Folkestone Express
10-7-1920
Local News
The Liquor Control Board has issued a new Order relating to
the hours of opening of licensed premises on Sunday. In future the evening
hours of opening will be from 7 to 10 instead of 6 to 9, for consumption on the
premises, and from 7 to 9 for consumption off the premises.
Folkestone Express
25-12-1920
Editorial Comment
Probably we have not heard the last of the licence holders
and their action concerning the sale of tobacco on the early half-closing day.
The penalty inflicted on Friday last was not a severe one, but it shows they
are breaking the law if they serve to their customers after the hours for the
sale of tobacco. It, on the face, appears unjust, that when those hours were
fixed by the Town Council, following a request by the tobacconists of the town,
that the licensed victuallers were not consulted as to their wishes. If they
had been the voting would doubtless have been different to what it was. It seems
an anomaly that at Cheriton and Sandgate cigarettes and tobacco can be
purchased on the early half-closing day, yet on the Folkestone side of the boundaries
a smoker, if he has run out of his choice weed, will have to wait until the
following day before he can enjoy his pipe or cigarette again. There are always
officials ready to pounce on innocent offenders, but to the man in the street
it seems strange that so much time can be devoted to pin-pricking tradesmen,
who are endeavouring to make an honest living, yet at the same time such danger
spots as that brought to the light of day by an inquest held last week are
allowed to exist in a civilised community and in a fashionable town like
Folkestone. It would be of interest to learn what action the Sanitary
Department took in that particular matter.
Folkestone Herald
25-12-1920
Editorial
Bumble oracularly declared that “the law is a hass”. It is
not unlikely that many people, after reading the reports of the cases in which
three licensed victuallers were fined for the heinous crime of selling
cigarettes on Wednesday afternoon, expressed themselves in a similar fashion.
We make no reflection upon the Folkestone Magistrates who heard the prosecutions.
The law being as it is, they probably felt they had no alternative but to fine
the defendants. At the same time they would have shown a greater appreciation
of the fitness of things by imposing a mere nominal penalty of one shilling.
But the amount of the fine is not a very serious matter one way or the other.
The material point is the state of things in which it is an offence for a
publican to sell a cigar, cigarette or tobacco after one o`clock on Wednesday.
One satisfactory result of the proceedings is that the Magistrates consented to
state a case, and, as we understand, the licensed victuallers intend to take
steps with a view to securing the removal of this gross anomaly. We are firm
believers in law and order, but when the application of the law leads to such a
pass as this we venture to suggest that it is time to enquire whether there is
not some error either in the application or in the law itself.
The cases were the outcome of the operation of the Shop
Hours Act, containing provision for the closing of shops one half day in every
week. That measure allows a certain amount of latitude to tobacconists. They
are set apart in a class distinct from shopkeepers generally; they are under no
obligation to shut on the customary closing day unless a two-thirds majority
petition the Town Council to make an order that they shall do so. That is what
happened some years ago. The tobacconists wished to come within the scope of
the general order, and the necessary majority memorialised the Corporation accordingly.
But – and this is a big “but” – the licensed victuallers, who are also
tobacconists, were not consulted in the matter at all. Yet they are expected to
conform to an order in the making of which they had no voice! Could anything be
more unfair? Simple justice and common sense alike dictate that either they
should be regarded as “tobacconists”, and therefore consulted before the order
is applied to them or they should not be affected by the order. Licensed
victuallers are, indeed, provided for by legislation as a separate class, and
they are hedged about and harassed by many restrictions from which other
traders are immune. They have therefore the stronger claim to consideration in
this matter.
Possibly the result of the case to be stated by the Justices
will be a decision that they cannot be regarded as coming within the scope of
the order. If not, then it must be hoped that the powers that be will rule that
the publicans must be classed as “tobacconists” in so far as the matter of
petitioning the local authority for an order is concerned. In justice to the
tobacconists it must be said – so we are informed on good authority – that the
majority of them are not opposed to licensed victuallers and cinemas selling
cigars, cigarettes, or tobacco on Wednesday afternoon. But it is not merely the
tobacconists or the licensed victuallers who have a claim to be heard on this
subject. The public generally has a voice in the matter, and many people
consider it is a serious grievance that they are debarred from purchasing their
smoking materials at hotels and public houses on Wednesday afternoons when the
ordinary tobacconists are closed. True, smokers living at Morehall, at
Cheriton, at Sandgate, and at Hythe can get what they want that afternoon from
the ordinary cigar stores, these being open for business as usual. Viewed in
the light of this fact, the state of things at Folkestone is a still greater
anomaly.
There is another aspect of the case. We are convinced that
it is detrimental to the interests of Folkestone as a health and pleasure
resort that the tobacconists as a body close on Wednesday afternoon, especially
in the summer. If, however, they elect to close, they are free to do so. But
let those who wish to meet the convenience of the public by supplying them with
cigarettes and the like and also the public itself be likewise free to do as
they wish. Let us have freedom all round.
Comment
The recent prosecution of certain licensed victuallers and
the Managing Director of a cinema, for selling cigarettes on Wednesday
afternoon has been the subject of much comment since the cases were reported in
last week`s Herald. The state of affairs is anomalous in the extreme. Whilst an
innocent cigarette is forbidden to freedom loving Britons in Folkestone on
Wednesday afternoons, he can cross the border either to Sandgate or Cheriton
and purchase all he desires in this respect. Surely it is time that steps
should be taken to bring about some alteration.
With the object of securing the views of “The Trade” on this
subject a Herald representative waited on the Chairman of the Folkestone and
District Licensed Victuallers` Association (Mr. Rivers) at the Victoria Hotel,
Risborough Lane. Unfortunately he was confined to his room through
indisposition, but he kindly sent a message through his daughter to the effect
that it was a most absurd position that a body of about a dozen men (an
insignificant minority) should be able to control a majority as was done in
this case.
Mr. Albert Hart, the energetic Secretary of the Licensed
Victuallers` Association, on being asked his opinion on the subject,
emphatically replied “Absolutely rotten. In the first place I should think the
Health Committee of the Town Council would be doing a good thing if they
directed Inspector Pearson to get on with his duties as Sanitary Inspector,
instead of hiding up behind walls and doors whilst a boy is utilised to trap
honest traders. Here is the situation. Some time ago about fourteen members of
the tobacco trade (if indeed there was such a number) asked the Council to
apply the provision of the Shop Hours Act to the tobacco trade in the borough.
Now the enforcement of the Act means that 300 licensed tobacco dealers in the
town are prevented from selling tobacco in any form after one o`clock on Wednesday”.
In answer to another query, Mr. Hart said “Yes, it applies
to hotels and restaurants. All liberty-loving Englishmen revolt at such a
situation, and they revolt also at the methods employed in order to secure a
paltry conviction. We as a trade – combined with other tobacco licensees –
intend to take steps to secure the revocation of this absurd application of a
law, which was never intended to apply to the tobacco trade”.
Our representative also interviewed the manageress of a
large hotel, and she kindly showed him her written instructions that tobacco
could not be sold in any licensed house after one on Wednesdays, nor after
eight p.m. on other days, with the exception of Saturday, when the hour was
extended till nine. It was possible if a chance bar customer ordered a meal to
secure a cigarette or cigar, but as to what constituted a meal there was some
doubt. Some men, she remarked, could make a good meal off a hunk of bread and
cheese, whilst another would probably require several courses to make up a
meal. Hotel guests cannot be served after the hours mentioned above unless they
are sleeping in the house.
The Manager of the Leas Tobacco Company, Sandgate Road, said
it was necessary in the interests, not only of the trade itself, but the public
generally, that the vexatious restrictions should be swept away. It was
intolerable that an insignificant minority should rule, as in this case.
