HC Deb 10 June 1808 vol 11 cc848-9
Mr. Sheridan

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act for licensing alehouse-keepers, inn-keepers, &c. Alluding to the meetings held for some time past, at the St. Alban's tavern, for the purpose of preventing any rise in the rate of Posting, he took occasion to express his reprobation of all such combinations among lords and commoners, as, if attempted among the poor and labouring classes of the community, would be deemed illegal, and punished as such. Seeing an hon. member and magistrate for the county of Sussex, however, in the house, he could riot refrain from candidly stating to him a circumstance relating to that hon. member which had reached him, and by the hon. member's explanation of that circumstance he should be enabled to judge, whether he must not extend his bill further than he originally intended. The circumstance to which he alluded was this; that at one of these meetings at the St. Alban's Tavern, it having been doubted, whether it would be better for them to apply for the interference of parliament, or to proceed in their own parliament, that hon. gent. had said, that they were both idle measures, and that the one he recommended to the magistrates of Sussex was the effectual mode, namely, to stop the licence of every person who presumed to raise the rate of posting. He gave the hon. member an opportunity of saying, whether the fact was or was not so; and concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.

Mr. Fuller

said, that instead of being either lord or commoner, as the hon. gent, would have it be supposed all the associators at the St. Alban's tavern were, his informant must have been a post-master. He never did say what the hon. gent, had stated. He had said, that the best mode of effecting their purpose was by encouraging a competition: and where there was only a single house, to encourage a rival. He had said, that the power of checking the evil in this respect, where charges were enormous, was in the breast of the magistrates themselves; and that they were too frequently enormous, he instanced the charge of 150l. made by an inn-keeper on the French ambassador for a breakfast. He had as much regard for the liberty of the subject as any man, and so had his father before him.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

objected to a measure of this kind, which had been formerly withdrawn, on account of the late period of the session, being again brought forward, without any ground assigned, and also at an advanced period of the session. He should therefore negative the motion.

Mr. H. Browne, Mr. Giddy, Mr. M. A. Taylor, and Mr. Rose, all spoke against the measure, which was negatived without a division.

Back to