THE ENGLISH LICENSING BILL

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 746, 23 June 1904, Page 26

THE ENGLISH LICENSING BILL

(London “L.V. Gazette,” May 13.)

The Temperance Party, in Parliament and out of it, marshalled all their forces to oppose the second reading oi the Licensing Bill, which, on Wednesday, was. carried by an overwhelming majority oi 157 in a House of. over 550 members. Such figures, like the gorgonzola cheeses in Mr W. S. Gilbert’s pantomime, speak tor themselves. Every device was resorted to by the Teetotal organisations to cajole or intimidate members into voting against the measure, and every argument was put forward in the course oi debate to show why it should not be supported ; but the opposition was foredoomed to failure, and, what is more, they seemed to know it. The speeches oi the recognised mouthpieces of the party lacked spirit and conviction, and while repeating the old stock objections, and characterising the Bill as “ retrograde, obstructive, and deplorable, ’ they carefully refrained from offering any suggestions for an alternative measure of licensing reform. The debate opened in languid fashion on Monday, was continued without animation on 1 uesday. and was closed on Wednesday in an atmosph ere of irritation, caused by t le misguided endeavours of the opposition to needlessly prolong the discussion., The sum total of the three days debate goes to show more clearly than ever that the weight of opinion in the House is in favour of the principle of compensation, and that the best endeavours of the opposition have failed to convince members that the Government s proposals constitute a bad Bill, which could not be made into a good one. Mr Burt, who moved the official opposition amendment in a moderate speech, made out but a poor case. Although he was not sure that the reduction in the number of pub-lic-houses would lessen the evils of drinking, he believed that it was desirable to diminish them; but he would not support any scheme of diminution emanating from' the Conservative party. chat was the. gist of his contention, and it ■was repeated on Tuesday by Sir Heniy Campbell-Bannerman, who, sooner than admit any virtue in a Bill introduced by the present Government, repudiated the opinions he had expressed as to the de-

sirability of instituting a “ gradual , reduction of licenses under improved local authority,” and compensating those injuriously affected “ out of funds (Aided by the Trade itself.' >"ir Henry had further declared “ I shall.welcome the oay when a measure conceived upon these lines takes a foremost place amr.ngsl Parliamentary projects.” ouch a measure had a front-rank seat during Ihe first three days of the present week, ax hen the Leader of the Opposition affected to regard it as a preventive against ‘‘any really serious reform of the licensing svstem.”

Mr Lloyd-George stigmatised the Bill as bad, and Mr Asquith, while not opposed to some vague scheme of licensing reform coupled with “ pecuniary adjustment —- which is another way of avoiding the hated practice of calling a spade a spade —could not support a measure under which “ the survivors would benefit by the disappearance of the victims. Sir Wilfrid Lawson was as tame and ineffective as Mr Whittaker, and Mr T. W. Russell further illustrated the spirit of intolerance and impracticability which has defeated every effort, of the Teetotal Party to effect any sensible ineasure of temperance reform. This attitude,, ratner than the party feeling which inspired many of the opponents of the Bill, was denounced by Mr Balfour in a speech which was 'at once clever, convincing, and greatly daring. He denounced the expression of teetotal views as revolting to common sense, and deplored the absense of all sober judgment on the part of individuals who played the “out and out” game of denunciation while posing as moderate specimens of temperance reformers. He believed that in their hearts they desired to give no compensation, which was absurd, and to abolish everv public-house from the country, which was iniquitous. To talk of the publican as a criminal and the drunkard as a weak person tempted by an evil trade he considered a ridiculous supposition. To confiscate what the law admits as pio.perty without giving compensatiob constitutes “a gross injustice,” which the Bill is introduced to rectify, and he recommended it to the House as a practical scheme, deserving of support. Mr Balfour expressed a perorative hope that members would, bv an overwhelming majority, allow the Government to proceed with the Bill in Committee, and the House complied with a majority of 157.