LONDON LICENSING JUSTICES AND THE EVENING CLOSING HOUR.
[To THE EDITOR or THE " SPECTATOR.") Sue,—Denuded of its verbiage the letter of the Rev. Henry Carter under the above title amounts to this : The Licensing Justices would be acting within the strict letter of the Licensing Act, 1921, if they fixed the closing hour at either 10 p.m., 10.30 p.m., or 11 p.m. But a " strict conformity to the law " which stopped short of the last-named hour would do violence to the spirit in which the section was debated in the Committee stage. The eleven o'clock extension, rendering possible the " theatre supper "- provision, was welcomed by the majority of the Committee as restoring " a practice that obtained before the war " (Sir John Baird), and as being in agreement with " legitimate demand for an extension of hours in respect of those places which are adapted for providing suppers " (Sir Ryland Adkins). Of course, Mr. Raffan was "opposed to that provision altogether," and the six teetotal members of the Committee pressed their opposition to a vote in which they were defeated by a majority of sixteen. That fact is ample justification for the general expectation that the Licensing Justices would decide upon the latest possible hour. It was because a minority of those Justices took upon themselves to announce a decision in harmony with the wishes of Mr. Carter and his friends that the Press voiced public indignation.
For, as Mr. Carter actually admits—and the admission is refreshingly novel from such a source—there are others to be considered apart from himself and " the Trade." If he would think more of " popular interest " and " the. interest of the public" he would attain a broader view of public questions. It is because the public at large is deeply interested in the " theatre slipper " provision, because the mass of Londoners rejoiced at even so small a restoration of their pre-war freedom, that the Press indignation was so genuine and spontaneous. Finally, a word must he devoted to Mr. Carter's pernicious attempt to foment "class" hatred. That an advocate of prohibition, notoriously a law which it is easy for the wealthy to avoid, and which presses most heavily upon the poor, should try such a dodge is amazing. But I deny most emphatically that the "theatre supper " is merely the "concern of the leisured and luxurious class only." If Mr. Carter will spare an hour or two to visit so ungodly a place as one of the popular Lyons' Corner Houses, he will discover that " the theatre supper " extension is as happily appreciated there as in any fashionable restaurant.' And by no violence to language can the frequenters of those resorts be described as belonging to the " leisured and luxurious class."—I am, Sir, &c., W. E. MCCONNELL, Hon. Secretary. The Fellowship of Freedom and Reform, Whitehall House, 29 Charing Cross.
Previous page
