THE PROHIBITIONIST.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3852, 8 July 1891, Page 2

THE PROHIBITIONIST.

Published by the courtesy of the Editor of Wairarapa Dai' y under the auspices of the New Zealand Alliance for the prohibitim of the liquor traffic, Masterton Auxiliary.

When ratepayers demand the entire extinction of all places for the sale of liquorsiheir prayer should be granted. — Charles Buxton, Brewer.

[Communications tor this column must be addressed to " The Prohibitionist," care of Editor of 'yVairarapa Daiia-I

During the month of March in England two events took place which Prohibitionists look upon as victories in their favour. The one event was the decision of the House of Lords in the cnse of dharp v. Wakefield ; the other the decision of the House of Commons on the Welsh Drink Veto Bill. The first of these events furnishes an interesting commentary and refutation of the Hon. John Ballance's opinions that "it was recognised as necessary to compensate the publican when his license was refused." The story of this case is worthy of being told as it may yet be looked upon in the Sedan of drinkdom. The scene of this case was the village of Kentmere lin Westmoreland. In September, 1577, the Bench refused to renew the license of the Low Bridge Inn. Ther was no charge of misconduct against the landlord. The Bench refused the license on the ground that it was not required in the district. Then began a long legal war. An appeal was made to the Quarter Sessions, which on 21st October, 1877, confirmed the decision of the local bench. The Victuallers Association saw the danger of this decision. It really put the sword of prohibition without compensation in the hands of the Bench. And so once more they sought help from the lawyers and appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench. But this led lo another defeat to the drink traffic. In April, 1888, the appeal was dismissed with costs. Wisdom and prudence might have led the publicans to fight no more. But they cast their virtues to (he wind and once more appealed. They went forward to the Court of Appeal, where the case was heard by the Master of Roils and Justice Fry, and Justice Lopes. Again the appeal was dismissed, and a crushing bill of eosls had to be paid by tlu publicans. The fighting power of the publicans, however, was not yet exhausted. They resolved to appeal to the House of Lords. This meant an enormous outlay of money, but the money was forthcoming. After a further delay of two years the House of Lords, sitting as n Law Court, gave its decision. The decision given on March 20 th was oue terrible to liquordom. Five Lords gave separate judgments and all agreed that the appeal must be dismissed with costs. The English publicans, after expen* . ding thousands of pounds, have learned the stern truth that they have no legal claims to a renewal of license, [ and that the license can be refused [ without compensation. The truth t taught by this case is exactly the l opposite of the Hon John Ballance's I views. The license of a house wellconducted may be refused without compensation.

The judgment ot tlie five law Lord 3 in ibis case marks ail epoch in the Prohibition agitation in England. If one license may be refused on the ground that it is not required without compensation to the publican, then many licenses or all licenses may be refusid in the same way. Tins judgment proves that the publican has no vested interest in his license when the time for which it was granted expires. This judgment has made very clear that a renewal of a license is simply a new license. The Lord Chancellor said that at no point of the argument had he any doubt that the appeal of the publicaus must be dismissed. He said that the English law was clear in giving the same power to the Bench to deal with renewals as with applications for a first time. The same power was giyeu them to refuse a renewal as well as a now amplication. Lord Bramwell, the well-known anti-teetotal advocate, in his judgment was a verit« able Job'p comforter to the publicans. He said:—"Tho word renewal has been criticised. It may be misleading, but is, I thiuk, correct. It is a " renewal " i.e., a new license, as we talk of a new lease being a renewal, though parties and terms may be wholly different. And we cannot help seeing this, chat if the discretion was to be limited, as contended, in the case of a renewal, the Legislature might have said so in terms and has not." He lays down the law that the Bench has the same power to refuse a renewal as well as a fresh application. Lord Herschell and Lord Hannen expounded the law in the same way. There was "reat joy in the tents of the Prohibitionists when this judgment was made public. The liquor traific at an enormous expenditure of money had procured a final legal opinion which will be used as a sword of execution by Temperance Reformers.

The English Press at once recognised the immense importance of this final decision of law. The Tall Mall Gazette said:—"This decision is a serious blow to the brewing interest, and clears a\ray at a stroke the chief obstacle in the path of Temperance Reform. All talk of " compensation " in the sense of redress for the abolition of a legal right is now absurd." The £/><!«£<?/•, in an av'.icle on " Bung in Extremis " said : "To the friends of Temperance it is encouraging to note the mood in which the decision in Sharp v Wakefield is received by the liquor press —net the imbecile part of it which believes that all will yet be as it once was, and the "trade" saved if only Government would say that no spirits under three . ":, ' -kiiilr? be sold —but ■"« in bonu 0..... y , e ""~ !.• 1 that which expre*»«. 1 the sagacious leaders of the license victuaUers. They speak almost with terror of the effects of the proclamation of a doctrine which they have always combated. The publican is in cxtiemis, and he knows it. There is a liquor trade literature and a liquor trade oratory. Once it was bold and haughty, prompt to show that the cause of beer was one with all the high, venerable interests of the country and that religion itself was not safe if the blaspheming abstainer were not kept down. That loud literature and full fed oratory have of late become much chastened. The publican now

pleads extenuating circumstances. He is tryiug to make terms, and from the tone of the trade comments on Sharp v Wakefield it is plain that he despairs of >:he support of his former friends. He well knows that when the Liberal party returns to power it will find the path of social reiorms cleared and widened by this decision. What can the publican say for himself when ho can no longer speak of vested interests ?"