Excerpt from The Licensing Act of of 1904: With Notes and Explanations

For the first time in British history a trade has been called upon to pay for the recompense of its members whose businesses are to be taken away, for, presumably, "the public good, " and the axiom that public benefits should be paid for by the public disappears. Before considering the Bill in its practical aspects upon the Trade, we will quote some public statements by "leaders of men, " as showing what their intentions, at least, were.

The Lord Chancellor On The Bill.

The Lord Chancellor, having remarked that a question of this kind should be considered independently of party, said that a noble earl who had just spoken seemed to assume that the question of temperance was always dealt with on one side only. The noble earl, by way of showing that this Bill ought to be rejected, had given them statistics of drunkenness, and had spoken of the property of brewers as being enormous.

The Lord Chancellor said he could not help thinking that there was gross exaggeration about this. They were dealing with forty millions of people, and their drink bill naturally came to a large sum of money. But if they had a drink Bill why not a food Bill? The noble earl spoke of the excessive number of public-houses in every part of the country, and he could hardly find words to speak with sufficient severity of those who created them. Did the noble earl think they grew automatically?

He knows as well as I do, continued the Lord Chancellor, that not one of these licences could be in existence except by grant of the magistrates, and now he complains of the independence of the magistrates being interfered with. If you have such confidence in the magistrates, why do you want to interfere with them at all? It seems to me to be a simple question of technicality, distinguished from what is the substance of the matter. Nobody ever doubted that a single licence was only given for one year, and that has an analogy in many cases in which the common sense of mankind, has gone beyond the mere words or letter of a document. How many farms are there in the country taken from year to year which have descended from grandfather and father to grandson? Although the landlords have perfect power over them, yet the tenants are never disturbed in their holding.

The case of "Sharp v. Wakefield" had been quoted, but it did not seem to be remembered that, although the licence was for a year it was felt that the argument that it was but for a year strengthened what was intended to be given as a discretion to the magistrates, and one distinguished judge said, "I am convinced that the Legislature intended that, as a rule, the licence should be continuous. Yes, and that was all his noble friend (Lord Belper) said in introducing this Bill. He did not say there was any right to continue a licence.

Regarding Renewals.

I am afraid, said the Lord Chancellor, I am old enough to remember that it was the ordinary practice that, unless there was something against the licensee, the licence would be continued. And why should it not be so? A man does not go into a public-house and make arrangements fit for the reception of guests - and the magistrates are always very particular, and rightly particular, that all proper accommodation should be provided for the public - and expect his licence to be at the mere caprice of the magistrates. The magistrates ought to have no option in the matter unless there is some reason for the licence being taken away. These houses do not exist for the publican, but for the sake of the public, and is it to be supposed that the wants of the public change from year to year? Such a thing may happen, and then the magistrates may take away the licence.

About the Publisher

Forgo