^^J^ 
 
 -.-.x 
 
 ."r." 
 
 
 
 
 
 -3<f>- 
 
 J!??'' 
 
 •/tf ■ ' ^A '.,<
 
 ^6 
 
 With Mr. BalfotLvs compliments 
 
 WHAT EEFORMS ARE DESIRABLE 
 IN THE LICENSING LAWS? 
 
 A PAPER 
 
 BEAD AT 
 
 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE CONGRESS AT NOTTINGHAM 
 
 SEFr. 1882 
 
 BY 
 
 ALEXANDER BALFOUR 
 
 SECOND EDITIUS 
 
 printfb bj) 
 SPOTTISWOO.de & CO., NE^Y-STREET SQUARE, LONDON 
 
 1883
 
 PBEFACB 
 
 TO 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 I HAVE been asked to furnish further copies of my paper read 
 before the Social Science Congress at Nottingham, and in 
 issuing another edition I desire to draw attention to the im- 
 portant discussion of principles which has occurred since then 
 at the Annual Meeting of the General Council of the United 
 Kingdom Alliance held at Manchester on October 17, and also 
 at a conference summoned by the Church of England Temper- 
 ance Society at Oxford on October 30. 
 
 At the meeting of the General Council of the Alliance 
 at Manchester, the following resolution was submitted for 
 approval, viz. : — 
 
 ' That, having regard to the number and magnitude of the 
 evils — Social, Moral, and Political — constantly and inevitably 
 resulting from the licensed sale of intoxicating liquors, this 
 meeting is deeply convinced that the legislative suppression of 
 the traffic has now become the greatest social problem of the 
 age, and for its solution it urgently demands a practical and 
 effective measure of Imperial Prohibition, or of Local Option.' 
 
 Seeing that many members of the Alliance (and I am one) 
 are unable to give their approval to the proposal of Imperial 
 Prohibition, the other alternative of Local Option alone com- 
 mands the support of all the adherents of that body. 
 
 The question is, what principle or principles do these words 
 Local Option cover? This is not a matter of mere words, as I 
 shall proceed to show. 
 
 None can doubt the meaning which Sir Wilfrid Lawson 
 attached to the expression, as on all occasions he has avowed
 
 that the pnnciple of his resolution was the same as the 
 principle of the Permissive Bill, which, however, he withdrew 
 from the House of Commons. 
 
 But while the words ' Local Option ' cover that principle, 
 it cannot be maintained by the Alliance that they cover that 
 principle and nothing more^ else why did Sir Wilfrid Lawson 
 in March 1879, when he first submitted his resolution to 
 Parliament, insert not the words ' Local Option,' but words 
 accurately to express what was alone meant, namely, ' Permis- 
 sive Prohibition ' ? 
 
 At the meetino^ of the General Council on October 17, I 
 urged that the legislative ai)plication of the principle of Per- 
 missive Prohibition would, of itself, be inadequate as a means 
 of checking existing intemperance. Because, in cases where a 
 town or district was not prepared to vote for prohibiting the 
 entire sale of drink, matters might go on as they were doing 
 although the principle of Permissive Prohibition was in opera- 
 tion, and that principle accordingly required to be supple- 
 mented by another, namely, that of Local Popular Control. 
 Under this second principle, if embodied in law, local com- 
 munities may obtain the power of lessening the number of 
 houses, of diminishing the hours of sale, of controlling the 
 structural arrangements of houses, of securing an efficient 
 system of inspection, &c., &c. Thus the people would be 
 enabled to lessen the facilities for drinking and to minimise 
 the evils connected with the system, and, where public senti- 
 ment permitted, to extinguish the traffic altogether. 
 
