THE BRITISH BREWERS AND EXPECTED TEMPERANCE LEGISLATURE

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVI, Issue 43088, 4 May 1907, Page 1

THE BRITISH BREWERS AND EXPECTED TEMPERANCE LEGISLATURE

f (Continued froifr last issue.)

It only a very , slight derangement of their financial structure, which [has been so fearfully and wonderfully made, to upset their nice calculations:

Hence the loss of dividends in many brewing concerns, without the direct action of Parliament at all. With the; action of Parliament in ;such ways as the situation? calls? for, it may be taken for granted Ithat the brewing business stands to lose.

seriously. This- »- inevitable, and without the least reference to person animus iin the matter, The chairmanonthe opcassion, Mr Francis P. Mfhifhread, was ready to express I his gratitude

to the Prime Minister for even so small a crumb i*)f -comfort as the admission that “ there were two sides to every—question.” Viewing what he evidently

realised, was a critical situation, Mr Whitbread • said - he was* reluctant to 'believe that “ such men as Sir Henry Campbell--

Bannerman, Sir Edward Grey, and the other members of the Cabinet would rob • the trade Peter to pay Temperance Paul. ” But it is a thoroughly unwarranted assumption that there is any robbery contemplated oT x intended to be carried out.

What the chairman meant could be put in another, way—that is, instead of wLat he would call robbery,* the matter in question is purely one of deferred fair play to the commuuity, Mr Whitbread’s m ode of allusion to the expected action of' the Government is but an attempt

to prejudice the case* in their favour in the minds of uuthiuking people.- And if “ Temperance Paul” is to be paid for his electoral support, to speak plainly, at all events he honestly

represents the proper citizenship of a commuuity, and not a mere monupoly, as:was the; case when the late Government legislated for the brewers. That was a

case, to turn the tables of “ robbing community Peter to pay. trade Paul ”! Mr Whit- • bread, of course,, urged that there was no cause-for drastic leg!-

lation in connection with his trade, and threatened that if struck “ unnecessarily,” they would hit back—the truth of.

which observation is. too well known, whether it be in regard either to a tap or a blow. But come what may, as the Prime Minister last week hinted to tbe u licensed victuallers ’ ” deputation, the interests of the ' community . will have to be paramount, and, as in other connections, somebody is consequently likely to be inconve.nienced or disappointed. Mr B. A. Cripps, K,C., the

great Ecclesiastical lawyer, who was almost ignominously rejected. by Stretford (Lane.) divison at the General Election, apparently tried to throw oil on •

the troubled waters of the brwer—for even they canuot escape some connection with water. He trusted he said.

1 ‘ that-' any future legislation o l the licensing question would be on broad, fair lines, with no sacrifice of individual interests to what was cailed'public duty.” It might be said-vas- a sefroff to this pious wish of Mr Cripps, that there is no proposal before the country to sacrifice individual interests and that whatever is to be done in the name

of “public duty,” which is beyond question, very pressing in regard to anti-liquor legisla”

tion, will not be hampered by any undue encroachment cn properly, founded individual rights and interests. t

\To be Continued.)