Sitting of 8 August 1807

PUBLICANS' LICENSE BILL.
Mr Sheridanmoved the second reading of this bill. He could adduce, he said, instances of the most atrocious oppression practised by the magistrates on individuals of this trade; he did not say designedly, but from carelessness and inattention. All that he wished was, that, when a publican was charged with an act which was to be esteemed sufficient to deprive him of his license, he should be informed of the nature of the crime imputed to him, and should be heard in his defence not that he and his family should be deprived of their livelihood by a whisper. This, he maintained, was not a situation in which an Englishman should be placed. It had, he believed, been objected against him, that this was the mode he had taken of canvassing Westminster. How truly this was alledged might be gathered from this simple fact, that one of the first measures moved by him in parliament was of a similar nature. Shortly after the riots in the year 1780, he

1099
himself originated a measure against the Westminster Justices, in which he had the satisfaction of being supported by a most respectable minority. Shortly after this, the late duke of Northumberland put an additional number of gentlemen into the commission of the peace, among the rest himself, (Mr. S.).—General Fitzpatrick, lord R. Spencer, and other gentlemen on that side of the house, finding, during the immediately succeeding election for Westminster, that the publicans, through fear of the magistrates, all of whom were in the interest of government, could not be induced to open any houses in favour of Mr. Fox, though they had not previously qualified themselves as magistrates, they resolved to do so, and immediately advertised, promising their protection to such publicans is should act impartially by opening their houses for the independent candidate. In this determination they could only find one of the existing magistrates who would join them, and add his name to their corps. [A laugh from the ministerial benches.] Gentlemen, Mr. S. remarked, might, if they pleased, think it a subject of congratulation, and that it conferred honour and respectability on the magistracy of Westminster, that not more than one man could be found among them to add his name to a resolution expressive of their determination to act fairly and impartially. He had only stated this, however, to skew that the present was not an idea which he had now taken up for the first time. He had prepared a bill on the subject while he was Treasurer of the Navy; and so far was it from being an election trick on his part, that he did not mention the subject during the last election till the 12th day of the poll, whereas, had he meant it as a theme through which to court popularity, he would have set out with it from the beginning. If it was desired, he should be ready in the committee to go into a string of cases, the substantiating of any one of which, he was convinced, must render it impossible for gentlemen of honour, feeling, or humanity to doubt the propriety of what he proposed. He proceeded to state the case of a woman, whose father and mother had been for fifty years in one house, in which they had uniformly maintained an unblemished character. She had succeeded to her parents, and supported in it, with the same propriety, a family of 7 children, five of whom were entirely dependent on her industry. Being summoned before the magistrates, and informed that they could not renew her licence
1100
—on her attempting to remonstrate, the only satisfaction she could procure was, "woman, you have had your answer." Her license was accordingly withdrawn, and she and her family are now reduced to a state of extreme poverty and distress. This case was not unknown to, and had attracted the commiseration of a noble lord and right hon. gent.—But he (Mr. S.) denied that it was consistent with the constitution of this country that any man, in any profession, was to be told, that at the discretion of any one man, he and his family were to be deprived of their livelihood, and reduced to misery. He had, he declared, thirty instances of a similar kind, which he should, if required, bring forward in the committee. He had several instances too, of persons having been deprived of their licences for voting for sir Francis Burdett, for Middlesex. They had even been told that this was the reason; and, he would ask, were publicans, at the will of a magistrate, to be deprived of the free exercise of the elective franchise more than the other inhabitants of this country? He alluded to another case which had occurred at Fulham, where a house remarkable for the usual decorum of its keeper had been deprived of the licence, merely because on one occasion, a few Welsh girls returning to their own country had been indulged with a fiddle and a hop. These were arbitrary powers, which, he submitted, were not fit to rest with one or two individuals, without the person accused being acquainted with the charge against him, and allowed to defend himself. Neither, he maintained, was it even then fit that they should exist without appeal. All he asked was, that every person so accused should have the charge against him furnished to him in writing, and that he should be heard in his defence; and, afterwards, that he should have it in his power to appeal to the quarter sessions. He could not think it possible but that the magistrates themselves must be pleased that an appeal lay from their decision. If not actuated by personal motives, the knowledge of such appeal must be consolatory to their feelings. All he wished at present was that the bill should extend to Middlesex and Surrey. He confessed that he had received letters which would more than cover the table, containing similar complaints from every part of the country, so that he might be fortified in maintaining that the alteration should extend throughout. But still, high as was the respect in which he held Mr. Read, Mr. Graham., and one or two others of the. Westminster