 At the Conference held at Oxford on October 30, the 
 Bishop of Exeter presided, and there was a large attendance. 
 After the Right Reverend Chairman, Sir Wilfrid Lawson was 
 the first speaker, who explained the principle of the Permissive 
 Bill, as a measure permitting the people to veto licenses in 
 places where the people do not want them. The details of the 
 Permissive Bill being objected to in Parliament, Sir Wilfrid 
 stated that he had changed his tactics, but not his principles, 
 and' had introduced his Local Option resolution. This reso- 
 lution had been adopted by the present Parliament, first by a 
 majority of 26, and then by a majority of 42, where matters 
 at present stand. 

 
 Canon Ellison followed, and mentioned that for many 
 years the Church of England Temperance Society had found 
 themselves in entire agreement with the principle which Sir 
 Wilfrid advocated; they differed from him only in the legisla- 
 tive application of it. Canon Ellison was at one with Sir 
 Wilfrid in this, that whatever power the Legislature may give 
 of dealing with the liquor traffic, that power should rest mainly 
 with the people of each locality. But the power which he 
 claimed for them was that of the entire control of the traffic. 
 The right of control seemed to him to be almost a truism. He 
 concluded his speech by moving the following resolution, viz. : 
 
 ' That this Conference respectfully calls on Her Majesty's 
 Government to introduce without further loss of time a 
 measure of Licensing; Reform. That the Conference is of 
 opinion that to be satisfactory such a measure should give to 
 the ratepayers of each locality a direct control over the 
 licensed houses in their midst, with a restraining power on the 
 issue and renew^al of licenses. That in the opinion of the 
 Conference, the control would be secured by the appointment 
 of representative Boards elected for this special purpose.' 
 
 This resolution embodies the two principlae of Local 
 Popular Control and Permissive Prohibition, and it was passed 
 by the meeting, after a full discussion, nem. con. 
 
 It thus appears that, at this moment there is a substantial 
 agreement on the part of the United Kingdom Alliance and the 
 Church of England Temperance Society in regard to the legal 
 sanction of the two great principles of Local Popular Control 
 and Permissive Prohibition, the question for solution being the 
 proper method of giving effect to these principles in legislative 
 enactment. 
 
 Liverpool : January 1883.
 
 WHAT EEFOEMS ARE DESIEABLB 
 
 IN THE 
 
 LICENSING LAWS? 
 
 I AM asked by the Standing Committee of the Economy 
 Department of this Association to prepare a Paper on 
 License Law Keform, and I have undertaken the duty, 
 conscious I have to deal with a subject whicii is of vital 
 importance while of acknowle'dged difficulty. 
 
 I propose to lead you to consider the principle of our 
 License Law, under the conviction that such treatment of the 
 question will prove interesting to those who are ready to 
 devote their attention to a matter so intimately affecting both 
 the moral and social condition of their fellow-citizens, and I 
 ask your sustained attention, because the principle on which 
 law may be founded ultimately rules the conduct of the 
 members of a commonwealth, just as the stability of a building 
 is determined by its foundations ; or, to use another illustra- 
 tion, as the future crop is determined by the seed we put into 
 the ground. It is not possible, accordingly, to over-estimate 
 the importance of securing for our laws a moral basis, seeing 
 that the administration of such laws will bring about results 
 that are salutary ; while, on the other hand, laws unregu- 
 lated by a moral principle can only produce effects that are 
 pernicious. 
 
 It is important to see how this applies to the system of 
 licensing the sale of alcohohc drinks. We may safely affu'm, 
 that no country having regard to the welfare of the people 
 would begin a system of licensing such as now exists in 
 England. It has grown up on imperfect information, and in 
 the course of many years, and has been the means of placing 
 in the hands of the few a monopoly of enormous value, which 
 unhappily is used most unscrupulously for selfish ends in the 
 accumulation of wealth, regardless of the frightful cost to the 
 community of pauperism, crime, and death.
 
 Yet our Government has introduced into India this very 
 system of licensing for purely revenue purposes without regard 
 to the welfare of the people, and the same evil results as are 
 experienced at home are already attending it there. But a 
 law so based cannot be morally right. 
 