Folkestone Herald
23-7-1921
Local News
Last weekend the Town Clerk of Folkestone received a
communication from the Home Office intimating that the Secretary of State had
revoked the weekly half holiday Order relating to shops wherein is carried on
the trade or business of the sale of tobacco and smokers` requisites.
At the beginning of the present week Mr. Kidson issued a
circular to those engaged in the trade informing them of the revocation, and
adding “Therefore the sale of tobacco, etc., on Wednesday afternoons will be
legal in future”.
It was noticeable that several tobacconists remained open on
Wednesday afternoon last.
Folkestone Express
27-8-1921
Notes and Comments
Legislation has recently been passed dealing with the hours
of the sale of intoxicating liquors. Commencing with September 1st
the hours laid down for such sale will be from 11.30 a.m. to 3 p.m., and 5.30
to 10 p.m., so far as the provinces are concerned, until the various licensing
Justices make an order as to what the particular hours should be. No-one, we
think, not even the licensed victuallers, wish to return to the old hours of
sale of intoxicating drink and ten o`clock appears to be late enough for anyone
to have liquid refreshment in a licensed house. We hear that at a meeting of
the local licensed victuallers on Monday it was suggested by the majority of
members that the hours should be from 10.30 to 2.30 p.m., and 6 to 10 p.m.
Those hours would certainly be the most convenient and suitable to the majority
of the people, and particularly those recommended for the evening should meet
with general approval. The recent law upon the subject is that the licensing
Justices must fix the hours of sale at the annual licensing sessions or at the
transfer sessions, so the Folkestone hours will be such as are specified by the
recent Act until the Magistrates hold their next transfer sessions. On
Wednesday transfer sessions were held, but the Justices could not pass a
resolution on the matter.
The New Licensing Act
The following are the principal provisions of the Licensing
Act which comes into operation on September 1st, so far as they
affect licensed premises and clubs in Folkestone and district:-
For the present the hours during which intoxicating liquor
may be sold or supplied for consumption either on or off the premises will be
on weekdays from 11.30 a.m. to 3 p.m., and 5.30 to 10 p.m. On Sundays from
12.30 to 2.30 p.m., and 7 to 10 p.m.
The Licensing Justices are empowered to vary the above hours
for licensed houses, and the Folkestone Justices will consider the question of
making an alteration in the hours at a special session to be held on 5th
October next. With regard to registered clubs the above hours may also be
varied by the Club Committees by amending the rules of the Club.
Licence holders, and Committees of registered clubs may, if
their premises are structurally adapted for the purpose, and who desire to keep
their licensed premises or club open for an extra hour at night to serve
intoxicating liquor with suppers, must apply to the Justices for their
certificate enabling them to do so. The Folkestone Justices will consider such
applications at the adjourned special sessions to be held on 15th
September. All applicants for the certificate should serve notice of their
intended application to the Chief Constable and Clerk to the Justices on 1st
September, 14 days prior to the hearing of the application.
Persons residing in licensed premises or clubs may be served
with intoxicating drink, and consume same on the premises, at any hour.
Licence holders may supply intoxicating liquor to private
friends, bona fide entertained by him at his own expense, at any hour, and such
friends are entitled to consume the same on the premises at any hour.
The ordering of intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the
premises, and the dispatch of the same by the vendor is permitted at all hours,
providing before being dispatched particulars have been duly entered into a day
book kept on the premises, and also entered in a delivery book or invoice which
shall be carried by the person delivering the liquor.
No intoxicating liquor may be sold or supplied in any
licensed premises or club for consumption on the premises or consumed thereon
unless it is paid for before or at the time when it is sold or sullied for
consumption with a meal supplied at the same time, and is consumed with such
meal, the liquor may be paid for with the price of such meal.
Billiards may be played on licensed premises from 8 a.m. to
1 a.m. the next day.
The consumption of intoxicating liquor with a meal by any
person in any licensed premises or club at any time within half an hour after
closing time is permitted, providing that the liquor was supplied during
permitted hours and served at the same time as the meal and for consumption at
the meal.
Folkestone Express
24-9-1921
Local News
At the transfer sessions to be held at the Town Hall on
Wednesday, 5th October, a proposal will be considered for modifying
the hours applicable to licensed premises and clubs in the borough, and for
fixing the permitted hours for licensed premises, in accordance with the new
Licensing Act.
Folkestone Express
8-10-1921
Local News
On Wednesday the Folkestone Magistrates at the special
transfer sessions had before them the question of hours for the sale of drink.
The Magistrates decided to keep the eight hours a day,
refusing an application for an extension to 8½ hours. On weekdays they fixed
the hours at from 10.30 to 2.30 and from 6 to 10. And on Sundays, Christmas Day
and Good Friday from 12 to 2 and 7 to 10 p.m.
Folkestone Express
11-2-1922
Annual Licensing Sessions
Tuesday, February 7th: Before The Mayor, Colonel
Broome-Giles, Miss Hunt, Dr. Nuttall, Mr. Stace, Rev, H, Epworth Thompson, Alderman
Sir Stephen Penfold, Mr. Blamey, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Colonel Owen, Mr. G. Boyd,
and Alderman C. Jenner.
The Clerk read the report of the Chief Constable (Mr. H.
Reeve), which was as follows: I have the honour to report that there are at
present within your jurisdiction 114 premises licensed for the sale of
intoxicating liquor by retail, viz.; Full licences 71, Beer on 7 (78), beer off
6, beer and spirit dealers 15, grocers, etc. off 6, confectioners wine on 3,
chemists wine off 6, total 114. This gives an average, according to the Census
of 1921, of one licence to every 328 persons, or one on licence to every 479
persons. Twelve of the licences have been transferred during the year. No
proceedings have been taken against any of the licence holders for any offence
during the past year. In the preceding year two licensees were convicted. Eight
occasional licences have been granted to licence holders to sell drink on
special occasions elsewhere than on their licensed premises, and 75 extensions
of hours have been granted to licence holders when dinners, etc., were being
held on their licensed premises. In no case has any abuse of the privilege been
reported. During the year ended 31st December last 16 persons (12
males and 4 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 12 were convicted,
and 4 discharged after being cautioned by the Bench. Only 7 of those proceeded
against were residents of the Borough. This is the smallest number proceeded
against for drunkenness in any one year for the past 30 years. In the preceding
year 37 persons (28 males and 9 females) were proceeded against, of whom 27
were convicted and 10 discharged. Twelve clubs where intoxicating liquor is
supplied are registered under the Act. There are 26 premises licensed for music
and dancing, and one for public billiard playing. In accordance with the
provisions of the Licensing Act, 1921, the Justices, at a Special Transfer
Sessions held on 5th October last, fixed the permitted hours for all
licensed premises in the Borough to be from 10.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., and 6 p.m.
to 10 p.m. on weekdays; and from 12 noon to 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on
Sundays. From enquiries I have made, I believe the hours have proved
satisfactory to the majority of licence holders, as well as convenient to the
general public. Six hotels and one restaurant were, on 15th
September last, given authority under Section 3 of the Act to supply
intoxicating liquor with meals for one hour after 10 p.m. on weekdays. I offer
no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of
misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner.
