Thanks And Acknowledgements

My thanks go to Kent Libraries and Archives - Folkestone Library and also to the archive of the Folkestone Herald. For articles from the Folkestone Observer, my thanks go to the Kent Messenger Group. Southeastern Gazette articles are from UKPress Online, and Kentish Gazette articles are from the British Newspaper Archive. See links below.

Paul Skelton`s great site for research on pubs in Kent is also linked

Other sites which may be of interest are the Folkestone and District Local History Society, the Kent History Forum, Christine Warren`s fascinating site, Folkestone Then And Now, and Step Short, where I originally found the photo of the bomb-damaged former Langton`s Brewery, links also below.


Welcome

Welcome to Even More Tales From The Tap Room.

Core dates and information on licensees tenure are taken from Martin Easdown and Eamonn Rooney`s two fine books on the pubs of Folkestone, Tales From The Tap Room and More Tales From The Tap Room - unfortunately now out of print. Dates for the tenure of licensees are taken from the very limited editions called Bastions Of The Bar and More Bastions Of The Bar, which were given free to very early purchasers of the books.

Easiest navigation of the site is by clicking on the PAGE of the pub you are looking for and following the links to the different sub-pages. Using the LABELS is, I`m afraid, not at all user-friendly.

Contrast Note

Whilst the above-mentioned books and supplements represent an enormous amount of research over many years, it is almost inevitable that further research will throw up some differences to the published works. Where these have been found, I have noted them. This is not intended to detract in any way from previous research, but merely to indicate that (possible) new information is available.

Contribute

If you have any anecdotes or photographs of the pubs featured in this Blog and would like to share them, please mail me at: jancpedersen@googlemail.com.

If you`ve enjoyed your visit here, why not buy me a pint, using the button at the end of the "Labels" section?


Search This Blog

Saturday 4 October 2014

Updates

4th October, 2014: Folkestone Sessions Books 1641-1662, 1765-1779 and 1792-1811 Added

Jolly Sailor (2), Great Fenchurch Street 1807 - 1838

Licensees
John Burton 1807 1823 To Plough
Thomas Squires 1823 1825
Jeremiah Dixon 1825 1829
John Pope 1829 1838 Renamed Bricklayers Arms




Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811

General Sessions 30-5-1809

Before Joseph Sladen (Mayor), John Minter, Thomas Baker, John Castle and John Gill.

Ordered that the following persons be summoned to appear at the next adjournment of the Sessions, viz.: Wm. Rigden, Charles Stebbings, John Essex (sic) and John Burton.

Rigden, British Lion. Stebbings, Marquis of Granby (1). Eastwick, Ship Inn. Burton, Jolly Sailor (2)

General Sessions 27-6-1809

Before Joseph Sladen (Mayor), John Minter, Thomas Baker, and John Castle.

John Burton, of the Jolly Sailor, was fined 20/- for having in his possession 5 quart and 6 pint pots for selling ale or beer, which was paid in Court.

Jolly Sailor (2)
 

Hovelling Boat, Dover Street 1798 - 1811

Licensees
Edward Rayner Holmes 1798 1808
John Richardson 1808 1811 Renamed Packet Boat (1)



Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811

General Sessions 25-4-1808

Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), Joseph William Knight, John Castle, John Gill, John Bateman and James Major.

The following person was fined for having short measures in their possession, viz.:

Jn. Richardson 3/-

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions
 

General Licensing Notes



Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811

General Sessions 10-12-1792

Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), John Harvey, Thomas Farley, John Minter, Michael Minter, Robert Harvey and Joseph Sladen.

Ordered that the Town Clerk inform the different victuallers by notice that if they permit any illegal meetings at their houses that they will not have any licences granted to them in future.

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811


General Sessions 11-4-1806

Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), Edward Andrews, John Minter, Joseph Sladen, John Castle, William Knight, John Gill, John Bateman and James Major.

Ordered that the Town Clerk do give notice that no publican will be permitted to be bound for each other in the recognisance in their ale licence.

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811

General Sessions 18-8-1807

Before John Gill (Mayor), Joseph Sladen, Thomas Baker, and John Castle.

