§ Mr. Bennetpresented a petition from a person named Brownjohn, complaining of the improper conduct of a magistrate at Bristol, in refusing to renew his licence as a victualler, by which refusal the petitioner had been subjected to grievous loss and injury. The hon. gentleman observed, that he availed, himself of this opportunity of giving notice of his intention to propose, soon after Easter, some alteration of the law as it related to the mode of granting and taking away licences by magistrates.
§ Mr. Protheroeexpressed his confidence that the magistrate alluded to had not acted from any improper motive. He felt pleasure in testifying to the respectability of his character, as he was in an opposite interest to himself, and because an unfavourable impression was sometimes made by petitions of this nature.
§ Mr. Hart Davisbore similar testimony to the character of the gentleman against whom the complaint of the petitioner was preferred.
Mr. Bathurstapprehended that the court of King's-bench was the proper place to resort to with complaints of this nature. It was but lately that he had seen a case, in which that court had granted a rule to show cause why a
* See Parl. History, vol. 6, p. 600.136 criminal information should not be filed against a magistrate, for improperly refusing a licence. It did not appear to him fit that cases should be brought under consideration in that House, which might be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction, and investigated by evidence taken upon oath.
§ Mr. Bennetobserved, that the court of King's-bench would not interfere, except upon a prima facie case of corrupt motive in the magistrate. It held that the magistrate had an arbitrary power of licensing or refusing to license. He was not bound to state any reason for his proceeding, and the burthen of proving a corrupt motive rested upon the complainant. A very considerable amount of property, extending throughout the country, was thus placed in a condition unlike that of any other description of property, and no legal remedy could be obtained against proceedings which were often harsh, unjust, and unwarrantable. In such cases that House was the only authority to which the aggrieved party could appeal. They might reject this petition, but it was his fixed determination to bring the whole subject into discussion in the course of the present session.
Mr. Courtenaythought the observations of the hon. member applied, not to the merits of this petition, but to the general state of the law, with regard to this subject, which he agreed with him in thinking did call for some amendment. But the complaint of this petitioner appeared to him to fall peculiarly within the cognizance of a court of law. There was no doubt that instances of abuse and misapplication of their powers by magistrates occurred, and that parliament ought to direct its attention to the subject. The present case, however, being one which evidently belonged to the jurisdiction of a court of law, he would suggest the propriety of withdrawing the petition.
§ Mr. Humethought the public highly indebted to the hon. gentleman, for the important part which he had taken in the production of the police report. No man who had read it could deny, that the greatest abuses existed in the licensing system. He was strongly impressed with the necessity of bringing the subject before parliament at an early period. With respect to the petition immediately under consideration, he confessed that he should be sorry to see the doors of the house 137 shut against such complaints against the existing authorities, as could not be successfully prosecuted in a court of law.
§ Mr. Bennet,as the general feeling of the House appeared to be against the reception of the petition, consented to withdraw it.