w,'** '■*?: " ■ 
 
 .f;t':>'^ 
 
 ':^ 
 
 n 
 
 
 a^ m 
 
 ''%^-^ 
 
 \r' mi*^-
 
 / 
 
 THE 
 
 LICENSING AUTHORITY. 
 
 BY 
 
 G. W. HASTINGS, ESQ., M.P. 
 
 WITH FACTS IN REGARD TO 
 
 CANADIAN LICENSING LEGISLATION. 
 
 LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, & CO. 
 MANCHESTER: A. IRELAND & CO. 
 UNITED KINGDOM ALLIANCE, 44, JOHN DALTON STREET. 
 
 1882.
 
 THE LICENSING AUTHORITY: 
 
 An Address delivered as Chairman of a Local Option Con- 
 ference for Birmingham, and the Counties of Warwick, 
 Worcester, Stafford, and Salop, held in the large Theatre of 
 the Midland Institute, Birmingham, on February 2nd, 
 1882, by G. W. Hastings, Esq., M.P. 
 
 The Chairman said : Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you will 
 permit me at this early stage of the proceedings to say a few 
 words, not perhaps so much upon the general object of the meeting 
 as upon the reasons which have induced me to accede to the 
 flattering request that was made to me to take the chair to-day, 
 and as to the opinions I entertain upon some portions of the vast 
 question that lies before you. (Applause.) There are two very 
 good reasons why I should be ready, at any time and in any place, 
 but most of all in a place bordering the county which I have the 
 honour to represent in Parliament, to take part in a meeting on 
 the licensing question. The first of those reasons is that it has 
 been my lot now for a good many years to exercise judicial functions 
 in the county of Worcester. That I have done now for years, not 
 only as the chairman of my own division of the county, and there- 
 fore primarily responsible in that division for the mode in which 
 the licensing laws are carried into effect, but also as one of the 
 chairmen of Quarter Sessions, which, as I grieve to say, quarter 
 after quarter have to deal with a large amount of indictable crime 
 committed within the borders of the count}^ I have been com- 
 pelled to feel during those years that the miserable habits of 
 intemperance indulged in by so many in this country are not only 
 one of the most fertile sources — for I am convinced that that would
 
 be an inadequate expression — but the most fertile source of crime 
 throughout the country. (Applause.) It has fallen to my lot both 
 as chairman, as I have already said, in my own division, and also 
 not infrequently as chairman of the County Licensing Committee, 
 to be compelled to take into consideration the question whether 
 any further facilities should be given for indulgence in habits pro- 
 ductive of so much crime and social misery. I am very glad to 
 say that, so far as my own division is concerned, I have never yet 
 put my name to any new licence — (loud applause) ; — and I believe 
 those justices of the county who have now, for not a few years, 
 acted with me on the County Licensing Committee are well aware 
 that my voice — I don't say more strongly than theirs, because it 
 could not be stronger than that of the majority of the justices who 
 sit upon that committee — has always been raised against any 
 further extension of the facilities for providing intoxicating drinks 
 for the people. (Cheers.) For that reason alone, and if I only 
 occupied that position, I should have felt it my duty to accede to 
 the request made to me to take the chair at this conference to-day. 
 But there is another still more cogent reason that weighs upon 
 my mind. No man, I think, ought ever to take any public step 
 unless he is willing to join in carrying out his vote or action to its 
 legitimate conclusion. (Hear, hear.) In the session of Parliament 
 of 1880 I voted for the motion made by Sir Wilfrid Lawson — 
 (applause) — in favour of giving a Local Option to all localities in 
 the country upon this question; and when it was moved in the 
 House of Commons in the session of 1881 that legislative action 
 ought to be taken upon the resolution which had been passed in 
 1880, I again voted for that motion. Now I will venture to say 
 of myself, if you will permit me to do so, that, whatever my many 
 other shortcomings may be, I would never give a vote in Parlia- 
 ment for any measure upon merely abstract grounds. I would 
 never vote for any bare principle unless I believed that it was 
 right and expedient to carry that principle into action. (Applause.) 
 And having voted in the first place that it was desirable that the 
 power of Local Option should be given to the inhabitants of the 
 various localities and districts, urban or rural, in this England of 
 ours, and having further voted that it was desirable to give legis- 
 lative action to that principle, I felt doubly bound to come here 

