THE LICENSING BILL.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] Szn,—You take the hypothetical case of two public-houses 'The George' and 'The Lion,' under the same ownership (Spectator, August 6th), the first of which survives, while
the second is suppressed, and say that " In all probability, therefore, the owners of the two public-houses will be benefited rather than hurt by the closing of one of them."
This may quite possibly be true ; but, if so, why have the shrewd men of business who own the houses not realised the fact and voluntarily closed one of them ? Later you say :—
" The real gainers by the Bill will be the brewers who own both houses, and they will be gainers in two capacities,—once, as owners of The George,' by the additional custom and smaller outlay consequent on the closing of The Lion' ; and once, as owners of The Lion,' in the shape of full compensation for custom supposed to be lost but really transferred to The George.' " This is an astounding statement; for the compensation received by them as owners of The Lion' has been paid by them as owners of The George.' The great merit of the Bill is that it makes the houses that profit by survival compensate those that lose by suppression. The opponents of the Bill are in reality endeavouring to make a handsome present to the houses that survive at the expense of those that are sup-
[The shrewd men who own public-houses very seldom sup- press an unprofitable public-house. Unless we are greatly mistaken, they prefer to maintain it, and when they want a new license offer to surrender the unprofitable license in exchange for the new one. The fallacy of our correspondent's second objection is to be found in the fact that it is not merely on The George' that compensation is levied, but on all the other public-houses in the licensing area.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