Ordered that the Town Clerk send the following notice to the different victuallers.

“Whereas it appears to the Mayor and other Magistrates of this town that many of the victuallers within the town and liberty thereof have permitted persons to drink and tipple in their houses on Sundays during divine service, I am directed by the Mayor and other Magistrates to inform you that in case you shall be henceforth found guilty of so offending you shall be fined and the Magistrates will not in future licence your houses”. Dated this 10th August, 1807.

Kentish Gazette 25-7-1854

The Licensing System

Early in the last session a select committee of the House of Commons was appointed, “to examine into the system under which public-houses, hotels, beer-shops, dancing saloons, coffee houses, theatres, temperance hotels and places of public entertainment, by whatever name they may be called, are sanctioned, and are now regulated;" and to re­port, “whether any alteration or amendment of the law can be made for the better preservation of the morals, the protection of the revenue, and the better accommodation of the public.” More important subjects could not well he made the object of inquiry; nor could greater interests be involved in it. A vast amount of property is vested in the institutions and trades which come under the cognizance of the committee; and the public at large are also deeply interested, as their comforts their conveniences, their amusements - and the best mode of promoting all, and at the same time upholding a high standard of morality - are mixed up with the inquiry. The committee continued sit­ting till the end of the la«t session -it was re-appointed this; and at thr dose of last week its report appeared. The recommendation contained in that document - if adopted -will effect a total change in the licensing system ot this country.

The great object of the promoters of the inquiry was, we believe, to obtain the entire abolition of that system; but the committee are in favour of it» continuance, with more stringent regulations, as to character. and more effective sureties That no intoxicating drinks be sold without a license," is their recommendation; and also, that the sureties shall give valid bond, that penalties against them shall be strictly enforced, and that before granting the license, their position and character, as well as that of the applicant, shall be fully inquired into.” They are of opinion, that. “under the new system of licensing, the sum to be paid for a licence shall not be varied by the amount at which the premises are rated, but shall depend solely upon popu­lation, that bring the more simple, certain, and equitable test. They propose, that the lowest amount to he paid for a licence in rural parishes and small towns, shall be £6; in towns of 4.000 inhabitants and not exceeding 10.000, £8; and so on, but in no case to exceed £30.” They further recommend, that “coffee houses, temperance hotels and shell-fish shops,” shall be licensed; 2the license to be issued for £2.”

So much good," the committee remark, has resulted from inspection of common lodging-houses. by police se­lected for that particular duty,” that they “strongly advise the adoption of the same system with regard to places for the sale of intoxicating drinks;” also, that coffee-shops, tem­perance hotels, and shell-fish shops,” should be “visited and reported upon in the same manner." With regard to the time of keeping public-houses open, the recommendadtion is that they shall be closed on Sundays except from 1 to 2, and from 6 to 9 p.m.; and on week-days, from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m.

Then comes the question, who are to have licenses? And who are to issue them? At present the licensing power is. prartically, an arbitrary one, in the hands of thv magistrates -they can refuse or grant licenses pretty nearly as they please; ane much of the evidence was condemnatory of the exercise of the magisterial authority in this respect. The feeling is, “that licenses are withheld and granted capriciously; and that the influence of builders and brewers is more potent than either the character of the applicant, or the requirements of the public.” To remedy this, the committee recommend, that “there shall be one uniform licence for the sale of intoxicating drinks that shall be open to all;” which licence shall “be issued by magistrates at sessions held for that purpose." For, “when thv sole duty to bv performed is to investigate the character of the appli­cant. and the validity of his sureties, the magistracy seem the most fitting authority to be entrusted with its execution." The effect of these recommendations, if carried out, would be, that any person might open a public-house or hotel, or a gin palace, at any place, provided he was of good charac­ter, and could find responsible sureties for his observance of the law.