1101
and Middlesex magistrates, he could not so far shut his eyes as to put them on a level with the independent country magistrates. The former held their places, for which they received an emolument, at the will and pleasure of his majesty's ministers; while the latter exercised a gratuitous and burdensome duty. There was another subject, which he had alluded to elsewhere, and before an auditory far more numerous than that which he had now the honour to address, namely, the power exercised by brewers over publicans, by being proprietors of public houses. With all the regard which he felt for many gentlemen connected in the brewing business, this was a practice which, he was aware, ought to be checked, if not abolished. Nothing was more clear than this, that brewers might meet together, agree that they would not interfere with the houses which were held under the dominion of each; and in that manner they had it in their power to impose whatever trash they pleased on the laborious part of the community. What they had after labour was of as much consequence to their health, and to their existence, as food. It was, therefore, an object well deserving the interference of the legislature, to see that improper means were not resorted to to disappoint them of it. The period of the session, however, would not allow time for so extensive a regulation. All that he now desired was to provide that a man, merely because he was a publican, should not be ruined, and his family turned on the parish, without having an opportunity of knowing what was charged against him. He concluded by moving, that the bill be now read a second time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he could only regret that the right hon. gent. had not brought not only the present bill but the whole of his measure sooner before the house. As he had it in full contemplation from the year 1780 down to the year 1784 The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he could only regret that the right hon. gent. had not brought not only the present bill but the whole of his measure sooner before the house. As he had it in full contemplation from the year 1780 down to the year 1784, he must regret that he should have allowed it to remain a blank from that period down to the election in 1807, when he revived it for the first time on the Hustings in Covent Garden; still more he must regret that he had been so late in the session in bringing it into the house. If the principle of the bill, however, was to be supported by cases, the plan would have been to move fora committee to investigate them, and to make the report of the committee the foundation of the bill. As matters stood there was no evidence to go on, and it would be unfair to make Middlesex and
1102
Surrey exceptions from a general rule. He hoped the right hon. gent. would set his mind to the business during the vacation, and come prepared with his whole plan early in the next session. He concluded by moving, that the Bill he read a second time this day three months.
Mr. Rosethought some regulation necessary upon this subject, and bore testimony to the character of the publicans. From his connection with the revenue business, he was enabled to say, that there was not a more meritorious class of men than the publicans.
Mr. D. Giddyvindicated the character of the magistracy in the country, who were, as far as his acquaintance extended, particularly in Cornwall, entitled to the utmost respect. The evils arising from the proprietorship of public houses being vested in the brewers, he acknowledged to be great, but he could not conceive any legislative remedy that could apply to it.
Mr. Peter Moorethought the grounds of objection stated by the chancellor of the exchequer might be obviated in a committee, where all the cases cited by his right hon. friend might, with many others, equally strong, be fully substantiated. From having had an opportunity of examining these cases, he could say that such instances of oppression had occurred under the existing law, as would revolt the feelings of the house, and as would excite its astonishment, that such a law had been so long suffered to continue in operation. However, as more inquiry seemed to be required upon this subject, and as gentlemen seemed to think the general extension of the principle desirable, he would recommend to his right hon. friend to withdraw the bill, rather than let it go to a division, lest its rejection should appear to imply that to which he was glad to perceive no gentleman was disposed, namely, an absolute opposition to the principle of the measure.
Mr. Sturges Bourneconceived a committee of inquiry necessary previous to the introduction of a bill of this nature, because it professed to rest upon particular cases; but if the measure were founded upon a general principle, comprehending the whole country, such a committee might be dispensed with. The hon. member was aware of the illegitimate use made of the power which the magistrates possessed under the existing law, of the improper manner in which they employed it upon elections, and that such, a law required revision. He knew that in

