THE LICENSING CLAUSES. F OR the last ten years we have
maintained in these columns the proposition that our present licensing system involves the profligate dissipation of a national asset. For moral reasons the State has thought it right to create a gigantic and most lucrative monopoly. Only certain persons are allowed the privilege of supplying what the great majority of the population desire to purchase seta—namely, various forms of intoxicants. The State grants to these persons a share in this monopoly through the issue of annual licenses to sell intoxicants retail. But so inadequate, and. calculated on so unreasonable and so incoherent a basis, have been the charges made for a share in the moropoly, that the grant of a public-house license has been nothing less than a gratuitous gift by the State of something which in many instances has proved to be worth several hundreds, or even thousands, of pounds. This anomaly has been corrected in the case of entirely new licenses, but, as very few such licenses are granted, that is not an important matter. The fact remair a that in consideration of the regrant of the old annual licenses the amount paid to the State is far below the value of the thing granted. No doubt the fact that Parliament in its folly has for years allowed a system so uneconomic to exist has made it difficult to adopt a more rational method of licensing. The right of having an annual license renewed, though not a right with any legal basis, has been bought and sold for very large sums, and thus " moral " expectations have grown up which it would be unfair, though not illegal, to ignore. These facts make it impossible for any Government to propose that the holders of existing licenses should be asked to pay the full value of what they receive when a license for one year is annually granted to them in the form of a renewal. Short of this, however, there is a strong case for making the consideration paid for a license somewhat more proportionate to the value of the thing granted, and also for doing away with the absurd anomalies under which the small public-houses have hitherto paid so very much more in proportion for their licenses than the big public-houses. On these grounds we have in principle supported the Government proposals to increase the License-duties. But though we are with the Government in principle, we are bound to say that the way in which they have handled the licensing problem, and especially the line taken by them during the past week, has made it exceedingly difficult for us to continue our support. Not only have they shifted their ground so often that it has been by no means easy to follow their gyrations, but in these changes a levity of purpose has been apparent for which we can find few precedents in our Parliamentary history. Worse still, the action of the Government has exposed them to a suspicion, and more than a suspicion, of having sacrificed to a political bargain with the Irish Party those principles of temperance upon which they are supposed to be acting. Let us take, first, an example of the levity to which we have alluded. At the end. of last week the country was astounded by the information that changes had been made in the licensing clauses, and that the English grocers would not, as now, be unable to sell spirits in bottles of less than a quart, but might retail whisky and brandy in pint bottles. The result of this announcement was to bring a storm of indignant protest from the Temper- ance Party. They had always regarded the sale of intoxicants by grocers as an encouragement not only to secret and home drinking by men, but to secret and home drinking by women. Yet here was a Government pledged to temperance reform actually proposing to spread the drink evil in its most insidious form! The beginning of the week, however, brought a change. The temperance people were assured. that the whole thing had been a mistake, that the Government never intended to do any- thing so wicked, and that the mistake was entirely due to a series of blunders and misunderstandings on the part of the officials whose duty it was to redraft the grocers' claus3s. Into the question of how the mistake arose, and whether or not it was ever intended to make a concession which the grocers would no doubt have regarded as very valuable, we do not desire to enter in detail. We can only say that, whether the Government explanation was or was not the correct one, the transaction shows the want of care and discretion which has marked. the whole of the proceedings of the Budget. When a tax on " ungotten " minerals turns into a tax upon royalties, or " gotten " minerals in the most perfect form, and the thing amended becomes an absolute reversal in principle and practice of the thing originally proposed, such changes and rechanges as we have described in regard to the grocers' licenses seem comparatively small matters.
It remains to be said, however, that the Irish and Scotch grocers are to be allowed to retain their right to retail spirits in small quantities. Why they should enjoy a privilege which is not accorded to the English grocer, and a privilege which could be taken away from them without any technical difficulty, in so great a rearrangement of the Licensing Acts as is entailed by the Budget, we cannot imagine. No excuse, indeed, has been made for this example of trade preference, except that the people, or rather the grocers, of the areas in question will have it so. No one pretends that the dangers of secret drinking by men or women are less in Ireland and Scotland than in England. As the Americans would say, we are "up against" the hard fact that the grocers of Ireland and Scotland make a good thing out of their privilege, have the political power to stick to it, and therefore do stick to it.