 The improvement of our own national life is an object 
 worthy enough for this gathering; but, feeling profoundly as I 
 do the influence exercised by England in its wide Empire and 
 in other countries, I would here venture the thought, that just 
 as England may legislate on foundation principles of morality 
 and justice, so are these principles likely to have general 
 acceptance and currency. And, on the other hand, that an 
 unjust and unrighteous principle of law, accepted by England, 
 throbs its malign influences to the ends of the earth. 
 
 The four chief licenses which regulate the retail sale of in- 
 toxicating liquors in the United Kingdom are the following, 
 viz. : — 
 
 1. Public-house licenses — 
 
 These licenses are issued on the principle of 
 'magisterial discretion.' There were in 
 existence in March, 1881 . . . 96,846 
 
 2. Beer-house licenses — 
 
 These, up to 1869, were issued by the Excise 
 on the principle of 'freedom of trade' — of 
 these there were in existence in March, 
 1881 39,477 
 
 3. Licenses for the sale of beer ' oiF' the premises — 
 
 These licenses have also been issued by the 
 Excise on the principle of ' freedom of 
 trade ' — of these there were in existence 
 in March, 1881 18,924 
 
 4. Grocers' licenses — 
 
 These, too, are granted by the Excise on the 
 principle of ' freedom of trade.' There 
 were in existence in March, 1881 . . 14,150 
 
 In all, licenses . . 169,397 
 
 Against about 159,000 such licenses in existence inl878. (') 
 
 ^ I may here recapitulate the leading features of the above licenses : — 
 1. Public-house licenses, 
 
 For the sale of spirits, wine, and beer, for consumption 'on' or ' off ' the 
 premises. 
 
 These houses are licensed under the Act 9 George IV., cap. 61, and clause 1 
 ends as follows : — 
 
 ♦ Be it therefore enacted .... that it shall be lawful for the justices , . .
 
 9 
 
 r It thus appears, in reference to the Acts aiitliorising the 
 above four prhicipal licenses, that one has been framed on the 
 princi])le of * magisterial discretion ' ; two have been framed on 
 the principle of ' freedom of trade ' (a principle which Parlia- 
 ment has, in the case of both the beer-house licenses, now 
 
 to grant licenses, for the purposes aforesaid, to such persons as they, the said justices, 
 shall, in the execution of the powers herein contained, and in the exercise of their dis- 
 cretion, deem fit and proper.' 
 
 Thus the principle on which these licenses are issued is solely 
 that of 'magisterial discretion.' The Acts for Scotland and 
 Ireland are, in their main points connected with this subject, 
 substantially the same as for England. On March 31, 1881, the 
 number of these licenses in existence was .... 90,846 
 
 2. Beer-house licenses. 
 
 The Beer Act, passed by the Duke of Wellington's Govern- 
 ment (usually attributed to Lord Brougham) in 1830, allowed 
 ' freedom of trade ' in the sale of beer ; licenses under this 
 head having been granted by the Excise, and having been, till 
 18G9, beyond the control of the magistrates. The Selwyn- 
 Ibbetson Act of 1869, so far as regards the retail sale of beer 
 'on' the premises, was, however, a distinct protest against 
 the previous 'free trade' measure. Unfortunately, by over- 
 looking the recommendations of the Committee of 1854, namely, 
 in faA'our of the entire extinction of the beer-shop license, the 
 higher duty to be levied on the remaining uniform license, 
 and the stringent enforcement of penalties, it did, in fact, 
 perpetuate the evil against which that Committee and previous 
 ones had borne the very strongest testimony. The beer-house 
 licenses, though now no longer increased ad libitum, still* 
 remain to the number of 3'.),477 
 
 3. Licenses for the sale of beer to be drunk ' off' the 
 
 premises. 
 These have been granted on the principle of ' freedom of 
 trade,' and are of two kinds, viz. : — 
 
 1. Those granted under the original Beer Act of 1830, 
 which were, until this year, free from the discretion as to 
 numbers of any authority. They are now, with Class No. 2, 
 placed, by Mi*. Eitchie's Bill just passed, under the 'discretion' 
 of the magistrates, the same as licenses to publicans. 
 
