§ Mr. Bennethaving moved the second reading of this bill,—
§ Mr. Cartwrightsaid, he was not disposed to give the bill his support, as its operation would, in his opinion, be very injurious to parishes. He hoped the hon. gentleman would consent to withdraw the clause, which imposes on magistrates, in case of their refusal to grant a license, a written ground for that refusal. The House must see that in certain cases it might be necessary to withhold licenses, without its being necessary to call on magistrates to assign in writing their reasons for such refusal. He objected, however to the bill generally, and should move, that it be read a second time "this day six months."
§ Mr. Curwensaid, that from his own experience he knew the present licensing system was much abused. He knew several instances wherein licenses had either been withdrawn or refused from political motives, particularly in those places which were the immediate scene of contested elections. He considered the bill of the highest importance, and therefore he hoped his hon. friend, because he might not think all obtained that he wanted, would not therefore oppose the progress of a bill which promised to effect so many advantages.
§ Mr. Sturges Bourneentirely concurred with the opinion expressed by his hon. friend, that the bill, in its present form, was most objectionable. There were many cases in which the reasons for withdrawing or withholding licenses could not be assigned either before a bench of justices or a jury.
§ Mr. Davenportthought a clause rendering it imperative on magistrates to assign the reasons of their conduct to publicans, was throwing a slur on their character.
§ Mr. George Lambcould not agree with the last speaker, in supposing this bill would throw any stigma on magistrates, and he confessed he had never anticipated such an objection. He could not see why the magistrates should refuse to give their reasons, unless indeed they were disposed to say with Falstaff, that they would not give reasons "on compulsion." There was a bill already in existence which called on them for such reasons, namely, the present Insolvent act, which authorised the court here to call for the reasons on which the magistrates acted in the quarter sessions in the country. The magistrates could incur no expences in defending their conduct at the sessions; 662 on the contrary, it was his duty to come forward boldly, and show that there were most satisfactory grounds when he refused a license. If any thing could possibly tend to fix a stigma on that body, or excite a suspicion of their acting from interested motives, it would be the very circumstance of their shrinking from inquiry, and being unwilling to explain their conduct. He implored gentlemen now present, who might happen to be in such situations, not to shrink thus from inquiry, but to accede to the motion.
§ Mr. S. Wortleythought until as strong a case was made out against the country magistrates, as he regretted to say, had been made out against those in the metropolis, he should oppose the bill; although, if applied where it was necessary, he should vote for it. The machinery of the bill was also faulty, and went to entail a very heavy expense upon the county. It provided that after a third conviction for improper conduct, the magistrate should send the case before a jury; but he would ask, who was to pay the expense of the trial? The hon. gentleman would reply, the county; but if this was the case, it would have the effect of materially increasing the county rates, which were already a great burthen, He was satisfied the existing laws had answered the purpose completely, and he should therefore oppose the present measure.
§ Mr. Sumnersaw great inconvenience would result from obliging magistrates to give written reasons for their conduct. Counsel, he had no doubt, would be employed to dissect such statements and make them appear improper, while the best motives and purest feelings might have actuated the magistrates. He did not object, however, to going into a committee on the bill, as some of its principles were good, and many of its provisions would be found useful in the metropolis.
§ General Gascoynethought the provisions of the bill should be applied to the cities of London and Westminster only. It was inequitable in those cases where it would interfere with chartered rights.
Mr. Davies Gilbertthought the bill would have a most pernicious effect. The instances of abuse of the discretionary power vested in magistrates by the present law, were extremely few, and those few were amply compensated by the excellent effect of them on the behaviour of publicans, and the morals of those who frequented their houses.
§ Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that under the existing system the will of the magistrate was law—"stat pro ratione voluntas." He hoped, however, the feelings manifested in the House on the clause respecting that class of persons, would induce his hon. friend not to press it, since it might have the effect of causing the bill to be lost, and he should extremely regret if the metropolis were deprived of its advantages.
Mr. Bathurstopposed the bill. The examination of magistrates would, in his view, be found very objectionable, while it would tend to expose those persons entrusted with very responsible duties to unnecessary odium.
Mr. Alderman Woodhoped, that as the clause respecting magistrates was so much opposed, his hon. friend would not press it. The bill contained so many excellent provisions, that he should be sorry the benefit of it should be lost to London and Westminster.
§ Mr. Bennetsaid, that no slur was attempted to be cast on the magistrates, much less any intended degradation—Degradation! Could it be a degradation to the magistrates to have an appeal made from their decisions, when the courts of law constantly appealed from each other's decisions, when every day's practice showed it to be familiar both in and out of that House? In the country places generally he did not think the conduct of the magistrates was other than became English gentlemen. But to the disgrace of lord lieutenants of counties in the neighbourhood of London, far different persons were appointed to the magistracy. The scandalous abuses tolerated by them need not then to be related, for every hon. member, who had taken the trouble to inform himself on the subject, must have long since been satisfied of the disgusting fact. It was perfectly notorious that the magistrates in London had deprived many honest men of their property, while they licensed their own public houses, knowing them at the same time to be converted into brothels of the worst description. There was, beside, no law granting them a discretion to take away a license, although there was a low enabling them to refuse one. The hon. member then cited a case from Burrowe's Reports, confirmatory of his position, in which lord Mansfield had decided that a magistrate who had taken away a license, was guilty of an act for which he should be punished. 664 And although some gentlemen in the House appeared to hold a different opinion, he still could not help relying more on the opinion of an able judge than on the opinions of those who now differed with him. The bill before the House made the detection of improper houses easy; while such was the existing law, that the most improper persons had only, if dispossessed of their houses in one place, to repair to another, when for a few shillings or pounds, they might be sure of obtaining a license. But, every county in the kingdom was nearly as guilty as the metropolis. Whereas, by certain clauses in his bill, such abuses, and such enormities, as had long existed, would, in a great measure, be prevented. Besides, his bill went to do away the forgery of sureties, recognizances, and petitions, which were often signed by paupers, vagrants, and vagabonds of every description, to the great injury of the revenue and fair trader. Indeed, many of the arguments urged against the bill were little more than the rechauffé edition of those which he had often heard, and which had no later than a few days since, been personally stated to him. He should not, however, press the clause extending to country magistrates, not because he did not think it in some degree necessary, but because he would not risk its application to the abuses that reigned so widely and injuriously in the metropolis.
§ The bill was then read a second time.