As an example of the political bargaining we may point to the concession made on Wednesday night to the Irish Members. Mr. Redmond in a fervent speech demanded that the new licensing proposals should not apply to Ireland at all. The Bill, if applied to Ireland, would, he declared, exterminate a great number of public-houses, and would do so unjustly. "The minimum charges and alternative system of valuation to some cities meant a crushing blow." Injustice would be wrought in every town and hamlet of Ireland. Next, Mr. Redmond appealed to the Prime Minister "to make an effort to enable small breweries in Ireland to continue to exist." Further, as to grocers' licenses and the buying of liquor in small quantities in open vessels, he asked for the removal of the limitation as to quantity altogether. Finally, with that delightful assurance which is only to be found in the Nationalist Members, he declared that "with them this was not a liquor question, but a question of justice to Ireland." When the English brewers say such things, the Westminster Gazette and the Liberals generally make great sport of poor "Mr. Bung." When it is the case of Ireland, Mr. Redmond can say, with Chatham "Who dares laugh now ? "
Mr. Asquith, who followed Mr. Redmond, though he spoke with some reserve as to certain points, practically conceded the demand that Ireland should have pre- ferential treatment. Yet, so far as we can see, there is no case for it, except such as can be made out in the matter of mixed trading. Possibly, though we are by no means sure of this, mixed trading is a ground for some differentiation in valuation. In other respects it is clear that Ireland is to have this " bloated " preference because the Nationalist Members have made a bargain with the Government, and would have revolted if that bargain had not been concluded. In these circumstances we do not wonder that Mr. Balfour castigated the Prime Minister and the Government as he did. "They were really going too far when they said that a small Irish publican and a small Irish brewer were in a wholly different situation from the small English publican and the small English brewer, and that they must therefore be taxed at a smaller rate It was evidently and plainly a long negotiation ending in a treaty." We are bound to confess that when things of this kind can be said about a Parliamentary transaction connected with a question like that of temperance, and when a Government make a tremendous advertisement of the moral basis of their action, it is very difficult for the plain man to restrain his sense of indignation and disgust. Mr. Samuel's answer to Mr. Balfour appears to us to be no answer at all. It was that, "after all, the views of the representatives of the people were not to be treated as altogether of no account' This sounds very well ; but in reality, if it means anything, it means a particularism which would destroy all coherent legislation. If Mr. Samuel finds that the representatives of the people in a. particular town in England or ma particular county are as dead against the licensing clauses as the Nationalists, is he going to say that the views of their representatives must prevail, and that they must receive preferential treatment ? But if not, why not ? What is it that makes the representatives of a particular English town or English county of no account, while those of Ireland or Scotland have something sacred about them ? It cannot be that special areas give a. special sanctity to local opinion. The truth is that Mr. Samuel's principle is a mere piece of factitious rhetoric of which he ought to be ashamed. It would mean the dis- solution of Parliament into a series of groups, which groups would have to be still further broken up to give effect to the principle that the views of the represen- tative of the people shall be considered. In fact, every Member of Parliament would possess a kind of hleruna veto on legislation affecting his own constituency. Of course Mr. Samuel does not mean that, but only that you have got to give way to the Irish Nationalists if they squeeze you hard enough. We are bound to say that we should prefer to see the surrender described in these terms rather than concealed by a piece of Parliamentary cant Before we leave the subject of the Licensing Bill we desire to put once more on record the principles which we hold ought to have been adopted by the Government. Had they been sincere in their legislation, they would have endeavoured to make all retail vendors of intoxicants, whether publicans, grocers, or clubs, pay a fair and pro- portionate sum in consideration of the privilege granted to them of sharing in the great liquor monopoly. Further, they would have insisted that this principle should be applied on equal terms to all parts of the United Kingdom, and that no one should be given special advantages in the sale of intoxicants because he lived in a particular portion of these islands. Very possibly there might have been certain difficulties in applying these two principles in detail, but that they could have been applied far more nearly than they have been there can be no reasonable doubt. In truth, the test of the bona-fides and general worth of the Government proposals is the nearness with which they follow these principles. The further they get away from them, the more carefully must they be scrutinised, and the less acceptable ought they to be to men who want to deal fairly and in the public interest with the liquor question, and not merely to gain advantage for their own political party.
Previous page
