THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1881. SHAM HOTELS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 225, 28 June 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1881. SHAM HOTELS.

During the consideration of the Licensing Bill in the House on Friday last Mr. Bowen drew attention to a serious evil which has heen growirjg of late in the various municipalities of the country. He said that a class of public house was springing up in which thoy did not care to supply lodging, the bar trade being the principal aim. Ho know of persons having been refused lodgings iu such honses, and it was not reasonable to suppose that those parties could be expoctod to lose time in prosecuting. All this is very true, as anyone who has taken any trouble to inquire into the matter will havo ascertained. In Christchurch thoro are hotels where a lodger is an unknown animal, and is meant to bo an unknown one. " They do not pay their koop, and are too much troublo," says the landlord, and so he will have none of thorn, and quietly falls back on the bar trade for his profits. And the public at largo and the Licensing Bench are none the wisor. Should the promises bo oxaminod by the police, everything is found in the most baautiful order, and naturally so, for whon

no one uses a place it is remarkably easy to keep it in perfect trim. There is a story current of a man with money in his pocket, who wont round to all the public bouses at which be thought be could afford to stop, and, for the reason abovenamed, and that alone being refused admittance, be was compollod to pass the night at the police depot. At a certain public house a solemn farce is enacted every day which is worth recording. The dinner boll is rung violently at the hour at which lodgers, if there were any, would partake of the festive meal, but the feast is purely barmecidal. Should a stranger enter, he might, like the starving Shacabac in the "Arabian Nights," dine luxuriously off an empty plate, but that is about all he would be able to do. The landlord does "not " believe in lodgers," but ho believes very much in bis bar. Wo think that the public will agree with us that this sort of thing should not be endured. The landlord of a hotel is in possession of privileges granted to him by the public on certain conditions, and one of those conditions is that he shall house and feed any respectable person with money enough to pay for his accommodation, who shall apply to him. No landlord should bo allowed for an instant to withdraw himself into his bar and fatten on his profits, with an empty house over his head, apparently only erected on the falsest of pretences. If the landlord is too lazy or too indifferent to the interests of the public to allow lodgers to remain, the sooner ho loses his licenso or is heavily fined, tho better. The 129th clause of tho new Bill recognises this position, but ii is doubtful if the provisions for the calling of attention to such ladies of a landlord are sufficiently stringent, The clause runs as follows : —" Every licensed publican failing or refusing, either personally, or through any one acting on his bohalf, except for some valid reason, to supply lodging, meals, or accommodation to

travellers, shall for each offence be liable, on conviction, to forfeit and pay any Bam not exceeding £10." The clanse, as printed, was passed, so that in due course of time this regulation may become part of the law of the land. But we confess to feeling sorry that some such stipulation as suggested by Mr. Murray was not embobiod in the clause before it was passed. That gentleman thought it would be well if a book should be kept in which travellers were allowed to enter their complaints, and that the same should be demanded for inspection by the licensing committee. Now, if a book were kept, in which travellers, who were refused admission as lodgers without reasonable pretext, were able to record that fact, it would have a great effect in stopping the description of conduct wo have alluded to, and bringing the defaulting landlord to justice. As the clause stands the initiative will lie with the traveller who, very possibly, will be in too great a hurry to move in the matter. Such a book would not be objected to by respectable landlords, but would serve to keep in check those who imagine that there is no responsibility attached to a license except that of making money as fast as possible and with the least possible trouble. Where the initiative lies with the public, without special facilities being afforded, it is notorious that defaulters are but seldom brought to account. But if a traveller, on refusal of admittance, were enabled on the spot to chronicle the fact, thore would be every certainty that the case would reach the ears of those in power. Another matter came to the surface during the consideration of this same 129th clanse. Sir W. Fox moved that there be added to the clause the following : —" Every licensed publican shall at all times, when the bar is open, be compelled to provide a supply of hot tea, coffee, and similar refreshments." What Sir William may mean by " similar refreshments," we are unable tc say, and the term might of course bo inconveniently stretched. But it seems singular that the House should have refused to enter-

tain any proposal respecting the selling of tea and coffee, as if such a regulation wore passed, it would most certainly tend to modify the drinking habits of the people. It is nseless to ignore the fact that a considerable amount of business is done at publichouso bars. As in America, bars are more or less of an institution, and many persons are forced to frequent them who would not touch spirituous liquours if they could help if. Why then should such people not have tea or coffee if they wish it ? The constant use of spirituous liquours creates a craving for them that is not natural, and many a man may trace the commencement of his downward course to the fact that he was forced, by the very nature of his business, to drink what he would otherwise not have taken. It would be no legitimate hardship to the publican to sell tea and coffee. The profit on each cup would, indeed, bo larger than on a glass of spirits, and the only way it would militate against his interest would bo that an artificial thirst would not bo created, which all will allow is an argument in favour of the sale of these beverages. A small amount of extra trouble might bo entailed on the vendor, but the public convenience and good would be decidedly studied. We cannot but feel sorry, therefore, that Sir W. Fox did not have his way in this matter.