The committee also take up another subject not especially referred to them, viz., the propriety of opening places of recreation and instruction on Sundays: and they ore entirely in favour of opening them, as the present law is “preventive only to those who will not stoop to devices for its evasion." The Act of George IIl., Wwhich prohibits money from being taken for admission to any place what­ever on the Sunday, is evaded at several music saloons, tea gardens, &c., by the sale of refreshment tickets being made to cover a nominally free admission.” The committee think the inconsistency that suffers the singing saloons of Manchester and Liverpool, and Cremorne, and the Eagle Tavern Gardens, to be open on the Sunday, and shuts in the face of all but the proprietors. and those who have free admission, the garden of the Zoological Society, and the vast and varied school of secular instruction provided with the grounds and building of the Crystal Palare, is too glaring for continuance.” They consider the closing of such places as the National Gallery, the British and Geological Museums, Marlborough and Gore House», &c., as even “less excusa­ble" than that of the Crystal Palace; and they recommend that.

“It is expedient that places of national recreation and in­struction, now closed, should be opened to the public on Sunday afternoon, at the hour of two o’clock; and that so far any such places are now closed by the operation of the law, such laws should be so far amended as to enable the Lord Chamberlain, or other competent authority, to determine what places should be permitted to be so opened and for wliat length of time.” And that the several laws relating to the regula­tion of keeping beer-shops and public houses and places of entertainment, and the several provisions of the Police and Excise Acts, applying thereto, should be consolidated, and made in accordance with these resolutions.”

The above are the principal recommendations of a long report: and there will be a great difference of opinion as to their propriety,- and, if attempted to be carried out, they will all meet with a strong opposition, except those with respect to closing public-houses on Sundays. A bill is now before Parliament on that subject; and it appears to meet with the approbation of the public and the trade; many of the latter, indeed, are in favour of shutting up their houses entirely on the Lord’s day. Much may be said in favour of licensing, and submitting to inspection, coffee-shops, &c., in London, Liverpool, Manchester, and a few other large and populous towns; for there is no doubt that strange scenes of immorality and vice take place in many of them. But in the country, where they exist, they are generally as quiet and respectable as private houses. We suspect that great evils would result from depriving magistrates of the power they now possess of preventing public-houses from being opened in localities where there is no want of them. The power may be abused but we are persuaded the good resulting from it overbalances the evil. As to opening places of “rational recreation and instruction” on Sundays, whilst we admit, that it is inconsistent to shut the Crystal Palace and open Cremorne, we see great evils to society likely to result from the adoption of the recommendations of the committee. Leaving out of view the religious part of the question -though it is the most important -we will only look at it in its probable effects upon the worldly position of the working man. At present the Sabbath is his day of rest. But once sanction, by law, the opening of such places as the Crystal Palace, where money payments are received, and what is to prevent the opening or theatres, concert-rooms, and other places of amusement; to be followed, as a matter of course, by that of factories and workshops; and then what would become of the working-man's Sunday? Instead of being a day of rest and repose, he would ulti­mately he obliged to encounter thr turmoil and labour of the other six; whilst the numerous persons employed in the establishments to be opened, would, from the first, be compelled to work for the gratification of others, on the day they can now appropriate for their own recreation, and we should hope, to the performance of their religious duties. Looking at this question merely in a social point of view, we fear that the alteration the committee propose would be injurious: and viewing it as a religious   question, we must say that we should be sorry to see the order and decorum of an English Sabbath, replaced by the licentiousness and Saturnalian observance» which characterise that day on the continent.

Kentish Gazette 15-8-1854

We would call the especial attention of the Licensed Victuallers to the "Act for regulating the sale of Beer and other Liquors on the Lord's Day," which came into opera­tion last Sunday. By the law us it now stands, public-houses, beer-shops, taverns, and hotels must close at 12 o'clock on Saturday night, and continue closed until one o'clock on Sunday afternoon. In the afternoon they may open at one o'clock and continue open until half-past two o'clock. They must close at half past two precisely, and continue closed until six o’clock in the evening. At six o`clock they may again open their houses and keep them open until ten o'clock, when they must close and continue closed until four o'clock on Monday morning. It is important for the trade to observe the hours, and all persons should be very particular in not opening before the time, and in closing five minutes before half-past two, and five minutes before ten, that they may avoid any infringement of the law. The parish church clock is the usual regulator of the time. There is the usual exception in the act, allowing Licensed Victuallers during the prohibited hours to serve bona fide travellers and actual lodgers dwelling in the house, but there is no definition of what constitutes a traveller. In all respects the law is the same as before the act passed.