 
 to-day to state what my opinions are upon the measure — to state 
 that I for one neither regret the vote that I gave, nor mean to 
 hold back my hand from carrying that vote into practical opera- 
 tion. (Applause.) Now, ladies and gentlemen, you all know — 
 for every person in England knows, and never knew better than 
 at the present time — that there is vast opposition made to every 
 great social change, or any great legislative change that is pro- 
 posed in Parliament, and we must necessarily expect that there 
 will be a stout opposition to carrying that resolution of the House 
 into practical force. One of the objections undoubtedly will be 
 this : that it is a novel principle to entrust to the hands of the 
 people any control over the licensing laws. In one sense of the 
 word that is true : in another and a broader sense of the word it 
 is not true. A statesman who — whatever opinions may be enter- 
 tained, and they are very diverse and keen, upon his policy — at 
 any rate had the great merit of being able thoroughly to under- 
 stand and accurately to gauge the drift of popular opinion in this 
 country — I mean the late Lord Beaconsfield— said in the House of 
 Commons more than a quarter of a century ago thaji the whole 
 current of modern legislation in England sets in favour of a return 
 to our ancient Saxon institutions. (Hear, hear.) There was nothing 
 in my opinion ever said that was more true. Our judicial pro- 
 ceedings have come back, through our county courts, to the ancient 
 Saxon custom, and I am much mistaken if more than a very few 
 years pass, perhaps not more than one year wdll pass, before the 
 old Saxon institution, which gave to the inhabitants of a county 
 the power, even in a democratic form, of moulding their own legis- 
 lation and carrying out their own administration, is not restored 
 to the people. (Applause.) In the same way, and on the same 
 principle, it would only be a genuine return to our old Saxon 
 institutions which placed everything in the hands of the people, 
 which trusted the people in all respects, and believed that the 
 people, with whatever mishaps and it may be errors .upon the 
 road, would ultimately, in every phase of their social policy, 
 arrive at what was best for themselves — if the same trust was 
 placed in them in regard to the licensing laws of the country. 
 (Applause.) Well, now, you may very naturally ask me why 
 it is that, having been myself for many years entrusted with
 
 the administration of the licensing laws, I for one can wish 
 any change in the system. I will answer that question fairly 
 and frankly. I do not know a-nd I cannot know in what way 
 the licensing laws are carried out throughout the kingdom 
 generally — that is, I cannot know with any accuracy, but I do 
 know with entire accuracy how they are carried out in my own 
 county, and certainly it is not because I think they have been 
 mal-administered, not because I think they have been even weakly 
 administered in the county of Worcester that I desire to see any 
 change in the system. On the contrary, I firmly believe that no 
 authority in whose hands the licensing system could be placed 
 would at the present time carry it out with more integrity and 
 more ability, with a more earnest desire to effect the good of those 
 around them, than it is now carried out by the magistracy of the 
 county of Worcester. That is my own honest belief, based on a 
 considerable experience and extensive knowledge. But what I 
 have felt for a long time, and what I say now is this, that it is 
 not enough for men that they should have ability and integrity 
 and a desire or even resolve to do all that is right in the dis- 
 charge of their functions. It often happens that with all these 
 excellent qualifications they, to some extent, fail, because they 
 have not behind them that popular support which is absolutely 
 necessary in carrying out many branches of public work. And 
 that is just what I feel, and have felt for years with regard to our 
 licensing system. (Hear, hear.) My friend here who sits at my 
 right — my old and highly- valued friend Mr. Stein thai, of 
 Manchester — knows well that at a meeting of the Social Science 
 Association that was held at Manchester in 1879, that is two 
 years and nearly a half ago, and before I entered the House 
 of Commons, and therefore before I had committed myself to 
 any parliamentary pledges on the subject, I expressed publicly 
 from the chair of one of the sections of that association my 
 opinion, very much on the same grounds as I have just stated, 
 that the time had arrived when the licensing authority ought to 
 be transferred from the hands of the magistrates to the hands of 
 some body or other elected by the ratepayers. (Applause.) I do 
 not need to illustrate what I have said on the matter by what 
 is perhaps a minor detail though an important one in the
 
