What is the difference between a license fee imposed under a municipal by-law and a provincial licensing act?

Whilst Rex ex rel Kane v. Haworth, was under the provincial licensing Act, the principle is the same, and under the by-law and the Act enabling the by-law to be enacted, it is the individual who goes about hawking and peddling who is required to take out a license, and the license is a personal license. Indeed it might also be referred to as a police regulation. See Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 5th ed., secs. 661 et seq. The inhabitants of any municipality are undoubtedly much concerned with the character and the habits of the “unbidden guest” who is to be allowed to go from door to door within the municipality soliciting orders from the housewives. Such persons are wisely required to submit themselves for identification and ought to be sponsored before they are permitted to go from house to house in the municipality. It is an extraordinary privilege. I can see no similarity whatever between the license fee imposed under the by-law and the taxation under the provincial enactment. They are upon different persons for different purposes, and whilst this company may pay such license fees for its agents, that is beside the question, for the legislation does not contemplate that the company should do so. There is nothing in the statute that I see to prevent a hawker or pedler from acting as an agent for one or several principals. In taking out the license he is, however, the principal and responsible as such.