 2. The second class of beer-houses, for sale by retail and 
 for consumption 'oif ' the premises, are described as 'additional 
 licenses' granted to 'beer dealers' who have licenses for 
 wholesale purposes. The number of both these classes was, 
 
 during the year ending March, 1881 ...... 18,024 
 
 4. Grocers' licenses. Eirst created in 1860 and 1861. 
 These are beyond magisterial control, and are granted on the 
 
 principle of 'freedom of trade.' 
 
 For the sale of ' spirits ' to be consumed 'oft'' the premises, 
 there were 6,490 
 
 For the sale of 'wines ' to be consumed 'oif' the premises, 
 there were . . 7,660 
 
 Say in all — Grocers' licenses . . . 14,150 
 
 14,150 
 
 In existence March, 1881— licenses . 169,397
 
 10 
 
 renounced) ; and one, the Act authorising grocers' licenses, 
 was framed on the principle of 'freedtmiof trade,' the })rinci[)le 
 ■which still regulates their issue. This anomaly is not, how- 
 ever, likely long to continue. 
 
 Although the pressure of public opinion has now caused 
 Parliament to place the two beer-house licenses under ' magis- 
 terial discretion,' yet neither under a law thus framed, nor if 
 framed under the principle of ' freedom of trade,' have the 
 people ' freedom of protecting themselves ' from the sale of 
 an article which they find not only to be dangerous but 
 destructive. 
 
 In the issue of none of the above 169,000 licenses have the 
 people of the districts had any voice, nor after their issue have 
 the inhabitants had any power to regulate or control the sale 
 either of the spirits or the beer disposed of, however injurious 
 such sale might have been proving. The magistrates or the 
 Excise having once granted the license, the pretension has been 
 that the license existed for all time, and, except by its for- 
 feiture from improper conduct, the holder has been led to 
 consider that the license, though granted to him without 
 premium, belonged to him as his vested right, whereas the Act 
 of 9 George IV., cap. 61, expressly restricts the duration of 
 the license to ^ one whole year and no longer.'' 
 
 It is lamentable to reflect how completely this country has 
 been handed over by Parliament to publicans and brewers by 
 recent legislation. The beer -house license, under the Act of 
 1 830, not having been found to work well, and great dissatis- 
 faction having been felt in certain parts of the country with 
 the principle on which licenses for public-houses were granted, 
 the House of Commons, on April 12, 1853, appointed a Select 
 Committee, with the following instructions, viz. : — 
 
 ' To examine into the system under which public-houses, 
 hotels, beer-shops, dancing saloons, coffee-houses, theatres, 
 temperance hotels, and places of public entertainment, by 
 whatever name they may be called, are sanctioned and are 
 now regulated, with a view of reporting to this House whether 
 any alteration or amendment of the law can be made for the 
 better preservation of public morals, the protection of the 
 revenue, and for the proper accommodation of the public' 
 
 In 1854 that Committee reported, and their recommenda- 
 tions, unhappily, were in favour of ^ freedom of trade ' in 
 licensing, accompanied, however, by suggestions in favour of a 
 higher duty on licenses, of taking sureties for good behaviour 
 from the licensee, and of the appointment of inspectors for 
 public-houses. Although no legislation followed that report,
 