The Mayor said that as Chairman of the Licensing Justices it
was his pleasing duty to pass some remarks about the report drawn up by the
Chief Constable, and he was pleased to say that the Licensing Justices viewed
the report as being of a very excellent nature. (Hear, hear) There was nothing
in the report but what was gratifying. The report was exceedingly good, and the
first thing they met with was that no proceedings had been taken against any of
the licence holders for any offence during the past year. The Licensing
Justices were well aware that licensed victuallers had a difficult task to
perform frequently, and delicate duties to carry out. Their trade was edged
about by Acts of Parliament, which had to be adhered to, and they had to be
observed. They had been able to carry out their difficult duties during the
past year, and no holder had had any proceedings taken against him for any
offence. That was a record for the Borough. Looking back as far as 1870, it was
a record over all that number of years. Never before had they been able to get
through a year without someone having infringed the provisions of the Act, and
they had established another record this year, which they were exceedingly
pleased to note. With regard to the number of people proceeded against for
drunkenness, they found there something of a pleasing nature. Not only had
proceedings been taken against a very small number of people – sixteen persons
in all – of whom twelve were convicted, but they found that only seven were
residents in the Borough, and that spoke well for Folkestone. It showed they
were a very sober lot of people in Folkestone, and probably accounted for the
longevity they had heard about the inhabitants of Folkestone. He would like to
say one word with reference to the hours. They had not gone back to pre-war
days, when it was eleven o`clock. They had fixed the hour for 10 p.m., and that
met with the satisfaction of the majority of licence holders. The Licensing
Justices had had no application to extend that hour, and neither did they wish
to have any application before them with that idea in view. They hoped the
licence holders would continue to find ten o`clock closing of a satisfactory
nature, so that the good record established during the past year might be
continued. It was generally thought that the last hour perhaps accounted for
drunkenness in many instances. The Licensing Justices would renew all the
licences, none would be referred for extinction, and none would be set back for
the adjourned sessions because of misconduct. He congratulated the town on the
splendid report, and the licence holders who had contributed considerably to
making the report possible, and the Chief Constable and the police, who saw
that all the rules and regulations were carried out from year to year. With
reference to the small number of proceedings taken against Folkestone people
for drunkenness, that was also a record. The Chief Constable had looked back
for thirty years, and further than that he could not go, and they could take it
for granted that that was a record for Folkestone.
Mr. Boyd said that in one case one person had been proceeded
against twice.
The licences were all renewed.
The adjourned sessions were fixed for the 8th
March.
Folkestone Herald
11-2-1922
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 8th: Before The Mayor, Sir
Stephen Penfold, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman C. Jenner, Col. G.P.
Owen, Mr. A. Stace, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Dr. W.W.
Nuttall, Councillor P. Broome-Giles, C.B., and Miss A.M. Hunt.
The report of the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) was read
(for details see Folkestone Express).
The Mayor said he was pleased to say that the Licensing
Justices viewed the report as being of a very excellent nature. (Hear, hear)
There was nothing in the report but what was gratifying. The report was
exceedingly good. The first thing one met was that no proceedings had been
taken against licence holders for any offence during the year. The Licensing
Justices were well aware that licensed victuallers had a difficult task to
perform, and frequently very delicate duties to carry out. Their trade was
hemmed about by many Acts of Parliament, which had to be adhered to. They had
carried out those duties during the past year, and no holder had had any
proceedings taken against him for any offence. That, he was told, was a record
for the Borough. Looking back as far as 1870, it was a record. Never before had
they been able to get through a year without someone infringing the Act. The
next thing was in reference to the individual customers, and they found that
proceedings had been taken against only sixteen people. Out of those sixteen,
they found that only seven were residents of the Borough, and that spoke well
for Folkestone. He thought they were a sober lot of people in Folkestone, and
perhaps that accounted for the longevity they heard about last week.
Furthermore, with reference to the hours, they had not gone back to the old
pre-war times. As they were aware, the Licensing Justices had fixed the hour
for closing at 10 o`clock, and that seemed to have met with the approval of the
majority of licence holders. The Justices had no application before them to
extend that hour, nor did they wish for such an application. They hoped the
licence holders would continue to find 10 o`clock closing satisfactory. It was
generally thought that the last hour was the cause of drunkenness in many
instances. The Licensing Justices would renew all the licences; none would be
referred for extinction, and none would be deferred till the adjourned sessions
because of misconduct. He congratulated the town on the splendid report, he
congratulated the licence holders who had contributed considerably to making
the report possible, and also the Chief Constable and the police, who saw that
the rules and regulations were carried out from year to year. He would like to
add that the number of people proceeded against for drunkenness was the
smallest on record. The Chief Constable had looked back for thirty years, and
further than that he could not go, and they could take it for granted that that
it was absolutely a record for the town. Only seven were local people.
Mr. G. Boyd: And in two of the cases it was the same person
twice over.
Folkestone Express
10-2-1923
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 7th: Before Alderman Sir
Stephen Penfold and other Magistrates.
Inspector Bourne presented the following report: I have the
honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 114 premises licensed for the sale of
intoxicating liquor by retail, viz.: full licences 71, beer on 7, beer off 6,
beer and spirit dealers 15, grocers, etc., off 6, confectioners` wine on 3,
chemists` wine off 6, total 114. This gives an average, according to the Census
of 1921, of one licence to every 328 persons, or one on licence to every 479
persons. Eighteen of the licences have been transferred during the year. No
proceedings have been taken against any of the licence holders for any offence
during the past year. Six occasional licences have been granted to licence
holders to sell drink on special occasions elsewhere than on their licensed
premises, and 133 extensions of hours have been granted to licence holders when
dinners, etc., were being held on their licensed premises. In no case has any abuse
of the privilege been reported. During the year ended 31st December
last 25 persons (16 males and 9 females) were proceeded against for
drunkenness. Sixteen were convicted and 9 discharged after being cautioned by
the Bench. Only 7 of those proceeded against were residents of the Borough.
This is an increase of 9 as compared with the number proceeded against in the
preceding year, when 16 persons (12 males and 4 females) were proceeded
against, of whom 12 were convicted and 4 discharged. Eleven clubs where
intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act. This is a
decrease of one, the Comrades of the Great War Club, in Alexandra Gardens,
having closed voluntarily on the 7th March, 1922. There are 24
places licensed for music and dancing and one for public billiard playing. The
permitted hours for all licensed premises, fixed in accordance with the
provisions of the Licensing Act, 1921, are from 10.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., and 6
to 10 p.m. on weekdays; and from 12 noon to 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on
Sundays. Six hotels and one restaurant have authority under Section 3 of the
Act to supply intoxicating liquor with meals for one hour after 10 p.m. on
weekdays. I offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences on
the ground of misconduct, the houses being conducted in a satisfactory manner.
The Chairman said the report of the Acting Chief Constable
was remarkably good. It was very satisfactory for the state of the Borough, and
it was very gratifying to find no case had been brought before the Bench of any
licence holder. On the whole it was very satisfactory, and reflected great
credit to all concerned. With regard to the question of redundancy of licences
in the Borough, the Licensing Committee had met and agreed not to recommend any
case for consideration, and the Magistrates agreed to that generally.
The Clerk said only fourteen individuals were convicted
during the year, although two appeared on to occasions. He had received notice
from the Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers` Association of their intention
to apply at the adjourned meeting next month for the Magistrates to reconsider
the question of the closing hours. The notice was that the licensees intended
to apply to the Magistrates to alter the present closing hour, which was ten
o`clock on weekdays, to 10.30 for the whole year, and in the alternative to
give them a like privilege for the months of June, July, August and September.
It was his duty, and their duty as the Licensing Committee, to give notice in
two newspapers of that intended application, and he asked them to give him
authority to give that notice.
The Magistrates agreed that the necessary notice should be
given.
The usual music and dancing licences were granted.
The adjourned sessions were fixed for Wednesday morning,
March 7th.
Folkestone Herald
10-2-1923
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 7th: Before Alderman Sir
Stephen Penfold, Alderman R.G. Wood, Dr. W.J.
Tyson, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. A. Stace,
Alderman A.E. Pepper, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. W.R.
Boughton, Colonel P. Broome-Giles, and Miss A.M. Hunt.
The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) read the report of
the Acting Chief Constable (for details see Folkestone Express).
