"An Understanding."

But, though the legal right to sell absolutely ceases at the end of the year, it is contended that the publican has a sort of "equitable" right to a renewal, whatever that may mean. It is said there has always been an "understanding" that so long as the licensee conducted his house properly, if he was refused a renewal he had an page 5 "equitable" right to compensation. We are not told, however, how an "equitable" right can be based on an "understanding" directly in conflict with an Act of Parliament and the printed terms of the license. Who was the other party to the "understanding?" There must be at least two parties. Was it the people for whose protection the duration of the license was limited? When were the people consulted? It may be said that the elected Licensing Committee represented the people. But what power had it to have "understandings?" Its own tenure of office was only for a single year. How could it bind its successors or vest by an "understanding" in the publican a right of perpetual renewal or of compensation at the hands of the people? Nothing can be clearer from the cases above quoted than that there never has been any "understanding" or any customs entitling the publican to renewals, either in theory or in practice. No Licensed Victualler has ever, in the United Kingdom or in New Zealand, been paid a shilling for the non-renewal of his license on any grounds whatever, though hundreds of cases of such non-renewals have occurred.