An act for further regulating the sale of Beer and other Liquors on the Lord`s Day

Whereas the provisions in force against the sale of fermented and distilled liquors on the morning of the Lord’s Day have been found to be attended with great benefits, and it is im­portant to extend such provisions; be it enacted by the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: I - That it shall not be lawful for any Licensed Victualler or persons licensed to sell beer by retail to be drunk on the premises, or not lo be drunk on the premises, or any person licensed or authorised to sell any fermented or distilled liquors, or any person by reason of the mystery  or craft of vintners of the city of London, or of any right or privilege, shall claim to be entitled to sell wine by retail to be drunk or consumed on the premises, in any part of England or Wales, to open or to keep open his house for the sale of or to sell beer, wine, spirits or any other fermented or distilled liquor between half-post two o'clock and six o’clock or after ten o’clock in the forenoon, on Sunday, or on Christmas Day, or Good Friday, or any day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving, or before four o'clock in the morning of the day following such Sunday. Christmas Day, or Good Friday, or such days of public fast and thanksgiving, except as refreshments to a bona fide traveller or a lodger therein. II That no person shall open any house or place of public resort for the sale of fermented or distilled liquors, in any part of England or Wales between half-past two o'clock and six o'clock or after ten in the afternoon, on Sunday, nor on Christmas Day, or Good Friday, or any day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving, or before four o’clock in the morning of the day following such Sunday, Christmas Day, or Good Friday or such day of public fast and thanksgiving, except as refreshment for travellers. III That it shall be lawful for any constable at any time, to enter into any house or place of public resort for the sale of beer, wine, spirits, or other fermented or distilled liquor or liquors; and every person who shall refuse to admit, or shall not admit such constable into such house or place, shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this Act. IV. That every person who shall offend against this Act shall be liable, upon a summary conviction for the same before any Justice of the Peace for the county riding, division, liberty, city, borough, or place where the offence shall be committed, to a penalty not exceeding £5 for every such offence, and every separate sale shall be deemed a separate offence

Kentish Gazette 7-8-1855 

The new Sale of Beer Bill

The bill brought in to repeal the unpopular Beer Act of last session, tbe 17th and 18th of Victoria, chap. 79. declares that “the laws now in force against the sale of fermented and distilled liquors on the Lord’s day have been found to be attended with inconvenience to the people,” and the 1st clause absolutely repeals the Beer Act now in force, and lately reported against by the select committee. Clause 2 prohibits licensed victuallers from selling wine, beer, or spirits, or any fermented or distilled liquors, between the hours of three and five p.m., or after eleven p.m., on Sun­day, Christmas day, or Good Friday, or before four a.m., of the following day. Clause 3 prohibits the opening of “places of public resort” for the sale of liquor between the hours or after or before the hours already mentioned. The public will thus gain two and a half hours on Sundays, as the act about to be repealed closes public-houses from half­ past two till six p.m., ami after ten p.m. Power is given to constables to enter public-houses, &c, at any time. The penalty tor selling liquors within the prohihited intervals is £5 for every separate sale. An appeal will lie to the quar­ter sessions. From the second report of the select com­mittee on the Beer act of 1854, it appears that, when the adoption of the report was moved, Sir J. Pilkington, the member for Droitwich, moved an amendment, that “The committee liad not yet received sufficient evidence as to the effect produced by the act of 1854 to justify a report to the house in the present session,” but Sir John was left in a minority of one, there being eleven votes against his amend­ment. The report was thereupon agreed to, and the bill whereof we have just given an abstract, is founded on its recommendations.

Southeastern Gazette 2-9-1873

Local News

The annual licensing meeting was held on Wednesday, when the magistrates present were J. Hoad, Esq. (Mayor), J. Gambrill, J. Tolputt, and J. Clark, Esqrs.

During the granting of the licenses to beerhouses, the magistrates had the assistance of one of the overseers, Mr. James Harrison, as to the rateable value, the Act providing that licenses should only be granted to houses which they were satisfied were of the annual value of £15 and upwards.