The Chairman said he thought the report was remarkably good,
and spoke very satisfactorily for the state of the Borough. It was gratifying
that no licence holder had been before the Court; in fact, he thought the whole
report was very satisfactory, and reflected the greatest credit on all
concerned. With regard to the question of a redundancy of licences in the
Borough, the Licensing Committee had agreed not to recommend any cases for
consideration, and he thought the Bench generally would agree with that.
The Magistrates` Clerk said that actually only fourteen
individuals were convicted of drunkenness, two individuals having been
convicted twice.
Mr. Andrew said that he had received notice from the
Licensed Victuallers` Association of their intention to apply at the adjourned
meeting next month for a reconsideration of the closing hours, or, as an
alternative, to give them a like privilege during June, July, August and
September. It was the Bench`s duty to order that notices of the application should
be advertised, and he made a formal application for their authority to do so.
The Bench granted the application.
Folkestone Express
10-3-1923
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, March 7th: Before Alderman Sir S.
Penfold, Alderman C. Jenner, Miss I. Weston, Miss Hunt, Rev. Epworth Thompson,
Councillor Hollands, Colonel Owen, Mr. G. Boyd, Dr. Tyson, Mr. G.I. Swoffer,
Mr. Blamey, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. A. Stace.
The Magistrates considered the application of the Licensed
Victuallers` Association for an extension of hours of licensed premises from
10.30 to 2.30 and 6 to 10.30 every week throughout the year, and in the
alternative during the summer months during the months of June, July, August
and September only.
Mr. R. Mitchell Banks, M.P., K.C., made the application, and
among the points he raised was the fact that band performances in the summer
did not close until just before ten o`clock, and that did not allow people to
get to the licensed houses; also that neighbouring towns had the concession;
that wealthy people in the hotels could have a drink at any hour; and that the
special circumstances were the large influx of visitors in the town.
Petitions on behalf of the clergy and ministers came from
Canon Tindall, the Excelsior Good Templars, and a third signed by 1,633 women
were received against the application.
The Rev. H.T. Cooper, Mrs. Stevens, Mrs. Jenner, the Rev. E.
Weaver, Miss Myers, and Mr. Chesher opposed on behalf of various bodies.
The Magistrates considered their decision in private, and
the Chairman announced there would be no alteration in the hours, Councillor
Hollands adding that they were not unanimous.
Folkestone Herald
10-3-1923
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, March 7th: Before Sir Stephen Penfold,
Dr. W.J. Tyson, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman C. Jenner, Mr. E.J.
Morrison, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. A. Stace, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Mr. W.
Hollands, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Councillor Miss E.I. Weston.
An application was made by the Folkestone and District
Licensed Victuallers` and Beersellers` Association for an order permitting the
hours of opening to be from 10.30 to 2.30 and from 6 to 10.30 on every weekday
throughout the year, or in the alternative a like order during the season for
June, July, August and September.
Mr. R. Mitchell Banks, K.C., M.P., who appeared on behalf of
the Licensed Victuallers` Association, said there were alternative
applications, one asking them to extend the hours throughout the year, and
another for the order for the extension during the summer months only. His
clients were not particularly desirous of having that extra half hour in the
winter, but there had been some question whether it was in the power of the
Justices to make an order which only applied on certain days in a certain season.
In his opinion, and that of more eminent counsel than he, there was nothing
whatever to prevent them making such an order. A large number of licensing
Benches had taken this course, orders of a like effect being in force at Dover,
Deal, Margate, Broadstairs, and in the neighbouring division of Hythe. It said
in the Act “If they (the Bench) were satisfied that the special requirements of
the district rendered it desirable”. That was really the foundation of the
application. What were the special requirements? They might think normally that
10 o`clock was sufficient, but in a place like Folkestone they had a district
which had special requirements. It was common knowledge that in the summer
there was an enormous influx of visitors; he did not know how many thousands,
but perhaps during the season there were two strangers to one resident, and one
was aware that the Amusements Committee had a very responsible task in
providing for the innocent enjoyment of these people. He understood that the
expenditure of something like £6,000 was contemplated for music alone this
summer. Folkestone was not like a division where they only had a resident
population. In the summer months they must not forget that, although Parliament
might alter the time, the sun did not have that respect for the Act of
Parliament which other persons must show, and therefore 10 o`clock was really 9
o`clock, and it was broad daylight. They had thousands of people listening to
the concerts on the Leas, and the top bandstand was about twenty minutes walk
from the nearest licensed house, and the middle bandstand about ten minutes
walk. What happened then was the the people who sat to the conclusion of the
musical performance could not get to the public house to have a drink if they
wanted one before they went to bed. Some people thought it was sinful to have a
drink at any time, but the Magistrates were not concerned, nor did they have to
deal with, such an opinion, because the Licensing Act recognised the fact that
people were entitled to a glass of beer if they desired it, and surely it was
for them to consider whether it wasa reasonable demand on the part of the
public for this extra half hour. If they required refreshment at 10 o`clock,
why should they not have it? But they did not have time to get to the public
house under the present circumstances after a band performance. The rich man
could get his drink at the hotel as late at night as he required. If he was a
gentleman with enough money, he owned his own cellar, and he could also have a
drink when required, but the ordinary man, who was not too well blessed with
this world`s goods, and who took furnished apartments or stayed at a boarding
house, could not get a drink when he liked, and he suggested that it was quite
reasonable and right that after one of these performances he should have the
opportunity of getting a drink. Mr. Banks added that from the annual report on
the licensed houses he learnt that the houses had been conducted in an
exemplary manner, and there had not been one prosecution against a licence
holder. It was a terrible nuisance to these people to have their houses
besieged ten or five minutes before ten by crowds of people who wanted a drink.
They grumbled if they were refused. It made it much more difficult for the
licensees to keep the law as they would like to. In the first place, it was
very hard to prevent people from getting in. In the second place, the bars were
congested, and people were likely to get their drinks down as fast as they
could. That could not be good. Under the circumstances it would be for the
convenience of the licensees and the public to have this half an hour`s
extension.
Mr. Banks next referred to the allotment holders, many of
whom, after working late on their gardens in the summer, wanted a drink. If
they wanted a glass of ale after their work, why should they not have it? He
produced a petition signed by over 1,000 ratepayers, many of who were allotment
holders, asking for this extension. The special circumstances were firstly the
large number of visitors, secondly, that in view of the fact that the band
performances did not conclude before 9.45, many people could not get a drink,
and, thirdly, the difficulties his clients assured him did take place in
dealing with the demands of the public under the present hours. He understood
there would be opposition. If those opposing came before them and seriously
showed that mischief would occur, or was likely to occur if this extra half
hour was granted, the Magistrates had got to take that into account, but unless
they were satisfied something of that sort was going to happen, he suggested
the Bench should no more consider their opinion than they would consider a deaf
person arranging a musical programme, or a blind person arranging a theatrical
performance.
Continuing, Counsel said if a man was going to have a drink
it was better he should have it in a public house, because it was a public
house. There he went openly and anybody could see him, and the place was under
police supervision and under their control, and the Bench could punish anyone
who misconducted his house. If a man could not get drink honestly, he would get
it secretly; they could close the public houses, but they could not close the
human throat. To be very strict when there was a demand was merely
manufacturing hypocrites and driving the evil underground. There was a growing
indignation by the people of the country at the way in which their private
tastes and habits were being interfered with by people who thought they had a
right to stop smoking when they thought a person should not smoke, to stop a
person drinking when they thought he should not drink, and who thought they
should put them to bed when they thought right. Public indignation was growing
against it. It was by this interference that breaches of the law were likely to
occur. In conclusion, he thought this was a very meritorious application, which
if granted would add to the popularity of Folkestone, and he hoped the Bench
would see their way to grant it.