 administration of the licensing laws. The County Licensing 
 Committee, which as you know is a different body, and 
 possesses different functions from the magistracy in petty 
 sessions— a committee, I may say, that was originally brought 
 into existence owing to a recommendation by the Council 
 of the Social Science Association, a recommendation conveyed 
 by myself at the time to Mr. Secretary Bruce when he had 
 his Licensing Bill in preparation — that county committee possesses 
 amongst others this power : that is the power and the duty of 
 declaring what districts in the county are of dense population, 
 which carries with it the result of determining whether or not the 
 licensed houses in any district may be open for an hour longer at 
 night. We have had numerous applications from different parts 
 of the county to declare that certain districts possess density 
 of population. Some of these applications we have granted ; many 
 more, I think, we have refused. But T have always felt, in deciding 
 that question — and I have frequently sat in the chair of the County 
 Licensing Committee to decide it authoritatively — that I was in 
 this great difficulty : there is no accurate test of wkat density of 
 population means. The Act of Parliament has left us to form our 
 own opinion upon the question : " What is density of population ?" 
 Some people might say that it is only where a large and long 
 network of streets crowd together many thousands of population ; 
 others say — and I have heard them say — that it means every 
 place which has not strictly a rural character; and between those 
 two extremes it is probable that there are many different and 
 varied opinions. Now, the real question that ought to be put on 
 this matter, the real test of the need for keeping houses open an 
 hour longer than they are kept open in other places, is this : 
 whether it is desired by the population of the district. (Applause.) 
 But upon that point we (the County Licensing Committee) have 
 very imperfect means of forming any conclusion. It is true we 
 get memorials upon one side and upon the other, but generally 
 speaking they afford an exceedingly imperfect test of what the 
 real opinion of the population of the district may be. Now I 
 merely give that to you as an illustration, as only one illustration 
 out of several that I could give of what the weakness of the 
 magistracy in the present licensing system is. It is not a weak-
 
 8 
 
 ness of their own ; it is a weakness that necessarily attaches to 
 the administration of the licensing laws in their present form. It 
 is that they are not able to arrive at any accurate opinion of what, 
 as I say, is the real need and real test in the matter, and they have 
 not at their backs that popular judgment which would enable them 
 to say without hesitation and with moral force "thus" and "thus" 
 the people of the locality who are the real judges hold as their 
 opinion upon this question. (Loud applause.) That is speaking 
 broadly the ground upon which I have long held and hold now 
 that our licensing laws, or rather the authority over our licensing 
 laws, ought to be administered by a body which has been chosen 
 by the people at large, which therefore knows what the wants and 
 views of the people at large are, and which will carry their wishes, 
 as all elected bodies must necessarily do, into effect. (Applause.) 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, supposing that we arrive at that con- 
 clusion on this portion — and I told you that I was only going to 
 speak on one portion — of the great question before us — supposing 
 we arrive at the conclusion that the local authority in licensing 
 matters ought to be an elective body, there then, no doubt, comes 
 a very difficult question — the question in what way and on what 
 principle that elected body ought to be constituted ? I quite 
 admit that Parliament has a difficult programme before it when it 
 approaches the subject, and I will tell you that the common talk 
 in the House of Commons at the time when these Local Option 
 resolutions have been before it has been much to this effect : 
 "This is all very well, and we don't disapprove of the principle, 
 but it is quite impracticable ; there is no way of carrying it out." 
 I should be sorry, indeed, if this conference were held here to-day 
 and its proceedings or anything that fell from the lips of your 
 chairman were to give an impression to the public at large that it 
 is impracticable to carry out that measure, or that we are not 
 prepared to point out — not as to minute details, but at any rate 
 on some broad plan — how it could be carried out. I, for one, am 
 prepared to say — not at all asking you to agree with me, for I 
 quite believe that there may be many opinions upon a complex 
 question of this nature which may be most worthy of considera- 
 tion, but I simply give it to you as my opinion as to what the best 
 mode would be in constituting the elective authority of the kind
 