 11 
 
 yet the procedure of magistrates throughout the country, in 
 administering the Act 9 George IV., has been greatly in- 
 fluenced by its free-trade recommendations. Thus, during 
 the past fifty years, our magistrates have granted an undue 
 number of public-house licenses, and Parliament has, with the 
 exception of the .Acts of 1872 and 1882, legislated generally in 
 favour of ' freedom of trade ' in the sale of intoxicating liquor. 
 The wishes and the welfare of the people ought all along to 
 have been consulted with regard to the licenses issued ; and I 
 contend that existing laws, giving to the magistrates, or the 
 Excise, power to grant licenses for the sale of an article of such 
 insidious potency and danger as alcohol irrespective of the 
 wishes of communities, are fundamentally wrong, and are in 
 their operation an infraction of the rights of the people of a 
 free country. At the door of our Parliament lies much of the 
 blame of our national vice of intemperance. The people have 
 been encouraged to the excessive drinking of alcohol by the 
 undue facilities and temptations afforded by our license laws, 
 which have been constructed on the vicious principle that 
 temptation may with propriety be placed by the magistrates, 
 or the Excise, in the way of the people without their being 
 consulted, and that such temptation may properly exist, after 
 proof that the people suffer from it. 
 
 To all such principles of law I am utterly opposed, involv- 
 ing as they do cruel injustice, and granting a monopoly and 
 riches to the few, at the cost of national demoralisation. 
 
 I now come to consider the principles on which a righteous 
 license law can be constructed, and I beg to repeat my convic- 
 tion — that it is unjust and immoral to allow the magistrates, or 
 the Excise, power to plant amongst the people, contrary to 
 their wishes, houses where an article dangerous to their wel- 
 fare is sold. My conviction is — that in the sale of alcohol the 
 people are entitled to self-government, a, principle which is 
 already conceded in regard to the administration of the poor 
 laws, sanitary regulations, and the great subject of elementary 
 education. It is extraordinary that while the care of the poor 
 is confided to Boards elected by the people for the purpose, 
 the main cause producing poverty should be placed beyond 
 their reach, and the excessive sale of alcohol be encouraged, 
 without any powers being afforded them to limit or arrest it. 
 It is accordingly reasonable that the princii)le be admitted — 
 that the whole control of the sale of alcohol should be lodged in 
 the people themselves, through their elected representatives, the 
 action of such representative Boards to he limited and controlled 
 hy Imperial authority.
 
 12 
 
 This principle — namely, local popular control of all 
 licenses, accompanied by Imperial limitations and restrictions — 
 is that now happily adopted by the Church of England Tem- 
 perance Society. In an able paper recently issued by the 
 chairman (Canon Ellison), he refers to the extent of the control 
 to be exercised locally, as follows :- 
 
 * To be worthy oi its name, the control must extend, not 
 only to the granting or refusing of new licenses, but to the 
 reduction of existing houses, the regulation of hours, limitation 
 of the structure and size of houses, their inspection, and tho 
 enforcement of penalties against transgressors of the law.' 
 
 In these views I heartily and entirely concur. Canon 
 Ellison goes on to say : — 
 
 * That this would, logically, embrace the power of prohibi- 
 tion is evident. But such a power — containing, as it does, a 
 new principle of legislation — must be regarded as a separate 
 issue, to be decided by the Legislature on its own merits ; its 
 adoption or rejection by Parliament in no way affecting the 
 main question of the general control to be vested in the rate- 
 payers.' 
 
 The United Kingdom Alliance have not, as an organisation, 
 seen their way to declare for the whole principle for which I 
 contend — namely, ^ popular and Imperial control.' They con- 
 tent themselves with agitating for one important section of the 
 principle — namely, ^ for power to the people to prohibit the sale 
 of alcohol.' But prohibition is, so to speak, only one segment 
 of the whole circle of popular control, and however indispen- 
 sably necessary would, of itself, be inadequate. 
 