The petition signed by over 1,000 ratepayers was put
forward, and also a petition signed by every licence holder except three.
The Magistrates` Clerk said a petition had been handed to
him by Canon P.F. Tindall. This stated that the clergy and ministers of
Folkestone urged that there was no necessity of extending the hours of the
licensed houses. Among other reasons, they thought that the hours of employees
in licensed houses were sufficiently long now; that the extended hours would
prejudice the morale of the town, and also that the later the hour of keeping
open, the more harmful it was to the homes of the people.
There was also a petition from the Folkestone Excelsior
Lodge of the International Order of Good Templars, stating that the needs of
the whole community were met by the present arrangements.
Another petition signed by 1,633 ladies in the town and 61
men was also put in.
The Rev. H.T. Cooper (Pastor of Tontine Street
Congregational Church) said on behalf of his brethren he could assure the
Magistrates that they were unanimous in presenting this petition. The hours of
those employed in the public houses were quite long enough at the present time.
They felt that the present hours met the needs of the public. So far as the
allotment holders were concerned, as one who had seen the activities of these
men, he could say there were precious few who were still working on their
allotments at 10 o`clock in the evening. As President of the local Band of Hope
Union, in the interests of the children, they felt that the crowds which besieged
the public houses were not healthy or wise in their movements, or in their
language. They simply submitted that this trade was one which, given due
recognition and wise hours, could be carried on healthily, but when the hours
were extended it became a menace to public interest and health.
Mrs. Stevens also spoke against the extension.
Mrs. C. Jennner, of the Women Citizens` Union, said they
were of the opinion that there was no need for any extension. There was plenty
of time, convenient to all. It was the last hour that did the mischief. This
extension would not help their town or help the homes.
The Rev. E. Weaver (Wesleyan Superintendent Minister) said
the first people to consider were the women and children, to whom they (the
men) returned after using the public houses. He also insisted that the evidence
was abundantly clear that the majority of the 1,633 women of Folkestone who had
signed this petition had done so while acknowledging that they were not
abstainers themselves.
Miss Myers, of the British Womens` Association, also opposed
the proposed alteration.
Mr. H.G. Chessher, Hon. Secretary of the Folkestone and
District Sunday School Union, said he represented 200 Sunday School teachers
and officers, and 2,000 scholars in some eighteen Sunday Schools, and he
heartily and strongly endorsed the remarks made by the Rev. Cooper with regard
to the standpoint of the children and the young persons, and also the petition
put in by the clergy of the town.
The Magistrates then retired. On their return after a
lengthy consideration the Chairman said the Bench had come to the decision that
there should be no alteration in the hours. (Applause)
Councillor Hollands: We are not unanimous.
Editorial
Many will read with gratification the remark made by Councillor
W. Hollands after the announcement of the decision of the Folkestone Licensing
Justices on the question of granting an extra half hour to the licensed
victuallers. Mr. Hollands, when it was stated that the Bench had come to the
decision that there should be no alteration in the hours, observed “We are not
unanimous”. It is interesting to know that, as we are in a position to state,
more than one of the sitting Magistrates were in favour of allowing an
extension to half past ten during the summer months. Whilst we do not doubt the
sincerity of the majority who voted against the application, we cannot but
regret that they did not approach the subject with the same breadth of view and
tolerance of spirit displayed by the Hythe Justices a fortnight ago. The
licensed victuallers would have been quite satisfied had their request been
granted so far as the summer months are concerned. Mr. Mitchell Banks made out
a strong case for the extra half hour on the long summer evenings, when large
numbers of visitors are in the town. No unprejudiced person can dispute the
right of visitors to be considered. There is no great principle at stake,
except perhaps in the view of those who would vote right out for prohibition.
At the present time England has not sacrificed its liberty by enslaving itself
under the tyranny of prohibition; the licensed victualling trade is regarded as
a perfectly legitimate trade, carried on to meet the demands of the public, and
when it is reasonably and adequately proved that those demands extend to half
past ten (according to Greenwich time, only half past nine) there can be no
sound reason- apart from the views of the extremists – for refusing to allow
facilities for the meeting of such demands. In other coast towns, rivals to our
own, which cater for visitors, the licensing regulations are being administered
with more elasticity, and we are placed at a disadvantage if the same
facilities are refused at Folkestone, to say nothing of the anomalous state of
things whereby different hours are in force between two towns so closely
together as Folkestone and Hythe.
Folkestone Express 9-2-1924
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 6th: Before Alderman R.G.
Wood, Dr. W.J. Tyson, Miss Weston, Miss Hunt, the Rev. Epworth Thompson,
Alderman Pepper, Col. Owen, Col. Broome-Giles, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd,
A. Stace, W. Hollands, E.T. Morrison, J.H. Blamey, and W.R. Boughton.
The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said he had received a notice from
Mr. A. Hart, the Secretary of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers`
Association, stating that it was their intention to apply to the Licensing
Justices for an order fixing the hours of opening on weekdays from 10.30 a.m.
to 2.30 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 10.30 p.m., which was really an half hour`s
extension on every weekday throughout the year, and in the alternative for
those hours during the summer season, June, July, August, and September, with
the hours as at present for the remainder of the year, and also that the hours
on Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday should be as at present.
Mr. Shea, of Margate, said he appeared in support of the
application, and had petitions to hand in to the Bench.
The Clerk said he had received numerous letters in
opposition to the application. The Folkestone Men`s Adult School asked that the
opening hours should not be extended, as they considered that would be
detrimental to the young people of the town. The Rev. J.C. Carlile wrote
regretting that an engagement at a meeting in London prevented his attendance
there, and he sincerely hoped the Justices would not agree to the application.
He enclosed a resolution stating that the Folkestone residents assembled at a
meeting on January 31st in the Baptist Church expressed the earnest
hope that the Licensing Magistrates would not grant the application for the
hours to be extended, for the meeting was of opinion that there were no new
facts and the conditions had not changed since the refusal last year. The
Leaders meeting at the Wesleyan Church sent a letter respectfully asking that
the application should not be granted, for they knew of no general desire that
the Magistrates` decision of last year should be rescinded. Mr. H.G. Chessher,
Secretary of the Folkestone Sunday School Union, forwarded a resolution from
the Union, with which was affiliated eight Sunday Schools, 127 teachers, and
1,228 scholars, respectfully submitting to the Justices that the present hours
for the opening of licensed houses were adequate, and further that the
extension of those hours, particularly during the summer season, was against
the best interests of the young people, and both from the town and the
visitors` point of view respectfully urged them not to grant any extension.
There were similar letters from the Canterbury Road Congregational Church, the
Radnor Park Church, the St. John`s Church Council, the Women`s Adult School,
the Folkestone Branch of the Kent Band of Hope Union, and the Canterbury Road
Wesleyan Church. Last, but not least in volume, was a petition which was signed
by 3,649 women over the age of 21, all residents in the Borough, and 332 men
asking the Magistrates not to grant the application.
Mr. Shea said he knew the members of the Bench came here
with a free and open mind, and they were going to weigh over all the arguments
both for and against, and decide judiciously and judicially whether they should
make that change. So far as he was able to ascertain there was no reason why they
should not say in certain months that the premises should be closed, say, at
ten o`clock, and then for the summer months – June, July, August and September
– that the premises should be open so that the sale of drink might take place
for another half an hour, with a proviso that on the 1st October the
hour of ten o`clock should be substituted again. That gave them 8½ hours. He
could tell the Justices that on behalf of his clients he was prepared to
forward the suggestion that they would not at any time during the twelve months
exceed the eight hours` sale. That could be arrived at by curtailing the
evening hours during which the premises might open during June, July, August
and September from 6.30 instead of six o`clock and extending the time to 10.30.