 to which I have alluded. Now, there is one principle on which I 
 should go if I had charge of any legislative measure on the matter, 
 and to which I should resolutely adhere, and that is, that I should 
 not hand over the licensing authority to any existing body or to 
 any elected body which was charged with other administrative 
 functions. (Loud applause.) I will tell you why I think so. It 
 is not that existing bodies of whatever nature and with whatever 
 functions they may have been trusted would do other than 
 approach the licensing question with ability and with integrity, 
 and with the same desire to promote the good of the people as I 
 believe the present licensing authority — the magistrates — have at 
 heart. It is not that, but it is, I think, that the addition of a 
 licensing authority to the functions either of existing bodies, such 
 as town councils for instance — or such as county councils if they are 
 called into existence — would materially interfere with the exercise 
 of their ordinary powers. I think so for this reason — a public 
 body, an elected body, is not only responsible to the people, but it 
 must necessarily, from the very nature of its constitution, desire 
 above all things to carry out what its constituent^ tell it to do. 
 Now if you had, we will say, a town council elected on the question 
 of licensing, I fear that one of two things would happen with 
 regard to its composition. Either it would be composed of persons 
 who did not care so much about the licensing question as they 
 would do about the other many important duties which a town 
 council has to carry out, in which case the licensing question 
 would run some risk' of being neglected ; or on the other hand it 
 would be composed of persons who had been elected chiefly, or 
 perhaps in many cases solely, on the ground of their opinions on 
 the licensing question, and then, however excellent they might be 
 in that respect, they might not be the proper men — they might 
 not be experienced or well-qualified men — to carry out their other 
 duties. The licensing question, as you well know, as your atten- 
 dance in this theatre to-day proves, is one that engrosses great 
 attention, and is the subject of very zealous opinion ; and my 
 belief is this, that any local body entrusted with the power, and 
 elected for the purpose, of carrying out the views of the rate- 
 payers upon that question, should be one elected for that purpose 
 only, and pledged to discbarge the duty according to the desire of
 
 10 
 
 its constituents, whatever that desire may be, I not only expect, 
 but I feel quite sure, that elected licensinf^ bodies would represent 
 in different parts of the country very different views, and they 
 would carry out the laws in a very various manner, and so far 
 from thinking that an evil I believe it would be a good. (Hear, 
 hear.) I believe that, like every other exercise of the popular 
 will, ib would have a powerful effect in educating the whole body 
 of the people on this question. Men would have to think and to 
 reason and to work out their views upon the subject in a way, 
 with regard to a large portion of the population, they had never 
 done before, and will never do until it is brought home to them 
 by having to vote upon it. I have no doubt that as time went 
 on, and the different plans and different modes of administration 
 carried out by the various licensing bodies were brought into opera- 
 tion and formed the result of a common experience, that gradually 
 and slowly, but therefore surely, the opinion of the country would 
 srravitate more and more towards the views that have been enter- 
 tained at first by a small section of the people, now by a much larger 
 and more powerful section, in favour of restriction. (Applause.) 
 There is only one word more that I desire to say with respect to the 
 formation of any new licensing bodies. I hope that whatever is 
 done they will be constituted on wide areas. (Hear, hear.) I 
 have had considerable experience in local administration, and 
 year by year I have more and more come to the conclusion that 
 the wider the area of election the more independent and, generally 
 speaking, the more wise is the body elected. ' (Applause.) Small 
 areas, like some small inland lakes, are subject to violent gusts of 
 opinion — they are swept hither and thither, very often in opposite 
 directions from time to time, as every eddy of thought happens to 
 strike them — (applause) — but larger areas have a diversity of 
 interest and opinion which usually keeps them pretty steady, and, 
 I believe, that if you take for instance the county of Worcester, of 
 which I naturally speak, knowing it so well — no area less than 
 that of the county ought to be taken for the formation of an 
 elected licensing board. I believe that, if the inhabitants of that 
 county, if the ratepayers at large had the power a^d the oppor- 
 tunity of electing a board for the purpose of exercising the 
 authority under the licensing laws, men of sound judgment, and
 
