HL Deb 05 August 1834 vol 25 cc939-41

The House went into Committee on this Bill.

Mr. Serjeant

Merewether appeared at the Bar in order to support the claims of the Vintner's Company, the rights and privileges of which were affected by this Bill. It was one of the privileges of the Company that its free Members were allowed to sell wine within the limits of the city of London, and in a circuit of three miles, without being obliged to ask for a license from the licensing Magistrates. There was a clause in the Bill which went to take away this privilege, and the learned Serjeant appeared on the part of the Company to object to the clause.

The Lord Chancellor

contended, that there could be nothing more improper than thus to allow to any particular body of men a privilege contrary to the general law of the land. The privilege which their Lordships were now called on to discuss had often been the subject of abuse, and there were instances at this moment which illustrated the evil consequences of the privilege. The object of licensing such houses was, that they should be kept within the bounds of propriety, and should not be a nuisance to the neighbourhood where they existed. To exempt any person front the necessity of taking out a license was to enable him either to abuse the privilege in his own person, or, for corrupt motives, to allow another person to have the benefit of the privilege in order to abuse it.

Lord Wynford

said, that abuses of this privilege were very rare, and it was not the wish of the Company to preserve the abuses. The Company offered to bind themselves to deprive any person of this privilege who should have been convicted before a Magistrate of any of those offences for which his license would be forfeited. Of course they could not be expected to give into the hands of any other persons a direct power to take away the privileges of any of their members, but they were ready to take away those privileges on the authority of a decision of a Magistrate, which in fact amounted to the same thing, so far as the ends of the public justice were concerned, while it preserved the principle of their charter, for which alone they contended. The rights of property were secured in no instance on a stronger authority than were these privileges of the Company, which came by charter from the Crown, and which could not be thus invaded without endangering the most sacred rights of property. He therefore begged to move, that the clause in question be expunged.

Viscount Duncannon

said, that the noble and learned Lord was mistaken in supposing that this privilege was never abused. He could mention one instance of a case, the proof of which he then held in his hand. This was the case of the Shades, in the Adelphi, on the subject of which he had received a memorial from the inhabitants in the neighbourhood. The noble Viscount here read a part of the memorial, which stated that the license of the place had been taken away, but that a free vintner of the Vintners' Company had allowed the person owning the House to put his name over the door, and the House had been again opened.

Lord Ellenborough

proposed, that the two noble and learned Lords should communicate with each other on this subject, with a view to accomplish that which he had no doubt was the object of both—the prevention of abuse, and the proper preservation of chartered privileges.

The Lord Chancellor

had no objection to that course, for he had not the slightest wish that Parliament should interfere with the privileges of the Company, except so far as was necessary to preserve the due administration of the law.

The Bill went through the Committee with an understanding, that the Clause in question should undergo sonic modification on the third reading of the Bill.

The House resumed.