1103
some populous towns, at a distance from the metropolis, every publican voted at an election according to the will of the magistrate, in consequence of the undue influence derived from the existence of this law. He agreed, therefore, in the necessity which called for some correction of the abuse complained of; but he agreed also with those who considered it improper to have the grounds of objection which magistrates might feel to a publican's license become the subject of discussion in a court of law. For in that case be could not help thinking the remedy almost as bad as the evil. The mode of redress which occurred to his mind would be to extend authority for granting licenses or hearing appeals conferred upon a larger number of magistrates, who, from their number, would probably be free from the operation of local feeling or party prejudice. Thus justice might be done to the publicans and to the public, for whose interest, he thought that, if the principle of such a measure as this were unexceptionable, it ought to be extended to the whole country. He therefore recommended to the right hon. gent. to withdraw his bill for the present session.
Mr. Sheridanprofessed his disposition to yield to whatever appeared to be the general wish of the house, and therefore he should comply with the request of his hon. friend (Mr. Moore), to any suggestion from whom he should be always happy to attend. At the same time he could not help noticeing the surprise expressed by the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, that he should have brought forward this bill at so late a period of the session. What, said Mr. S., the right hon. gent., who has surprised the house and the country so much himself —he who has surprised the house at a late period of the session with his plan of government for Ireland—who has surprised it with his new military project—who has surprised it by proposing to suspend that highly laudable and universally praised system, the plan of enlisting for a limited time,—and yet, that after all the right hon. gent. should talk to me about surprising the house! But, among all his surprises there is one surprise which he could not produce, namely that of surprising me by opposing this bill; for I expected it.—The right hon, gent. proceeded to state the manner in which he had acted with a view to produce a satisfactory bill. First, he drew up a bill such as some gentlemen now professed to wish for, combining the case of brewers owning public-houses
1104
with that before the house respectively; but then objections arose, to which he yielded, in proposing to make those the objects of separate bills. Again, he proposed to make the bill general; but to this very great difficulties were suggested; he found many men, and magistrates particularly, who were willing to let him do what he pleased with Middlesex and Surrey, provided he let the remainder of the country alone. He therefore endeavoured to make a beginning of that reform in those counties, which so many gentlemen had professed to desire to extend to all England. But a committee of inquiry was required previous to the introduction of such a bill as this. He however, would beg those who desired such a committee, to reflect upon the expence and trouble that must attend such a committee; to consider if witnesses were to be summoned from all parts of England and Wales, what time such a committee must last, and when it was likely to end? Each case would, in fact, be a suit before the committee, for he should propose to do that with regard to the magistrates, which they, under the existing law, declined to do towards the publicans; that is, he should have the magistrates apprized of any ground of complaint urged against them, and afforded the opportunity of vindicating themselves. What time, then, would such an investigation occupy!—As to the cases he had adverted to upon this occasion, the right hon. gent. stated that they were but a few out of a large mass, and while gentlemen called for deliberation and delay, he could assure them and the house, that many persons were starving in jail in consequence of the law which he proposed to correct. There was one case in particular into which he believed a right hon. gent. (Mr. Rose) had made inquiry, and which he knew was peculiarly oppressive, namely, that of Mrs. Unthank. The case of Mr. John Morris, a respectable man, who had a shop over the way in King Street, furnished the strongest grounds of complaint. This Mr. Morris, for whom, from his own knowledge of him, he could not hesitate to avow the utmost respect, was deprived of his licence by the magistrates, merely because his house was to be taken down in order to make some cox-combical improvements about Westminster Abbey—to shew that building to the members as they came down to the house. But he had communicated the case of Mr. Morris to the Treasury, and he hoped for redress. There was also one with regard to a Mr.

1105
Bignall, of the Broadway Westminster, whose licence was withdrawn by the magistrates, upon grounds which they would not explain, and the poor man finding every effort to procure redress unavailing, absolutely died of a broken heart about a fortnight since leaving a helpless family to deplore his fate. With such facts before him, he did not think it too much to propose this temperate measure. However, as the opinion was so strongly expressed, that if such a bill was necessary, it should be made general, he should acquiesce in the wish for time to inquire into the subject. He hoped and trusted that by the next session, petitions would pour in from all quarters, praying the removal of the existing grievances, and that such petitions would be presented by the highest authority, by that of the county representatives of the respective petitioners. For himself, he should for the present only say, that which was only a repetition of what he had said before, that while he had a seat in that house, he should ever be found an advocate of the weak against the strong, and of the helpless against those who had the power, and, he was sorry to say, too often the will, to oppress them.
Mr. Rosevindicated the conduct of the commissioners appointed to superintend the improvements alluded to by the right. hon. gent., from any concern in the transactions respecting Mr. Morris or Mrs. Unthank. For whenever those commissioners thought the removal of any house necessary to their object, they not only paid for the house itself, but, if a shop or place of business, they allowed for the good will also, or any other loss sustained by the proprietors.
Mr. Sheridansaid, the complaint in the cases he referred to was, that the licence was refused on the ground that it was in contemplation to take down the house for the purpose of the improvement he had mentioned.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that he had received some papers from the right hon. gent. upon the subject of Mr. Morris's case, and that an inquiry was set on foot in the proper department. The result of that inquiry he should take care to have communicated to the right hon. gent., and if the case should turn out to be such as the right hon. gent. had described it to be, he had no doubt that ample redress would be granted by remunerating Mr. Morris.—After some farther conversation, Mr. Sheridan with leave of the house withdrew the bill.
Mr. Dent'sbill relative to the lodgement of £400. upon prosecuting an election petition, after some observations from sir Pigott and lord W. Russell against it, and from Mr. T. Jones and Mr. Dent in its favour, produced a division of six to five; and there not being 40 members present the house adjourned.