 11 
 
 of influence, and of high character would be sure to be placed 
 upon it. They would have at their back the voice of the people ; 
 they would feel the full responsibility of the power with which the 
 people had invested thena ; and I am mistaken indeed if the 
 results arrived at and the policy followed by that board did not 
 commend themselves in the long run to the support of all the 
 thinking men in the county. Ladies and gentlemen, I have 
 taken the liberty of detaining you at the opening of the proceed- 
 ings — (^applause) — with my opinions upon some few matters. I 
 am very glad to meet you here to-day ; I feel sure that your 
 deliberations, inspired, as they are, with the sole object of the good 
 of the people — (hear, hear) — will be marked by courtesy to all, by 
 foresight, by sagacity. As chairman, it will be my duty, after 
 putting each resolution or amendment in succession from the chair, 
 and having obtained your vote upon it, to communicate the con- 
 clusions you have arrived at to any authorities whom you may select. 
 I shall do so — whether I do or do not agree altogether with every 
 resolution that may be passed — with the utmost fidelity, and you 
 may rely upon this, that while I necessarily hold myself unpledged 
 in my parliamentary action by any resolutions that may be passed 
 to-day, I, for one, as a representative of the people in Parliament, 
 will always take care to give my vote, and, if necessary, to raise 
 my voice in furtherance of what I believe to be one of the greatest 
 social improvements that could be carried out, I mean such a 
 reform in the present licensing system as may at least largely 
 diminish the vast and terrible evils of intemperance. (Loud 
 and prolonged applause.) 
 
 Mr, J. H. Raper said he was sure they all desired to express 
 to the chairman their warmest gratitude for the free exposition of 
 his views upon this very important question. (Hear, hear.) 
 Their object was to come to some agreement upon some things^ 
 and to send to the Cabinet as much information as they could give 
 them in reference to the construction of their coming measure. 
 What did they as representatives of the executive of the organisa- 
 tion recommend ? As far as the general construction of the bill 
 for the regulation of the licensing system was concerned, they 
 could give them very little light. The United Kingdom Alliance, 
 and that included Scotland, were able to speak upon some definite
 
 12 
 
 point. Scotland had a licensing system much in advance of Eng- 
 land. On the 14th of June forty-three Scotch members voted and 
 paired with Sir Wilfrid Lawson, and only five against him. That 
 extraordinary vote had arrested the attention of every man 
 thinking on the subject. How was it that Scotland was so unani- 
 mous as that ? Scotland had got Sunday closing. (Hear, hear.) 
 There were temperance men who said to them : " Let us be content 
 by getting a Sunday Closing Bill for England." They took that 
 as good as settled. Public opinion was ripening fast on that point, 
 and the Government that would not give them that would not 
 satisfy them. Surely England was not going to be left out long, 
 after Ireland, Scotland, and Wales had been dealt with. But they 
 took a more comprehensive view of the question than that of 
 Sunday closing, Scotland had not the Beer Act and other develop- 
 ments affecting England, and in considering the proposal which 
 had been made that the licensing power should be conferred upon 
 town councils, Scotland could give some evidence upon that subject. 
 The licensing system over the larger portion of Scotland had been 
 conferred practically upon town councils. The burghs of Scotland 
 and large towns were under corporate arrangements the same as 
 England. In all these cases the men who act as magistrates were 
 the bailies who are first elected by ratepayers into the councils, 
 and there they are elected by the councils as a committee of 
 magistrates, if they would allow the phrase. In some towns there 
 were four, some six, some eight, and up to twelve, as in Glasgow. 
 The bailies were the Town Council Committee for magisterial 
 purposes, and one of their functions was the granting of licences. 
 The chairman should mark that, as strengthening his position. 
 He (the chairman) had made a good case against mixing up 
 licensing authority with administrative work. It must not be said 
 that they were irresponsible men, because they came from the 
 people and had to go back to the people for all their power, and 
 the people had power to reflect public opinion in that way. Did 
 not the people of Scotland show that they wanted something more 
 than their present law provided when they sent forty-three votes 
 into the lobby with Sir Wilfrid Lawson, while only five went into 
 the opposite lobby ? That fact alone would be sufficient to make 
 them cautious against mixing up licences with Town Councils.
 