The licence was refused of a beerhouse in Dover Street on this ground, and the Bench reserved their decision respecting a house in Belle Vue Fields.
  
Southeastern Gazette 12-10-1874

Local News

Under the New Licensing Act, which came into operation on Saturday, the public houses in Folkestone close at eleven o’clock on weekdays instead of twelve as under the previous Act.

Folkestone Chronicle 24-8-1878

Editorial

The Licensing Question

We are compelled to hold over until next week a leader which had been prepared on this subject, criticising the extraordinary action taken by the Mayor, and a small section of the Corporation on Wednesday last, in the resolution passed in the council meeting, and subsequently presented to the Bench of magistrates.

Town Council Meeting Extract

Mr. Holden, in accordance with a notice given, preferred the following resolution, “That in the opinion of this Council, it is not for the benefit of the Borough that any further new licenses for the sale of spirits, wine, beer, porter, cider, perry and other intoxicating liquors to be consumed either on or off the premises, should be granted for this year, within the Township and Borough of Folkestone, and that a representation to this effect be made to the Justices of the Borough at their annual licensing meeting, to be held this day. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded by the Town Clerk to the magistrates through their Clerk.”. He reminded the meeting that great complaints came from outside about the number and state of licensed houses in Folkestone, and it behoved them to take the matter up. Mr. Holden contended that the large number of houses in existence accounted for the irregularities and unseemly conduct of some of the inhabitants, the many police cases &c., and that every new public house depreciated the value of property. He contended that it was their question, because as representatives of the ratepayers they were called upon to pay the police, and it would not require so many police if there were no public houses in Folkestone.

Ald. Hanks contended that they were trying to ruin a respectable body of men, the publicans. They were as good a class of men as other tradesmen. The Council had not been memorialised to take this matter up, and no-one had complained to them that there were too many public houses. There were not so many as there were twenty five years ago in proportion to the number of inhabitants in the town.

Mr. Willis and Ald. Sherwood strongly supported the motion, and after Mr. Holden had replied the motion was put, when there voted in it`s favour, the Mayor, Ald. Sherwood, and Councillors Pledge, Holden, Willis, Robinson, and against, Ald. Banks, Councillors Hills, Stock, Petts, and Harrison. Carried by one majority.

Folkestone Express 24-8-1878

Council Meeting Extract

The next business was “to consider the expediency of memorialising the justices not to grant any new licenses for public houses, hotels, taverns &c. in the borough, and as to opposing the grant of new licenses, and also the transfer and renewal of several of the existing licenses and to make orders”.

Councillor Holden said he put the notice on the paper, and he did so in consequence of the gravity of the question involved. He was prepared with a resolution, and it was not his intention to enter into any arguments, unless he was drawn into a discussion, but he would just state the two principles on which he moved the resolution and commend it to the careful consideration of the members of the Council. His resolution was that in the opinion of this Council it was not for the benefit of the borough that any further new licenses for the sale of spirits, wine, &c., &c. should be granted for this year within the township and borough of Folkestone, and that an intimation to this effect be made to the Magistrates at their annual meeting to be held that day, and that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the justices through their clerk. Mr. Holden said he was induced to take action from the very loud complaints about the condition of Folkestone as touching the licensing question, and it behoved them as men and as citizens to look the question full in the face, and to see whether something could not be done to put a stop to the riotous conduct in the streets. They could not go at any time in the evening down the High Street without seeing enough to appal any right-thinking man. His second motive was this, that every time they allowed a public house to be erected in a neighbourhood they depreciated the value of the surrounding property. If they attempted to remedy the existing state of things, they were told they were interfering with the rights of property and vested interests, but he was trying, not to interfere with anybody, but to prevent persons interfering with them. Whatever value was put upon a public house, he contended it was taken off the adjoining property. There was just one other question, and that was, how many policemen would they require in Folkestone if they had got only one fourth of the public houses? And he alluded to the action of the Watch Committee on the previous Monday in causing a constable to be stationed at the bottom of the town in the interests of order. He contended that this was a ratepayers` question. They could not come there and advocate their claim, but they could tell them to do their best, and they must do it. The justices were men of honour and men of reason, who would listen to anything they represented to them on this matter.