They could make a provision that at the end of the season, September 30th,
they would revert to 6 to 10 p.m. opening if the Bench could not grant the
additional half hour to bring them into line with other towns. He thought the
fact that the licensees during the summer months were willing to give up half
an hour of their time by postponing the opening by half an hour showed that it
was a real endeavour in the interests of the public. Another point was that
they could, if they liked, fix the hours until the next licensing sessions to
be from 10.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. and from 6.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. Up to the war
period the hour of closing was eleven o`clock, and he did not think anyone was
the worse for it. They were now asking for a short period of the year to revert
to that time less by half an hour. The Order of 1921 was a big attempt at local
option. The Government had not the courage to define the hours, but put the
unpleasant duty of fixing them on the shoulders of other people. He was
presenting three petitions in favour of that application. The first was signed
by residents in and visitors to Folkestone. It had not been hawked about in
public, and people had not been importuned to sign. It had not been in the
hands of canvassers, but it contained some 3,500 signatures, and was signed by
adults over 18 years of age. The petitioners were of opinion that it would be a
great convenience to the public if the hours of opening could be extended to
10.30 during the months of June, July, August and September. The concerts did
not terminate until ten o`clock, and it was impossible for any member of the
audience to listen to the whole of the programme and have refreshment before
the licensed houses closed, because such places were situated at a considerable
distance from such places of entertainment. In other seaside towns where the
privilege had been conferred it had not been abused, and in no instance had it
led to intemperance. He had also a petition to hand from the allotment holders,
and another from practically the whole of the licensed victuallers, with the
exception of two or three, who could not be reached in time for that meeting.
They must not forget that Folkestone was a health and pleasure resort. He took
it that whether a man was a member of the local authority or whether he was a
Justice of the Peace he desired to see the town of his adoption or of his birth
go ahead. The competition between health resorts was very keen, particularly in
the South East of England. The running of entertainments and the advertising of
the town had become crystallised almost to a science. The town which was going
to forge ahead, the town which was going to maintain its prosperity was the
town which catered most of all for its visitors. Folkestone, he agreed, was a
nicer town than Margate, but at Margate they did cater, and cater most
thoroughly, for their visitors. They found that Margate was one of the most
sober towns round the east coast. The public there certainly appreciated to the
full the privileges the licensing justices had thought fit to confer upon them.
There the hours of opening had been extended to 10.30 p.m. during the summer
months. The hours for Dover, Westgate, Broadstairs and Birchington had been
extended to 10.30 on weekdays all the year round. At Hythe they had the
privilege for the summer months. There had been no increase of drunkenness in
those places. He asked them to give the extended hours a trial for 12 months
there. Those dear ladies who had prepared the petition against the application
knew nothing about the matter, and they certainly knew nothing about the
requirements of the district. They had been hawking the petition about from
door to door and getting it signed by all and sundry. Such petitions were often
signed by people who wished to get rid of the people bringing round the
petition.
The Rev. J.W. Inglis said he appeared before the Justices as
the representative of the Free Churches to oppose the application. He would
like, before they decided upon the arguments brought forward by the solicitor for
the applicants, to suggest that it might be useful to ask a very few simple
questions. Were those who were making that application thinking solely and
entirely of the public interests? Was that a disinterested application by those
who had nothing to gain from the extension of hours? Was it not a fact that
every licensee stood to gain personal profit from the proposed extension of
hours? The answers to those questions would affect the Magistrates` estimate of
the arguments advanced on behalf of the Trade. The motive behind it was gain.
Mr. Shea spoke on behalf of those who had boasted that their trade was their
politics. That could only mean the interests of their own class were more
important in their eyes than the interests of the public. One speaker at the
Licensed Victuallers` dinner said he would vote for any party provided it would
further benefit the Trade. His remark was greeted with applause. Why was it the
applicants wished to have the half hour from 10 to 10.30? They were prepared to
surrender the earlier half hour. He submitted that drinking was more prevalent
during the last half hour, and the publicans stood to gain more than they would
lose in the earlier half hour. The argument that Folkestone was prejudiced was
not likely to impress anyone who remembered what a good season they had last
year in spite of their early closing. The difficulty some of them had in fixing
up rooms for friends did not suggest that their season was being spoiled by the
ten o`clock closing hour. Licensees felt hurt that the law paid so much
attention to their trade. There was a very good reason why the law paid so much
attention to it. The reason was that it was a dangerous trade and Society had
been forced to protect itself against it. Those whom he had the honour to represent
were not by any means all teetotallers or temperance reformers. He wished to
God they were. They were, however, citizens who believed that the present
closing hour was late enough to satisfy all reasonable demands. It was not in
the interests of the employees that the hours should be extended, for their
hours were long enough in all conscience. Then that application was not in the
interests of the police, for the later the hour of closing the more work was
placed upon them in clearing the streets. They had a good record in that town,
and they wanted to keep it. They could not too highly praise the work done by
the police. That application, they maintained, was not in the public interest.
It was a patriotic service to set one`s face against waste of all kinds. Late
closing hours encouraged unnecessary expenditure on drink, therefore money was
diverted from legitimate uses. They had benefitted immensely from the
restricted hours. The condition of their streets was ample evidence of the
great benefit the community gained from a policy of restriction, and they
appealed to the Magistrates in the public interests.
Mrs. Thomas spoke in support of the petition signed by the
3,600 women. She said there was not the least attempt to put pressure on people
to sign it. They really got more opposition to signing it from teetotal people,
but it was the moderate people who signed.
Mr. Chessher, representing the Sunday School Union, also
spoke. He said the signatures on their petition were either residents or ratepayers
within the district. He pointed out that the petition in favour of the
application was signed by residents and visitors. It would be interesting to
know how many of those 3,500 signatures were the signatures of residents in
Folkestone, who were the only people with the right to express an opinion
before the Bench. They were told that a lot of poverty existed in Folkestone,
and the parents of the poorer children in the town certainly did not need
further opportunity of spending money, which would otherwise be used for the
support of their children. Ten o`clock was late enough for children to be
waiting for their parents outside a public house. Many of the visitors came
from London, and refusals to extend the opening hour beyond ten o`clock had
been made in Stoke Newington, Tower Hamlets (the largest licensing district in
London), Richmond, Kensington and Finsbury. Therefore visitors from those
districts would not look for greater or later facilities than they found in
their own districts. He found the total arrivals at the Central Station in 1922
were 194,721, and in 1923, 246,284, a total increase of 51,563, or over 25
percent, despite they had not the later opening hour. He challenged the
applicants` advocate to produce such figures from Margate.
Mrs. Pollard, on behalf of the Women Citizens` Association,
and Miss Pearce, of the British Women`s Temperance Association, also opposed
the application.
The Magistrates retired, and on their return into Court the
Chairman said the members of the Bench had carefully considered all that had
been said for and against the application, and their decision was that the
regulations by the Order of 1921, confirmed last year, should remain in force
during the ensuing year without variation.
Folkestone Herald
9-2-1924
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 6th: Before Alderman R.G.
Wood, Dr. W.J. Tyson, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. E.T. Morrison, Colonel
G.P. Owen, Mr. A. Stace, Alderman A.E. Pepper, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson,
Mr. W.R. Boughton, Councillor W. Hollands, Colonel P. Broome-Giles, Miss A.M.
Hunt, and Miss E.I. Weston.
The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said he had received a notice from
Mr. Albert Hart, the Secretary of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers`
Association, stating that it was their intention to apply on behalf of the
licence holders of Folkestone for an order that the hours for the sale of
intoxicating liquor on weekdays be from 10.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. (as they are
now) and from 6 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. That amounted to an application for half an
hour`s extension on every weekday throughout the year, or as an alternative a
like order during the months of June, July, August, and September Application
was further made for the hours on Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day to be
from 12 noon to 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. (the same as at the present time).