 13 
 
 Some Scotch people were agitating for licensing boards. They (the 
 Alliance) could say nothing on that subject with authority. All 
 they said was — "Whatever you do in the way of changing the 
 licensing authority or retaining it where it is, there is one thing you 
 can do, and that is, give to the people a direct popular veto upon 
 the traffic, whether allowed by Crown-appointed magistrates, Town 
 Councils, or licensing boards, or any other authority." (Applause.) 
 The Alliance were not licensing reformers, and were not able to 
 give special information upon the subject. If asked outside the 
 platform or outside the Executive Committee of the Alliance what 
 his views were on that subject, he should say that he had been to 
 Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, and Switzerland, and had looked 
 at the licensing systems in the United States, and had travelled 
 from Maine to California leisurely, and had examined their plans. 
 Further, for like purposes he had been to Canada, and if placed 
 in the witness box he should say they needed not to , look to 
 the continent of Europe, nor to the United States for light, but 
 they should look to Canada, where they would find the most 
 advanced legislation bearing upon the sale of intoxicating liquor. 
 He said thaf very carefully, in view of legislation, and in view of 
 the popular direct veto. With Maine in New England and Kansas 
 in the West, the United states still stood first for prohibition, but 
 when they came to talk about legislation including a popular 
 direct veto, he said that Canada was the place to obtain the 
 most light. As to prohibition, Kansas had clearly gone ahead 
 of all. It had excelled even Maine, because after a vote of 
 the Legislature the people had endorsed it, that henceforth 
 it should be unconstitutional to licence anybody to sell intoxi- 
 cating drinks as beverages. Therefore their goal was Kansas; 
 on the way they called at Maine, and saw something grand there ; 
 and further and nearer their own home they found Canada, as 
 it stood at the present moment under the British flag. What did 
 he find there? He found that all the principles that they were 
 anxious about — the principle of Local Option, the principle of 
 the Permissive Prohibitory Liquor Bill, the principle of the direct 
 popular veto — had all been embodied in Canadian legislation 
 within the last few years. Canada was fifty times as large as 
 their own country, and was made up of provinces or states the
 
 u 
 
 same as the United States ; and they had a Federal Government 
 being carried out in an efficient way. They had seven provinces, 
 each having its own Legislature and laws, including licensing laws. 
 They were greatly affected by our legislation in England; every 
 step we took forward affected Canada. Speeches made in our 
 Parliament which were comparatively useless here were often 
 useful there. The vis inertice of the old country did not affect 
 them. In 1876 the Ontario Legislature abolished the system of 
 licensing by Town Councils. The system had corrupted the 
 Town Councils to such an extent that they were glad to get 
 away from it. Did they take the licensing over to licensiug 
 boards ? No, they conferred the duty upon Crown-appointed 
 commissioners, with no other duty than that of licensing. There 
 were three for each district. What powers had they? Simply 
 the power to discriminate the right men to sell the liquor. Any 
 discretion as to number? No. Who fixed the number? The 
 Provincial Parliament at Ontario. The maximum was four for 
 the first thousand and one for every four hundred of the popula- 
 tion, men, women, and children, above the first thousand. If 
 there were eleven thousand, that would give twent^-uine liquor 
 shops. He would show how Local Option came in. The Town 
 Council were empowered to reduce that number, but not to increase 
 it. It might reduce to any extent. (Applause.) Public opinion 
 registered itself through the Town Council, its members being 
 elected periodically. The Town Council also had the power to 
 raise the price of the licences, thus in reducing numbers and 
 increasing price making it " difficult to do wrong." (Laughter.) 
 They could raise the price up to two hundred dollars. If they go 
 above that, they must revert to the authority by whom they were 
 empowered, and take a popular vote as to how much higher they 
 could go. There was then the power of limiting by high prices, 
 and also by diminishing the number, most effectively provided 
 in the statute. They had a motive for increasing the price, 
 for the money came to them. For what purpose ? To execute 
 the law, and nothing else. They had to appoint inspectors, who 
 were paid out of the funds, to see that the law was executed. 
 He had no hesitation in saying that Ontario supplied for the 
 British nation the best example that could be given for restrictive
 