Councillor Robinson seconded the resolution.

Alderman Banks contended that by following out this principle they would be destroying the interests of the brewers, the distillers, and all connected with the wine and spirit trade, and very many people in the town would be ruined. There were men as good and as honourable in the ranks of publicans as there were in other trades. He denied what Mr. Holden said – that they had been compelled to take the matter up. No-one ever complained to them that there were too many public houses. There were no more, nor so many, relatively to the population, than there were 25 or 30 years ago. It was not a fact that the publicans were intent only on selling their beer and spirits, because he himself had seen persons go into public houses and call for a glass of water, and be served with pleasure. Neither did he believe there was any harm in beer and spirits, so long as it was taken in moderation. But, he contended, it was no more the fault of the publican that men drank to excess than it was the fault of a baker that persons would eat new bread when they knew it would disagree with them, yet who would ever think of blaming the baker? He did not think the Council had any right to memorialise the justices as to how they should conduct their business, nor did he think the property of the brewers should be confiscated because they thought proper to interfere.

The Mayor reminded Alderman Banks that Mr. Holden distinctly stated in his resolution that it was for this year.

Alderman Banks continued that there was no place in the town more dilapidated than the spot at the bottom of the High Street, and he understood some gentleman was willing to erect a fine hotel there if the Magistrates would grant him a license. He had seen the plan, and it would be a great ornament to the town. And why, he asked, should they not have another hotel? Did they think that there would be more drunkenness because there were more houses? He believed the time would come when they had free trade in public houses. He believed God sent man for a good purpose, and everything for his use, if he only used it properly.

Councillor Holden: That is the best thing you have said this morning.

Councillor Willis supported the motion. He remarked that there seemed to him to be times when they were glad to be strengthened by support from outside in performing their duties, when they felt a little hesitation as to what course they should pursue, and implied that this would be the case with the Magistrates. He was somewhat astonished at what fell from Alderman Banks with regard to the ruin of the brewers and publicans, and all that kind of thing. It was only on the previous morning that two gentlemen called on him with a memorial against granting a license, and there he saw the name of one of the largest brewers in town.

Alderman Banks said this was wrong.

Councillor Willis said they would find his name beneath that of the gentleman. There was another matter. The Corporation had offered to exchange a piece of ground for another smaller piece, on the condition that a house should be put up within a year. If the owner did not succeed in getting a license that day, there was no reason why it should stand any longer.

Councillor Page also spoke in favour of the resolution.

Alderman Sherwood followed on the same side. With regard to the piece of ground referred to by Alderman Banks, it was known that if it had not been taken for a public house, it would have been utilised for the building of a temperance hotel. He would consistently support the resolution, seeing that it was only for the present year.

Councillor Holden having replied, the motion was carried, six voting for it and four against.

Alderman Banks asked that the names should be taken down, but the Mayor said it was a most unusual thing, and Alderman Banks did not persist.

Southeastern Gazette 24-8-1878

Corporation Meeting

A meeting of the corporation was held on Wednesday morning, the Mayor (J. Fitness, Esq.), presiding. In reference to granting licences to public houses Mr. Holden moved a resolution to the effect that the magistrates be requested to grant no more licences this year. He pointed out the large number of licensed houses in the East end of the town, and added that an application which would be made to the Bench that day to grant a licence to a house in the west of Folkestone would be opposed by the principal inhabitants in this neighbourhood who would present to the magistrates one of the most influentially signed memorials on the subject ever submitted to their notice. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. Alderman Banks strongly opposed the Council having anything to do with the matter, and said they were taking upon themselves responsibilities with which the ratepayers had not entrusted them; they were trying to influence the magistrates, and interfering with the rights of vested interests, and he was strongly opposed to the Council thus acting. On being put to the vote the resolution was carried, five members voting against it.
 
Folkestone Chronicle 31-8-1878

Editorial

THE TOWN COUNCIL AND THE LICENSING QUESTION

The action taken by a majority at a small meeting of the Council held on Wednesday last week is open to the gravest objections. They have gone out of their way to express an opinion on a subject with which as Councillors they have nothing whatever to do. When Mr. Holden and Mr. Willis were elected, the question was not put to them “What action will you take regarding the licensing of public houses?”, therefore they have no moral right in this matter to step outside the sphere of their legitimate duties.

