THE ENGLISH LICENSING BILL.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 751, 28 July 1904, Page 26

THE ENGLISH LICENSING BILL.

(London “L.V. Gazette,” June 10.) The first round of the fight over the Licensing Bill in Committee has resulted in favour of the Government. The Opposition, who have all along displayed a viciousness that was explained, if not entirely excused, by the knowledge of the hopelessness of their cause, now betray bad temper. And yet the rejection of the time-limit proposal was wholly due to their bad generalship and zealous impetuosity. The teetotal members, led by Mr Kuropatkin Ellis Griffiths and Mr Alexeieff Whittaker commenced their grand (assault at the wrong end of the campaign. Instead of getting all the inconsiderable trifles of detail adjusted, and then uniting their forces upon the crucial and seriously debatable point in the I ill they charged recklessly, . aggressively, hysterically upon the main position at the very outset, with, we trust, irremediable injurious results to theii cause. Mr Ellis Griffith’s first motion to insert at the beginning of clause 1 the words, “During the period of seven years after the passing of this Act,” provoked the ruling of the chairman that the time-limit question thrust thus early into the discussion applied to, and governed, every clause in the Bill. Compensation is only one subject. of the mea.su re. Ther are others, including, the constitution and procedure of the licensing tribunals, and each and all of these proposals must come into line with the compensation clause in the matter of a time-limit. The Opposition were under the impression that their restrictive amendments could be applied to each clause separately and independently of every other paragraph, and they learned with amazed dismay that the question of putting a fixed period upon the operations of one of the Government’s clauses dominated the whole Bill. Consequently the

question once raised had to be dealt with summarily, and decided beyond appeal. It could not be reintroduced into the discussion at any subsetpient stage — unless the House allowed the original amendment to be withdrawn. There were, as a matter of assured fact, a number of Lmionist members who were in favour of a time-limit if the operation of it was restricted to the raising and payment of compensation ; but they would not consent to the reconstruction of the proposed adjustment of the magisterial authority at the expiry of any fixed period. The support of these members would be lost unless the two issues of compensation and licensing control were treated separately, and the Opposition, recognising the untenable position into which they had blundered, asked for permission to withdraw their fatal amendment. The supporters of the Bill, emphatically and with perfect i i declined to accede to this request. Their object was to get the Bill through Committee as it came into it, without a time-limit clause, and the opportune mismanagement of the Opposition had rendered it possible to achieve this end much more easily than they had dared to hope or expect. They naturally declined to weakly abandon the advantage they had gained, and the Opposition only made themselves appear illogical and ridiculous by denouncing their decision as mean, underhand, tricky, disreputable, Nc., &c., Nc. Another mortifying result of this un-looked-for reverse is that by thus throwing away the right to waste the time of the House by repeating ad nauseum their arguments in favour of a time-limit in connection with every clause of the Bill, their potentiality for obstruction is seriously affected. Mr Balfour quietly accepted the benefit of the blunder. He was convinced that any time-limit would be incompatible with the general scope of the Bill, and he had gained his point with the saving of much valuable time and nervous energy. The reasons adduced by the Prime Minister are reasons that had been frequently and fully expounded in these columns. If a time-limit were to be fixed it would be in the interests of all license-holders to have their houses closed and receive their mead of compensation before the time arrived when they might be deprived of their licenses without the payment of a solatium in any

4onn. It would mean that every publican would have to put into kitty, and the lucky ones would be the people who participated in the fund thus raised. The main contention urged by Air Ballour, and which we have always held to be irrefutable, is expressed in his pertinent question: What is the lapse of time that will take away the equitable right to •compensation which in view of the great ma jority of the House the present licensed holders now possess ? So long as they provide their own funds for compensation purposes the equitable rights are, to our mind, beyond dispute. As it was pointed out, if the local authorities do their duty under the powers which the passing of this Bill will give them, the number of public-houses within the next fifteen or twenty years will not be in excess of the requirements of any district. Here, of course, we recognise the reason of the Opposition to obtain a reversion of their old powers at the expiry •of a set number of years. In . th e or ' di nary, and proposed, course of things, when the superfluous houses have been eliminated the survivors will be unmolested except for infringement of the legal regulations governing their conduct. When there is no excuse but blind prejudice .for further depredations is the very time when, more than any other, the enemies of the Trade wish to have a free hand. Despite the strategic reverse which the Opposition have suffered, the Radical Press declares that the true friends of temperance reforms can still put up a tough fight, and they must not allow this initial defeat to discourage them. And they proceed to demolish Mr Balfour’s arguments to their own entire satisfaction. “If there is a moral right to compensation at all/* the Premier dedared, “there is surely as good a right at the end of any time specified.” _ But the truth is,” says the “Daily News ’ with illuminating artlessness, “ there is no right to compensation at all, either legal or moral.” To which we can only ask in reply, Why does the Opposition desire to give to publicans for a period of years a privilege that they have no legal or moral right to ? Like Mark Antony, we pause a reply, and, like the Roman statesman, we shall probably be a nolimit time in getting it !

The manager of a Carlsbad restaurant recently put into operation drastic methods against Jews who desired to patronise his establishment. At the entrance of the restaurant he fixed a card bearing the words—“ Jews not admitted.” If in spite of this notice Jews succeeded ’in entering the restaurant, the waiters had orders to serve drinkin special glasses labelled —“For Jews only.” The manager’s boycotting methods came to the notice of the .authorities, who ordered him to remove the card and not to use the glasses.