 15 
 
 legislation. But even that would not be satisfactory to the 
 Alliance as a body. In addition to all these provisions, however, 
 there was an act on the statute book of the Dominion of Canada, 
 which was upon the principle of Sir Wilfrid Lawson's permissive 
 prohibitory liquor bill. It gives electors power by memorial, to 
 be signed by at least one-fourth of the electors capable of voting, 
 to ask the authorities to take the opinion of the entire body 
 whether there should be any licensed houses or none. If the 
 Town Council were inert and sluggish, the people could set to 
 work themselves. This was the popular direct veto, and that they 
 (the Alliance) desired as the complement of any new legislation 
 on the subject in this country. He did not say that as an 
 organisation they endorsed even Canadian licensing legislation. 
 The direct popular veto which covers all the provinces was passed 
 at Ottawa in 1878, and that was an act which was clearly in the 
 right direction, and it commanded their approval. Licensing 
 legislation was surrounded by difficulties. Only the popular veto 
 was clear. The other day he received a letter from one of the 
 best workers they had in the three kingdoms, and he declared 
 that if the United Kingdom Alliance endorsed any licensing 
 scheme or took any part or lot in introducing a licensing bill he 
 would at once renounce his connection with them, and denounce 
 the Alliance as a dishonest organisation. It was clear that their 
 work was to point the way of most easily obtaining complete free- 
 dom from licensing altogether. For that purpose they existed, 
 and they must keep their eyes fixed on that object. The present 
 chairman, who was also Chairman of Quarter Sessions, did not 
 wish to say anything against magistrates. He was one himself, 
 and an influential one too, but had put the matter so clearly as to 
 show that he was anxious that that terrible responsibility of 
 granting licences should be removed and given to those who could 
 secure the fullest consensus of the opinion of the people. He was 
 understood to express an opinion with regard to county licensing 
 boards, and to recommend county areas for licensing purposes. 
 Upon that point he might say that Mr. Joseph Cowen, one of the 
 vice-presidents of the United Kingdom Alliance, had introduced 
 a Licensing Boards Bill in the House of Commons, and when he 
 came to fix an area he found a difficulty existed. He was anxious
 