The arguments of the Councillors alluded to are easily dealt with, because they entertain one particular idea on the subject; they are waging war with a class against whom they display a fierce and implacable hatred. Mr. Holden, for instance, complains of the loitering of people in High Street and it`s purlieus, and it is the poor publican that is made responsible for this offence. The fact is, the police do not complain of houses fostering this nuisance, for they know that in that particular rendezvous in the town, youths and others would still loiter about were no such places open, as Sunday afternoons clearly prove. If his argument be that the houses are so full that the said loiterers cannot obtain admission, the creation of other houses of accommodation would perhaps remove the evil which so annoys him. If the houses are not properly conducted the remedy is easy. The Police should complain to the Bench, and the Magistrates can refuse to renew the license.  The remark of Mr. Holden that extra police are required to watch public houses is a reflection on the publicans, but when we find that on Wednesday last no complaints were made by the police, it is at once apparent how unjust and unfair it was of Mr. Holden to make a serious charge against a body of men that he could not substantiate.

Ald. Banks clearly proved that the increase of public houses had not kept pace with the ratio of population. There have not been six fresh public houses licensed since the last census, 1871, and during that time the population has rapidly increased in every direction in Folkestone. What then becomes of the fallacious and misleading statements of Messrs. Holden and Willis, that public houses and drinking are on the increase?  Neither of these gentlemen appear to have given a thought about vested interests. If anyone attempted to interfere with their rights we should hear something about the privileges of Englishmen. Messrs. Nalder and Collyer gave an enhanced price for land in consideration of a provisional license already granted on the house to be built. To be just, those who presented what was substantially a memorial to the Council against the license should have carried, in one hand, an offer of compensation to the persons whose vested interest they stepped out of their way to interfere with. The fact is that if all the public houses in Folkestone were closed tomorrow there would not be less drunkenness. People would drink at home, and drunkenness inside the house (take Scotland on a Sunday, for example) is worse than drunkenness outside of it.

For the sake of the independence of our Bench, we resent this outside effort to influence it`s opinion. We have been informed that had certain Magistrates been present, they would have declined to have heard this resolution from the Council read. The fact that the Mayor sat on the Bench, after presiding at the Council meeting, has excited considerable comment. In his magisterial capacity he pronounced an opinion from the Bench to which he had practically committed himself before the Court was opened, and it would certainly at least have been a graceful act if he had abstained from sitting on the Bench, or of voting in the Council.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-8-1881

Editorial

Wednesday last was the annual gathering of the publicans before the magistrates for the renewal of licenses. One fresh license was granted and the proceedings otherwise were of the usual uninteresting character. The great number of publicans assembled made one naturally reflect on the enormous sum of money spent on King Beer. The publicans themselves are a fine, jovial race of men, who seem to be sufficiently aware of the qualities of the liquors they sell not to partake too freely in them. There can be no doubt that there are too many small public houses in the east of Folkestone, and any way of reducing the number without injury to the owners of property would be a public benefit.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-8-1882

Editorial Comment

We think Mr. Mowll`s objection to gentlemen, prominent members of the Blue Army, adjudicating on licensing cases, only reasonable. The fountain of justice should be above even a suspicion of bias. Magistrates can appear on the Bench when they choose, but when a gentleman holds a strong opinion, and the parties who come before him fancy that that opinion might guide his decision, delicacy for the feelings of others – we can give it no better name – keeps him away. For instance, supposing an assault case was to take place at an election time where the Liberal was the defendant, we believe that strong and notorious partisans on the Conservative side would abstain from sitting on the Bench. Rightly or wrongly, applicants for licences – and we are of opinion that no more should be granted unless under exceptional circumstances – are under the impression that they cannot get fair play from gentlemen sporting the Blue Ribbon, and it would not only be a graceful, but a judicious act, for Messrs. Clarke and Holden, and others holding the views they do, to leave the management of the licensing business in other hands.

