PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY & SATURDAY. SATURDAY, JULY 2, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 957, 2 July 1881, Page 2

PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY & SATURDAY. SATURDAY, JULY 2, 1881.

We very much fear that the overanxious zeal of Sir William Fox and his ill-advised, though good-inten-tioned compatriots, will defeat their object by the ultimate overthrow of the Licensing measure now before the House The following occurred since our last issue:—Mr. Turnbull attempted to make all license fees Colonial, instead of Local revenue, but his motion was negatived by a majority of 54 to 5. A similar object of Mr. Murray’s to use packet license fees in the same way, was also rejected by the Committee. Clause 126 reads as follows:—

No female other than the licensee, or the wife or daughter of the licensee, as the case may be, shall be employed in the bar of any licensed house for more than ten hours in each day of twenty-four hours; and no female except as aforesaid, shall, with or without her consent, be employed in the bar of any licensed house after the hour of eleven post meridiem. Every holder of a license who shall permit the provisions of this section to be broken upon his licensed premises shall be deemed guilty of a breach of this Act. and shall forfeit and pay for every such offence any sum not exceeding twenty pounds. To which Sir William Fox moved as an amendment that the words “wife or daughter of the licensee ” be struck out. This was passed, as was, also, a further amendment by Mr. Bowen that “ no barmaid be employed in a bar after 10 o’clock at night.” This latter is reasonable enough ; but the carriage of the former shows to what state of oppression, and interference with the liberty of the subject the absurdly Puritanical notions of the Legislature will induce members to go. Surelv the day has not arrived when specific legislation is required, or thought necessary, to prevent a man’s wife or daughter helping him in his business. And what inconsistent humbug there is in both the original clause, and the amendment! A woman who is a “licensee” may stay in a bar from six in the morning till twelve o’clock at night, if it so pleases her ; but if she happens to be a married woman, and not a licensee, her liberty with that of her husband, is cut short by Act of Parliament. So again with respect to the 10 hours of service. 1 he penalty for any female staying in a bar more than 10 hours out of the 24, is any sum not exceeding £2O. But how, oh ! ve sapient powers, is this to be arrived at ? How can it be ascertained how many hours a female wife, daughter, or barmaid—has been in a bar out of the 24 ? Truly, if the police surveillance, for which the Bill provides, expends to personal and

hourly espionage : If constables are placed in the bars of hotels to tally the hours in which the fair Hebes attend, then there may be a chance of some one being “ pulled up '* for transgression. There is nothing in the Bill aioli t continuity ; therefore, the difficulty of enforcing this clause will be increased A man’s wife or daughter would hardly ever be likely to serve in a bar for 10 hours at a stretch. Wives ! and daughters of publicans are generally running in and out.” They are, as a rule, in the absence of “ barmaids,” more in the nature of “helps,” or “ stopgaps ” when the landlord is away ; and they are hardly likely to keep diaries shewing the exact time they were alternately serving drinks, and attending to the baby, and other household duties, so that the whole did not tot up to more than 10 hours, and when it did, rebel. So, once more, a man may not allow his wife or daughter to remain more than the prescribed 10 hours ; but they may be in a bar after 10 at night—a privilege which the hired barmaid ,is denied. Really there is something wonderfully wonderful in the shape our legislation is taking on the theme of local option, and the desire to make and keep some people virtuous, while others may sin as they like. Sir William Fox failed in an amendment making it penal for a publican to cash a cheque from any person whom he has supplied with liquor. The mover said his object was to prevent the “ poor bushmen ” from being “ lambed down but it provoked the Premier to remind him that prohibitive legislation of a kind which attempted to make “ babies of men,” would fail in the object sought to be attained. Mr. Fisher succeeded in his motion that any money paid for liquor “in advance ” shall be recoverable by law. Mr. Sutton was unsuccessful in attempting to have hotels open from 12 at noon to 2 p.m., and from 8 to 10 p.m., on Sundays. The clause as it stands, declares that “ all licensed premises ,” must be closed at 10 o’clock on Saturdry night to the following Monday morning at 6 o’clock, except where extension of time has been granted. Dona fide travellers, and lodgers can be supplied with liquor at any time. ' But here is another piece of wisdom. A “traveller” must be one (not who has travelled three miles to reach an hotel. but one) who “lodged during the preceding night,” at least that distance away, “from the “ place where he demands to be sup- “ plied with liquor.” Now, mark the effect of this : If Mr. Jones lives in Gisborne, but happened to stay, say at Makaraka, on the Saturday night, and returns to his home on the Sunday morning, he can go to any hotel in the town during the day, and “ demand ” liquor as a “ bona fide traveller.” But if he should require to travel from his home on the Sunday, although may have journeyed 50 miles, he cannot obtain a glass of beer if he comes within three miles of his starting point.