 16 
 
 to legislate in the direction of the Alliance as fully as possible, as 
 well as to give a reflection of public opinion, falling vastly short of 
 total prohibition ; but he found the area was a difficult question. 
 In the smallest parish in this country, if the parishioners objected 
 to the liquor traffic being in their midst, they should have the 
 power of removing it. There was an Act of Parliament ten years 
 old, an important one for towns seeking public improvements. It 
 was the Borough Funds Act. It gave to every community through 
 the ratepayers the power of a direct popular veto upon Improve- 
 ment bills being applied for. Any bill wanted — to buy gas- 
 works, make streets, or remove liquor shops, as they had done in 
 Birmingham — could not be obtained without going to London. 
 The genius of recent legislation was going back to the old Saxon 
 form of Government, when the people voted directly for and 
 against things. At the present time they found that Act on the 
 Statute-book, passed by a Liberal Government, and endorsed by a 
 Conservative Government, empowering them to give a veto on the 
 question as to whether they should have pure water or not, and 
 other questions. At a town's meeting for and against a proposed 
 Improvement Bill, two men could demand a poll, and then the 
 whole of Birmingham would have to say yes or no to that Improve- 
 ment Bill. They had not far to go for machinery to enable them 
 to say yes or no for whisky as well as for water. Manchester and 
 Liverpool had said yes or no for water. That was a plebiscite of 
 the whole community. Government would have little work to do 
 to find an Act to enable the people to say yes or no to the question 
 as to whether they wanted liquor shops in their parish. The 
 question of the majority necessary had been discussed, but it was 
 a simple majority in the Borough Funds Act, and the conviction 
 increased that under no circumstances should a minority force 
 liquor shops on a majority. They were therefore moving on 
 towards a simple majority in the exercise of the popular veto. 
 Thus, with a popular veto in force such as was provided by the 
 Borough Funds Act and the Acts to which it referred, the opinion 
 of a parish could be obtained, and, acting on the decision against 
 continuing the traffic in their midst, the licensing authority, how- 
 ever constituted, would simply be instructed not to renew the 
 licences which would run out at the end of the year for which
 
 17 
 
 they had been granted. He knew that some people said that was 
 not practicable legislation, but public-houses were only licensed 
 for twelve months. If the Bench — at Worcester, for instance — 
 refused every licence, there was no power to make them alter 
 their decision. Quarter sessions could overrule it, but if they 
 endorsed it there was no power in the Act to enable them to go 
 further. They might go to the Queen's Bench ; but, if sensible, 
 they would support the local people. There is no recognition of 
 claim in respect to a licensed house beyond twelve months. When 
 in any parish it was wished to terminate the licence they con- 
 tended most earnestly that it should be given effect to in law. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 The Chairman: I think Mr. Raper has in one respect mis- 
 understood me. What I said to-day was what has been for a very 
 long time my opinion. It happens — I believe I am right in saying 
 so — that at the Conference which he mentions in 1866 under the 
 chairmanship of Sir James Shuttleworth, the resolution to which 
 he alludes was carried by a majority after a discussion in which a 
 good deal of difference of opinion seemed to exist. I voted for the 
 resolution 
 
 Mr. Raper : I said so. 
 
 The Chairman : But more than that, I think he will find that 
 in the year 1869, when I had the honour of being President of 
 the Jurisprudence Department of the Social Science Association 
 at its meeting at Bristol, I devoted a considerable portion of 
 my address to this question, and iJthere went strongly for the 
 power, in any parish or any other locality, to put an end, if it 
 thought fit to do so, to this trade altogether. (Applause.) What 
 I said then was this, and I say it now, that inasmuch as the 
 report of Convocation on the subject of intemperance showed 
 that there were upwards of 1,000 parishes in England in which 
 the landowners would not permit any public-house within the 
 limits of the parish, they owning the whole of it, I thought that 
 in parishes where the people were not entirely in the hands of a 
 single landowner they ought to have an equal power of saying, if 
 they thought fit to do so, that there should be no public-house 
 within the parish. (Applause.) In other words, for at least fifteen or 
 sixteen years I have been in favour of Local Option in the shape
 
 18 
 
 of a local veto. The question with which I was dealing in the 
 commencement of the proceedings was a somewhat wider ques- 
 tion, for I venture to affirm that no one in this room believes, nor 
 do the public at large believe, that all the parishes of England, 
 or nearly all, would exercise that power of veto if they had it 
 to-morrow, and it is therefore quite clear that there should be 
 some licensing authority and power of regulation whatever power 
 of local veto you might give. It was with reference to the 
 constitution of the body for exercising that authority that I 
 was speaking. I was glad indeed to hear Mr. Kaper describe 
 so interestingly to-day the state of things in Canada. When I 
 was there I looked a little into the matter, and I can fully 
 corroborate all that he said, and I can only wish that we 
 had some such system, and that side by side with the 
 administration of the law there should be the power of a popular 
 veto. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 A. IRELAND AND CO., PRINTERS, PALL MALL, MANCHESTER*
 
 K*^- ;i^ 
 
 f