Folkestone Express 26-8-1882

Editorial

The objection taken by Mr. Mowll on Wednesday to magistrates who are members of the Blue Ribbon Army, and who sit on the Bench displaying the distinctive badge of that organisation, adjudicating upon applications for new licenses, is, we venture to think, a perfectly reasonable one.

The weight of the objection is very considerably increased by the fact that the gentleman who urged it is, if not a member of the “army”, by his own admission very favourably disposed towards it; but in justice and fairness to his client, he asked those gentlemen who, if they are faithful disciples of the leaders of the movement, condemn public houses in toto, as unmitigated evils, should not legislate in licensing matters.

The legislature, as Mr. Mowll pointed out, prohibits brewers and publicans from taking any part in the business of licensing committees, on the ground that they cannot reasonably be expected to bring a perfectly unbiased mind to bear; but with how much more force will such an argument weigh in the case of magistrates who have pledged themselves in their private capacities to use every means in their power to diminish the number of public houses, and thereby, they hope, diminish drunkenness. It is impossible that they can do other than prejudge every case. It would be more satisfactory to the general public, as well as to the applicants, if those who hold such pronounced opinions upon this very important question would leave the consideration of applications for licenses in the hands of perfectly impartial gentlemen, or, what would be better still, that those who have the selection of licensing committees should take care that only those to whom not a suspicion of prejudice could attach should be appointed.

We think Mr. Mowll`s objection to gentlemen, prominent members of the Blue Army, adjudicating on licensing cases, only reasonable. The fountain of justice should be above even a suspicion of bias. Magistrates can appear on the Bench when they choose, but when a gentleman holds a strong opinion, and the parties who come before him fancy that that opinion might guide his decision, delicacy for the feelings of others – we can give it no better name – keeps him away. For instance, supposing an assault case was to take place at an election time where the Liberal was the defendant, we believe that strong and notorious partisans on the Conservative side would abstain from sitting on the Bench. Rightly or wrongly, applicants for licences – and we are of opinion that no more should be granted unless under exceptional circumstances – are under the impression that they cannot get fair play from gentlemen sporting the Blue Ribbon, and it would not only be a graceful, but a judicious act, for Messrs. Clarke and Holden, and others holding the views they do, to leave the management of the licensing business in other hands.
 
Folkestone Express 30-9-1882

Editorial

No-one who is anxious for the moral welfare of the working classes would care to see more public houses opened in Folkestone. Licences have been thoughtlessly granted to houses in the East of Folkestone, until they have become a snare and an evil to the labouring population amongst whom they are situated. If some of them could be shut up it would be a blessing to the neighbourhood.

Having said so much it cannot be urged that we are pleading the cause of the liquor traffic in the severe comments in the interest of justice we feel compelled to make on the re-appearance of Messrs. Holden and Clark on the Bench at the adjourned licensing day to hear three applications for licences. At the outset we may say their presence made no practical difference, for we are sure none of the Magistrates would have granted licences for which not the slightest plea of necessity could be made. But Mr. Mowll, the solicitor for one of the applicants, objected on a previous occasion to Messrs. Holden and Clark, who are members of the Blue Ribbon Army, sitting to decide on the matter, as they would naturally be prejudiced against the applicant, and he got the case adjourned in the hope that on the next occasion the aforesaid gentlemen would have the tact to keep away. Not so. They appeared on their seat of justice wearing the badge of their party, and the applicant, no doubt, considered that the decision was a foregone conclusion. We cannot dispute the right of these gentlemen to sit on this occasion, but we want to show them that, according to the professions they make, they have acted with much inconsistency. Both profess to be ardent Liberals. We always thought one of the chief cries of the Liberal Party was “Justice”, “Justice to Ireland”, Justice to the labourer”, “A tribunal above suspicion”. Such are some of the war cries we have heard from a Liberal platform in Folkestone. But when a man comes before the Folkestone Bench, and practically says to these gentlemen “I cannot believe that, with your preconceived ideas, that you will give fair attention to my application”, would it not seem in keeping with the professions of the platform, to remain away in order to allow the applicant not the shadow of an excuse for alleging that he was not justly dealt with?