 I entirely agree with the United Kingdom Alliance in their 
 demand, and feel assured it must ultimately be granted by the 
 Legislature. The advantages to themselves and their families 
 of living within prohibited areas are being more and more 
 fully recognised by the people of this country. Take a case 
 in Liverpool, the city with which I am connected. The firm 
 of Mr. John Roberts, M.P. for the Flintshire Boroughs, has 
 had large dealings in land in Liverpool. Mr. Roberts' firm 
 has acted on the principle of prohibiting the erection of public- 
 houses on the estates, large and small, which they purchase. 
 Mr. Roberts states, with regard to the efi'ect of these restric- 
 tions from a land or property-owner's point of view, that the 
 fullest experience confirms him in his conviction, that they add, 
 generally and substantially, to the value of the property. Mr. 
 Roberts has heard of no complaints from house-owners, or the 
 tenants, of any inconvenience suffered by those living in the 
 districts, although some of the people living within the area to
 
 13 
 
 which the prohibition applies would have to walk three-quarters 
 of a mile to obtain a glass of beer. This testimony is the more 
 striking, arising as it does in a city so over-supplied with public- 
 houses as Liverpool. The quantity of land laid out, or in 
 course of being laid out, by Mr. Roberts' firm, subject to abso- 
 lute restrictions against public-houses, is now, roughly speakinor, 
 about 350 acres. The number of houses will be about 10,000, 
 and the population affected may be estimated at 60,000. This 
 is exclusive of other small portions of land dealt with by Mr. 
 Roberts' firm in a similar way in the neighbourhood of Liver- 
 pool. 
 
 It is very much to be regretted that the ecclesiastical 
 authorities holding Church property in London, and in various 
 other parts of the country, have not so acted in regard to the 
 lands in their possession, and the public will naturally look 
 v/ith deep interest to the decision which may be arrived at 
 on the appeal recently made to them by the Rev. Canon 
 Wilberforce. 
 
 Last year Mr. W. S. Caine, a leading member of the 
 United Kingdom Alliance, gave notice in the House of Com- 
 mons of the following resolution, namely : — 
 
 ' That, in the opinion of this House, the Government 
 measure embodying the Local Option resolution passed by the 
 House on June 18, 1880, while clearly defining "the principles 
 and conditions that are to regulate the sale of exciseable liquors, 
 should entrust the administration of the law to boards specially 
 elected for the purpose by the ratepayers, leaving the jurisdic- 
 tion affecting branches of the law, as at present, to the ordinary 
 tribunals of justice.' 
 
 This resolution embodies the two principles I now beg to 
 submit to the approval of the Congress, namely : — 
 
 First — -Local popular control of the sale of intoxicating 
 liquors, through boards specially elected for the purpose by the 
 ratepayers ; and. 
 
 Second — Imi)erial control of such sale, within the limits and 
 regulations imposed by Parliament. 
 
 No opportunity has yet offered for the discussion of this 
 important resolution. It is earnestly to be hoped that all 
 Temperance friends, of all shades of political opinion, may rally 
 round Mr. Caine in his effort to obtain the sanction of Parlia- 
 ment to the great principles of license law which his resolution 
 embodies. 
 
 It is greatly in favour of such a resolution that the Report 
 of the Lords' Committee on Intemperance should encourage 
 the idea of allowing localities to try experiments in dealing
 
 u 
 
 with the liquor question. The first recommendation of the 
 Report of the Lords' Committee is as follows, namely : — 
 
 ' That legislative facilities should be afforded for the local 
 adoption of the Gothenburg and of Mr. Chamberlain's schemes, 
 or of some modification of them.' 
 
 This recommendation refers to experiments to be made by- 
 localities at their own cost, that is, by buying up existing 
 interests, and it is founded on the experience of Gothenburg 
 in Sweden, where the sale of drink is carried out by a syndicate 
 of the inhabitants, who apply the profits not to their own per- 
 sonal advantage, but to public uses. 
 
 When the Report was drawn up, the Lords' Committee 
 were not aware of Mr. Roberts' plans, else doubtless he would 
 have been summoned as a witness, and public attention would 
 thus have been called to so valuable an experiment. 
 