Continuing, Mr. Andrews stated that he had received petitions, etc., both
against and in favour of the application.
Mr. Shea, of Margate, appeared for the applicants.
The Clerk then went through a list of petitions and letters
opposing the application. There was one from the Folkestone Men`s Adult School,
Friends` Meeting House, Dover Street, stating that they considered any
extension would be detrimental to the young people of the town. There was a
letter from Dr. J.C. Carlile stating that he greatly regretted that an
engagement to speak in London that afternoon prevented his attendance at the
licensing sessions. He sincerely hoped that the Bench would not accede to the
application. Enclosed with the letter was a copy of a resolution passed at a
meeting of Folkestone residents assembled in the Baptist Hall on January 21st,
expressing an earnest hope that the application would not be granted. The
meeting was further of the opinion that there were no fresh reasons why an
extension should be granted since last year, when a similar application was
refused. The leaders of the Wesleyan Church forwarded a petition respectfully
asking the Bench not to grant the extension, as they knew of no general desire
that the decision of last year should be rescinded. Mr. H.G. Chessher, Honorary
Secretary of the Folkestone and District Sunday School Union, wrote stating
that this Union, which had a membership of 127 teachers, and 1,228 scholars,
submitted that the present hours were adequate. Further, an extension,
particularly during the summer season, was against the best interests of the
young people, and they urged the Justices not to grant any extension on the
present hours. There were also letters from the Canterbury Road Congregational
Church, the Radnor Park Congregational Church, Dover Street Primitive Methodist
Church, the Parochial Church Council of St. John`s Church, representing 150
electors, the Women`s Adult School, the Rev. H.T. Cooper, President of the Kent
Band of Hope (Folkestone Branch), and the Canterbury Road Wesleyan Church,
protesting against the application. The Clerk also said he had before him a
petition which was said to have been signed by 3,469 women over the age of 21
years and resident in the borough, and by 332 men.
Mr. Shea said he was sure that the Justices came there with a
free and open mind, and they were not going to be prejudiced by anything he was
going to say, and that they were not going to be prejudiced by anything anybody
else was going to say, but they were going to weigh up the whole of the remarks
made for and against, and decide judiciously whether or not it was desirable to
make this change. They could only fix the hours of the houses once a year; they
could only fix them at the Brewster Sessions, but so far as he had been able to
ascertain there was no reason why they should not say that during certain
months the premises the premises should be closed, say, at 10 o`clock, and then
for the summer months of June, July, August and September the premises should
be opened for another half hour longer, with a proviso that on October 1st
the closing hour of 10 p.m. should be instituted again. That would give them
eight and a half hours, but he could tell the Justices that on behalf of his
clients that he was prepared to forward a suggestion that they would not at any
time during the twelve months exceed the eight hours. It could be arrived at by
altering the opening hour in the evening from 6 to 6.30, and then putting on
the half hour knocked off at the other end. They could make such an order with
a proviso that at the end of September the hours of opening should again be
from 6 to 10. They would much prefer, however, if the Bench could see their
way, to have the additional half hour so that the town`s hours would be brought
into line with other towns, but the licences were prepared during the summer
months to postpone the evening opening hour by half an hour, and this showed
how real was their interest for the public. They could also, if they liked, fix
the hours until the next licensing sessions from 10.30 to 2.30 and from 6.30 to
10.30, and at the same time impose a condition that the houses from January to
the end of May and from October to the end of December should close at 10
o`clock. During the years of 1912, 1913, and 1914, and up to the outbreak of
the war, licensed premises were open until 11 p.m. He did not think anyone was
a wit the worse for it, and now they were asking for a very short period of the
year to revert to that time less half an hour. During the war a very large
number of orders were made, and unfortunately the country had not got free from
all those restrictions. The Act of 1921 was a half-baked attempt at local
option. Those who were responsible for it had not the courage to define the
hours, but they put that very unpleasant duty on the shoulders of other people.
He presented three petitions in favour of the application. The first was signed
by residents and visitors to Folkestone. This petition had not been hawked about
in public; it had not been in the hands of canvassers. The petition contained
some 3,500 signatures, and all those who had signed it were over 18 years of
age. Mr. Shea then referred to the fact that during the season many people who
visited the concerts on the sea front had to rush away just before 10 o`clock
if they wanted to get some refreshment. In many other seaside towns the
Licensing Justices had acceded to similar applications, and the test of time
had proved that not only had the privilege been much appreciated, but it had
not been abused in any way. Folkestone as a health and holiday resort should
have the same privileges. A petition from a number of allotment holders was put
in by Mr. Shea. There was a further petition signed by practically all the
licensed victuallers in Folkestone. The number of signatures was fifty nine.
Continuing, Mr. Shea said Folkestone was a health and pleasure resort, and he
took it that every member of the Bench, whether he or she was a member of the
local authority, or whether he or she was merely a justice of the peace,
desired to see the town go ahead. Competition between health resorts was very
keen, particularly in the South Eastern portion of England, and the running of
entertainments and advertising town had become crystallised almost to a
science, and the town which was going to forge ahead, keep the position it held
at present, and maintain its prosperity was the town which catered most of all,
best of all, for its visitors. Referring to his own town, Margate, Mr. Shea
said he had to admit that Folkestone was a nicer town, but they at Margate did
cater most thoroughly for their visitors. The hours had been extended at
Margate until 10.30, and the public did appreciate the privilege the Justices
had thought fit to grant. Then there was Dover, a bigger and industrial town.
The hours at Dover for the past three years had been 10.30 on weekdays. The
same applied to Broadstairs, Westgate and Birchington. At the neighbouring town
of Hythe an application by the licensees to remain open until 10.30 had been
granted, and there had not been a single conviction for drunkenness up to the
present day. He asked them to give this extension a trial for twelve months.
With regard to the petition obtained by these dear ladies he did suggest that
they knew nothing about it. They knew nothing about the requirements of the
district. This petition of theirs had been hawked from door to door and had
been signed by all and sundry, and very often it was signed by persons because
they wanted to get rid of the people bringing the petition round.
This was the applicants` case.
The Rev. J.W. Inglis, the Minister of the Radnor Park
Congregational Church, said he appeared before them as the representative of
the Free Churches to oppose the application. Before they finally made up their
minds as to the value of the arguments that had been advanced by the learned
counsel it would perhaps be useful to ask a few simple questions.(1) Are those
who make this application thinking solely of the public interest? (2) Is this a
disinterested application by those who have nothing to gain from the extension
of hours? (3) Is it not a fact that every licensee stands to gain personal
profit from the proposed extension of hours? The answers to those questions would
affect their estimate of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Trade. The
motive was gain. The application came from those who had been known to boast
“Our trade is our politics”, which can only mean that in their view the
interests of their own class were more important than the interests of the body
politic. One man said at the Licensed Victuallers` dinner that he would vote
for any party provided that it was for the benefit of the Trade. His remark was
greeted with applause. Why did they want this extra half hour? They were
prepared to give up half an hour earlier in the evening. He submitted that they
were only prepared to surrender this half hour earlier in the evening because
they knew that drinking was more prevalent and heavier during the last half
hour and they stood to gain more. The argument that Folkestone was prejudiced
in comparison with other south coast towns by the present closing hours was not
likely to impress anyone who remembered what a good season they had last year
in spite of their early closing. The difficulty some of them had in fixing up
rooms for friends did not suggest that the season was being spoilt by the 10
o`clock closing hour. He did not know of any specific case, but if it should
happen that a would-be visitor was so keen on late drinking that he would not
come into a town that had a 10 o`clock closing hour, he submitted they could
view his decision with equanimity. They were well rid of such a visitor.
