THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1882. THE LICENSING COMMITTEES.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2454, 16 February 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1882. THE LICENSING COMMITTEES.

Otte evening contemporary the “ Star,’ thought fit to attack Mr. Pritchard, the editor and proprietor of this journal, in its leading column of the 11 th instant* because he has asked the electors of the Christchurch Licensing diSI tricts to choose him as a member of the Licensing Committee. Of late the leading columns of our eonI temporary have become so essentially 1 feeble that it will not surprise anyone if the mode of attack is en-

tirely ridiculous. There was a time when at least there was some power in the leading matter of the “ Star.” If there were two sides to any question, it is true that the paper would generally pick the more ignoble and perverted one, but at least the views entertained were given with clearness and with a certain, rough rigor. But in these latter days all this is changed, and if the paper holds any views at all, they are of such lamentably indeterminate character, and

are expressed in such washed out language, that the reader cannot possibly care to get to the bottom of them. Tho

article we are alluding to is, perhaps, tho most brilliant that has appeared in the columns of the “ Star ” for many a long day. Let us for an instant examine tins supremo effort, and then we can pass on to the general question of Mr. Pritchard’s candidature. The “Star” says, “Mr. Pritchard has issued a painfully elaborate address, presumably intended as a maniI festo of the pure morality type.” Now, it happens that the address is not at all elaborate: it puts forward but very few issues, and is expressed in the plainest of language, ° Presumably as intended a 1 manifesto of the pure morality type,” Bays our contemporary. What, in I the name of all that is sensible, can this mean ? In point of fact it means nothing whatever. When our contemporary is rather hard up for a phrase it always runs in this expression. Again, the “Star” declares tbat Mr. 1 Pritchard’s claims to notice are peculiar, based as they are mainly on the fact that ho has travelled to England and back 1 again, and “ that his trip has given him such an insight into the best licensing systems as will enable much needed improvements to be suggested, which must conduce to the comfort and convenience of the public generally.” Mr. Pritchard’s claims are, as it happens, not based on this ground at all. His address to the electors shows why he comes forward, and only incidentally mentions that ho is in possession of certain special knowledge I which might be useful to him as a member of tho Licensing Committee. And then the “ Star ” goes on to enquire why Mr. Pritchard, as editor of the Globe, has not enlightened I the public as to the improvements Ito which he alludes. It says—“ Ha is, we believe, the proprietor and editor of that journal, and consequently I may be assumed to exercise an autocracy over its columns, let Mr. Pritchard appears never to have sufficiently recovered from the exhaustion consequent upon his “ considerable course of travel,” to allow him to place before his panting readers any of those valuable hotel experiences, which are to rescue this community from the morass of ignorance in which its members are floundering.” But surely the editor of a paper may have certain special information without cramming it, in season and out of season, down the throats of its readers. It is but charitable to tbe presiding genius of the “ Star ” to imagine that this is possible. Surely that gentleman has other wares in his brain than those he places before tho public ! If he has not he is to be pitied, and his “ panting readers ” into the bargain. We will now pass on the general question to which the remainder of the article is devoted, merely pausing to note one point. Speaking of the gentlemen nominated by tho Licensed Victuallers and the Temperance Societies, the article says that they have had “judicial and deliberative experience,” and that Mr. Pritchard has not, consequently the latter would be in tho way at the meetings. Now the primary functions of a Licensing Bench are not judicial. The question it has to deal with is more of a social one, and many of tho judicial proceedings that are taken in connection with any infringments of the Licensing Act are taken in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Gentlemen with common sense and experience are required on the Licensing Committees. The immense amount of legal knowledge picked up by tho great Unpaid in the discharge of their onerous duties is not a sine qiianon. Moreover, that it was not even thought to be a necessity by the Licensed Victuallers and Total Abstainers when in solemn conclave joined, is proved by the fact that Archdeacon Harris is in the number of tho chosen. Tho Archdeacon is an estimable man, and his character does not suffer from tho fact that he has never joined the ranks of our learned J.P.’s. It is not on such grounds, at all events, that we would object to his candidature. Now, what was tho intention of the Legislature when the Licensing Act was passed ? Evidently that at the election of the committees tho public should

exorcise perfect freedom in its choice

of the members. It is monstrous to suppose that because the Licensed Victuallers and the Temperance Societies choose to come together and nominate

live individuals that the affair is at an

end. The Licensed Victuallers and the Temperance Societies represent bnt a comparatively small portion of the community. They certainly arrogate to themselves special interest in the Licensing question, but they have no possible right to do so. All citizens who take an

interest in the moral and material welfare c£ the city are quite as deedly interested. If the nominees chosen by the Licensed Victuallers and Temperance Societies had been accepted without a question, we say that the precedent would have been a bad one. Mr. Pritchard entirely apart, why are any five gentlemen to bo pushed on to the committee by the ultra-zealots ? The five are declared to he a compromise between the two bodies. What do the people care about such compromises ? It is a good thing undoubtedly that outsiders, men of experience and tact, are going to try conclusions with the chosen five. The five may ho good men and true enough, but they have been nominated under auspices which the public do not recognise, and which the Legislature never intended should have control in choosing the Committees.