[To THE EDITOR OP TIM "SPECTATOR. "]
read in the Spectator of March 18th that amongst the perplexities which await Unionist candidates at the General Election is the desire which will be evinced by the electorate for information as to the absence of an adequate return to the State for the " immense new benefit" that has been conferred upon the licensed trade by the Government. As a possible Unionist candidate myself, may I ask you where I am to dis- cover satisfactory evidence of the existence of this gift on the part of the Government to the licensed trade ? An "immense new benefit " bestowed upon the licensed trade would be naturally reflected in an " immense " appreciation of the market value of brewery property. But I see on reference to "Burdett" that the average value of brewery shares is now below, rather than above, the prices of the period before the passing of the Licensing Act of 1904. What, then, is the explanation of this anomaly? Can it be that the Stock Exchange has become suddenly obtuse as to market values ? Or is it that this gift of the Government to the licensed trade of an "immense new benefit" is, after all, merely the partisan description of a measure for facilitating compulsory insurance against confiscation P—I am, Sir, &c.,
House of Commons. J. T. AGG-GARDNER.
[Licenses before the Act of 1904 were purely annual grants, and carried in law no right of renewal. The Act gave the holder the right to compensation if his license were not renewed. According to Bacchus, one of the organs of the "trade," the increase in the value of licenses since the,passing of the Act has been most marked. It quoted last October the case of a country beerhouse which had improved in value to the extent of 21,500 after the passing of the Act. This increase, Bacchus declared, was " no doubt due to the Licensing Act."—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