Licensees felt hurt that the law paid so much attention to their trade. The
reason why it did so was because it was a dangerous trade and society had been
forced to protect itself against it. Mr. J.A.R. Cairns, the London stipendiary
Magistrate, had recently written a book entitled “Side Lights of London”. On
page 151 of that book was a story which explained why social reformers were
opposed to strong drink. He quoted the writer`s words: “At times there come
revelations into the tortured martyrdom of women`s lives. Their patience is
almost divine in its endurance and forgiveness. A crippled girl hurried from
her squalid home to the police office. When the police arrived they found a
drunken husband dragging from her bed a woman who had passed through the
shadows of childbirth a week before. During the week of convalescence, night
and day she had been subjected to his tortures. Her child had been born dead,
with its neck and both arms broken. It was alleged that the calamity was the
result of ante-natal cruelty”. There they had the reason why this Trade was
regarded as a dangerous trade. Those whom he had the honour to represent were
not by any means all teetotallers or temperance reformers. He wished they were,
but they were not. They were, however, citizens who believed that the present
closing hour was late enough to satisfy all reasonable demands. The application
was not in the interests of the employees. Their hours were long enough in all
conscience. The application was not in the interests of the police. The later
the hour the more work was thrown on the police in clearing the streets and
keeping the peace. They had a good record in that town, and they wanted to keep
it. They could not too highly praise the work done by the police, especially
when the streets were thronged with holidaymakers. They asked that no
additional burden should be placed on these guardians of public peace. The
later the closing hours, the more drunkenness. The application was not in the
public interest. It was today a patriotic service to set one`s face against
waste. Late closing hours encouraged unnecessary expenditure on drink. They had
benefitted tremendously from restricted hours of sale. Their Police Court
records showed that, and the condition of their streets was ample evidence of
the great benefits the community had gained from a policy of restriction. They
appealed to the Bench in the public interest to refuse the application.
Mrs. Thomas said the large petition was presented in the
name of the women of Folkestone. They earnestly asked the Justices not to
extend the hours, because they felt it was unnecessary.
Mr. Chessher said with regard to the large petition handed
in by the applicants, it was stated that the application had been signed by
residents and visitors of Folkestone. He took it that the only people who had a
right to express their opinion were the people of Folkestone. Excessive
drinking was found to take place near closing time. If they increased the hours
it would mean an increased expenditure on alcoholic beverages. Further he
submitted that 10 p.m. was quite late enough for children to be waiting for
their parents outside licensed houses. In London applications for extensions at
Newington, Finsbury, Tower Hamlets, Stoke Newington, Richmond, and Kensington
had been refused. Visitors coming from those districts would not look for later
facilities than they found in their own home district. It had been said that
Folkestone had been handicapped by not having an extension to 10.30 last year.
He had ascertained from the Southern Railway Company that the total arrivals at
the Central Station in 1922 were 194,721, whilst in 1923 the arrivals totalled
246,284, a total increase of 51,563, or 25 percent. He challenged the counsel
to produce similar figures from Margate.
Mr. Shea said that the increase at Margate for the year
1923, as compared with 1922, represented 75 percent.
Mrs. Pollard, on behalf of the Women Citizens` Association,
and Miss Pearce, of the British Women`s Temperance Association, also briefly
addressed the Magistrates.
The Bench then retired, and upon their return after about
fifteen minutes` deliberation, the Chairman stated that they had given careful
consideration to all that had been said for and against the extension, and they
decided that the regulations which had been in force since October, 1921,
should remain in force during the ensuing year.
Editorial Comment
The Folkestone Justices, at the Licensing Sessions on
Wednesday, remained obdurate. Even the compliment paid to Folkestone by Mr.
Shea, the Margate solicitor who made the application for the extra half hour on
weekdays, and who said he had to admit that Folkestone was a nicer town than
his own, failed to move them. Or perhaps the compliment was counterbalanced by
his subsequent remark that they at Margate did cater most thoroughly for their
visitors. Certainly it must be admitted that in this matter of providing
facilities whereby holidaymakers are able to obtain the refreshments which they
severally require we are outdone by our Thanet rival. At Margate indeed the
extra half hour after ten is allowed the whole year round. The Folkestone
licensed victuallers did not press for the concession for the whole year, and
indeed perhaps in the winter ten is quite late enough. Mr. Shea pressed his
claim strongly for the summer months. He said in many other seaside towns the
Licensing Justices had acceded to similar applications, and the test of time
had proved that not only had the privilege been much appreciated, but it had
not been abused in any way. Folkestone as a health and pleasure resort, he
contended, should have the same privileges. Mr. Shea further said he took it
that every member of the Bench, whether he or she was a member of the local
authority, or whether he or she was merely a justice of the peace, desired to
see the town go ahead. Competition between health resorts, he went on to
remark, was very keen, particularly in the south eastern portion of England,
and the running of entertainments and advertising of towns had become
crystallised almost into a science, and the town which was going to forge ahead,
keep the position it held at present, and maintain its prosperity, was the town
which catered most of all, and best of all, for its visitors. The force of this
argument cannot be denied, and every impartial person must regret that for
another season at any rate Folkestone is to be handicapped by the decision
which the Licensing Bench came to last Wednesday. Doubtless those sitting on
the magisterial dais acted in accordance with the dictates of their conscience,
but their judgement will be the subject of much criticism.
No sensible person wishes to see the licensed establishments
open later simply for the sake of drinking. It is a matter of the convenience
of visitors. They may come out of a picture theatre or leave the bandstand on
the Leas at the end of a concert there at ten or just after, and then desire to
obtain some refreshment before returning to their apartments. To those staying
in hotels, where they can obtain their drinks at any reasonable hour, the
restriction is of small moment, but it is only the minority who are so
circumstanced. The majority stay in much less pretentious houses, and many of
them probably “keep nothing indoors”. In a recent address Dr. Carlile
maintained that the argument that the extra half hour would be an attraction to
visitors was very far-fetched. Was it to be supposed, he asked, that a lady and
gentleman considering whether they would go to Margate, Harrogate or Folkestone
would look up the time for the closing of public houses before they determined
which place to visit? Perhaps not, but there is the case of the visitor who had
already arrived, and who, thinking that the closing hour is the same as in the
place where he comes from, perhaps half past ten or eleven o`clock, takes it
for granted that in Folkestone it will be the same. When he finds that he is
wrong he is disappointed and annoyed, and probably he delivers himself of
uncomplimentary remarks concerning the town and those who administer its
affairs, but, hearing that other towns on the coast grant facilities which he
is denied at Folkestone, he seriously considers whether he shall not take
himself and his family to one of those other places when the holiday season
comes round again. Dr. Carlile and the Rev. J.W. Inglis, who spoke as the
representative of the Free Churches on Wednesday, would doubtless on occasion
wax eloquent in the cause of freedom, but in this instance the freedom on which
they insist is the freedom to impose their views on others. Those others have
not the slightest wish to force their opinions on those who are extremists in
this matter, but they have a right to claim that they, on their part, shall
enjoy freedom. The lack of uniformity in London on this subject has been
engaging attention, and it will not be surprising if Parliament is asked to put
the matter on a more sensible footing. In Folkestone the position is
unsatisfactory, to say the least, seeing that our town is placed at a
disadvantage as compared with its rivals, and if there be any legislation
dealing with the question, many will hope that it will apply to the provinces
as well as to the metropolis.
Since the foregoing was written the Hythe Borough
Magistrates have decided to again allow an extension of half an hour on
weekdays during June, July, August and September. Thus we shall once more have
the anomaly of different closing hours in the same Parliamentary borough.
No comments:
Post a Comment