 The Lords' Committee, in the 36th clause of their Report, 
 in a noble passage of great power, argue for the granting to 
 communities opportunity to purify themselves from the miseries 
 of intem^perance by methods such as those adopted at Gothen- 
 burg, or sketched by Mr. Chamberlain. The passage is as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' When great communities, deeply sensible of the miseries 
 caused by intemperance ; witnesses of the crime and pauperism 
 which directly spring from it ; conscious of the contamination 
 to w^hich their younger citizens are exposed ; watching with 
 grave anxiety the growth of female intemperance, on a scale so 
 vast and at a rate of progression so rapid as to constitute a 
 new reproach and danger ; believing that not only the morality 
 of their citizens, but their commercial prosperity, is dependent 
 upon the diminution of these evils ; seeing also that all that 
 sreneral legislation has been hitherto able to effect has been 
 some improvement in public order, while it has been powerless 
 to produce any perceptible decrease of intemperance ; it w^ould 
 seem somewhat hard when such communities are willing, at 
 their own cost and hazard, to grapple with the difficulty and 
 undertake their own purification, that the Legislature should 
 refuse to create for them the necessary machinery, or to entrust 
 them with the requisite powers.' 
 
 It is difficult to see how such experiments could be tried 
 unless after placing the control of licenses, as has been done in 
 Sweden, under boards popularly elected for the purpose, and I 
 conclude accordingly that the Lords' Committee have reportedj 
 practically, in harmony wdth the view^s expressed in this 
 paper. 
 
 The only other matter with which I wish to detain the
 
 15 
 
 Congress is — the area of the proposed licensing districts. This 
 is a very important matter of detail. 
 
 The United Kingdom Alliance claim that country parishes 
 and the voting wards of boroughs should have powers granted 
 them of vetoing the sale of drink in tlieir respective districts by 
 direct vote. 
 
 To this proposal I do not think there are reasonable objec- 
 tions. But the parish, or the voting ward of the borough, 
 would be too small as the area of the licensing district. None 
 of the existing areas is altogether satisfactory for the proposed 
 new licensing district ; the best area is that of the poor-law 
 union. 
 
 The areas of our poor-law unions are sufficiently wide to 
 secure a selection for the license boards of capable and in- 
 dependent men. There are 640 unions and single parishes 
 (which are held to be unions as they are large parishes) in 
 England and Wales. This, for a population of say 26,000,000, 
 would give an average of something more than 40,000 persons 
 in each union. 
 
 Poor-law guardians are elected for only one year, but this 
 would be too short a term of office for the license board. I 
 would suggest that the term for which they are elected should 
 be three years, one-third of their number to retire annually, 
 being eligible for re-election. • 
 
 The elections for the license boards could be made on the 
 same day, and by the same returning-officer, as elections for 
 the poor-law guardians, and thus the objections raised by some 
 to the cost and trouble of a new board would be minimised, 
 and perhaps would be little felt. 
 
 I would be thankful if the views expressed in this Paper 
 approve themselves to the Congress, and if so, I would beg 
 them to memorialise the Prime Minister in favour of transfer- 
 ring the licensing authority from magistrates to license boards, 
 elected by the ratepayers for the purpose, with such Imperial 
 safeguards as may be deemed needful. 
 
 LONDON : PUINTED BY 
 
 BPOTIISWOOUK AND CO., NEW-STUKET SQUARE 
 
 AND PARLIAMENT STRKKT
 
 m^:'-^n 
 
 '0y> 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 
 ■;»'=?, 
 
 m 
 
 •h^'^ 
 
 
 ^ifc^ 
 
 ^la-^v-aft' 
 
 ■*.. 
 
 iii^'.<' . j-i^i 
 
 ■■'^ 
 
 M'- .' *\ 
 
 *;, 
 
 ■^^t?*^^-^' 
 
 
 :3^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^....■^--