with as little injury to Trade interests as possible. Substantial sacrifices were demanded, and they were ungrudgingly conceded by the brewers, in the confidence that their motives would be appreciated

and their practical purpose of effecting some security for their remaining property would be respected. The chairman of the Licensing Justices eulogised their public-spirited action, and from 1898 to 1901 he encouraged them by commendation and congratulation to believe that he was always prepared to keep faith* with his Trade allies. But in 1903 Mr Chamberlain recognised that the action ■of the Farnham Justices made him independent of the brewersi, and gave him a weapon by which he could carve his way to notoriety without their co-operation. This reduction, which was costing the brewers so much, was not, he affected to discover, achieving his high object of diminishing drunkenness, because the forfeiture of so many licenses only sent more business to the surviving houses. He no longer invited the brewers to work in

harmony with the Justices to promote the benefit of the city, but declared his intention of reducing the number of licenses until only one remained, .and of then confiscating it.

In other words, the brewers were duped by the specious representations of Mr Arthur Chamberlain into advancing his secret policy of extermination ; and since the Farnham decision no fewer than four hundred licensing benches in the United Kingdom have announced their intention o" follow ins his example. The Benches have deliberately set at naught the intention of the licensing laws, and by declaring against the granting of compensation have defied the greatest of British institutions, which is known as fair play. They have condemned as fundamentally evil, in fact and in effect, the licenses which former justices have granted in the interests of the community, and have declared as unworthy of protection property which “ has been bought and sold, rated by the local authorities, and generally treated for all public and private purposes as a continuing interest.” It is not a question whether there are or are not too many licensed houses in existence, but whether any or all of them should be arbitrarily suppressed, on the alleged ground of public advantage, without any allegation of misconduct on the part of the owners.

Such a course would be wholly contrary to the established practice of this country. The late John Bright, who was himself a teetotaler and temperance refoemer, denounced it, and succeeding generations of statesmen and economists have been equally strenuous in their condemnation of so un-English a policy. Within the year the same attitude has been vindicated by the vote of the House of Commons and adopted by the present Government. Mr Joseph Chamberlain, while a Minister of the Crown, took a fearless and determined stand on the question, and his more recent statement of the problem is as clear and convincing, The action of the Birmingham Licensing Justices, of -whom his brother is chairman, is “ contrary to all ideas Qf justicq and fair play.” In 1823 the country refused to entertain such a proposal, and he believes that they are even less likely to-day to approve of leaving power in the hands of non-representative Licensing Magistrates to commit such an injustice without any appeal to the’ people.

No cause, however just, Mr Chamberlain declares, ought to be promoted by unjust means, and the Trade and the country may rest assured that when the question is again before Parliament it will receive loyal and invaluable support at his hands. Mr Chamberlain appears confident that the Licensing Magistrates! will refrain from inflicting hardships on license holders by the unjust exercise of their discretionary powers pending the introduction of the promised Government proposals’, but we should all feel more satisfied on this point if the Ministry had done the straight thing by the Trade, and had passed a Suspensory Bill before Parliament was prorogued in August last.