Morehall 1920s

Folkestone Express 12-2-1927

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 9^th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. E.T. Morrison, Mr. W. Griffin, Col. P. Broome-Giles, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Mr. J.H. Blamey.

Mr. Davis (instructed by Mr. Haines) said he appeared on behalf of the licensee of the Morehall Wine Stores, Cheriton Road, and the application was for the removal of the full licence from the Rose Hotel in Folkestone to the Morehall Wine Stores. The application, and the desire of Mr. Kent, who was the licensee, was to sell by retail at the new premises, either on or off the premises, of  intoxicating liquors that he could sell under the full licence which he now held at the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, which, of course, was what the licensing justices would have in mind in dealing with a licence of that description. What opposition was there?

Opposition cane from Mr. Rutley Mowll, on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers, and the owners of the White Lion Hotel, and of the Victoria Hotel, in Risborough Lane, Mr. Scorer, on behalf of the Rev. D.C. Kenward, and the Rev. G.A. Uden, the minister of the Baptist Church, and property owners.

After hearing the evidence and considerable argument, which included that by Mr. Mowll that the public would not get the benefit of the monopoly value, which was stated to be £3,000, by that transferrance of the licence, the Magistrates retired, and on their return the Mayor announced that the application was not granted.

Folkestone Herald 12-2-1927

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 9^th: Before The Mayor, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. A. Stace, Mr. E.T. Morrison, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Colonel P. Broome-Giles.

Morehall Application

An application was made by Mr. J.H. Kent, of the Morehall Wine Stores, for the transfer of the full licence of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, to the Morehall Wine Stores. Mr. A. Davis, barrister, instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines, appeared on behalf of the applicant, while Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers` Association, and also the licensee and owners of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, and the licensee of the Victoria Hotel, Risborough Lane. Mr. Scorer, of Ashford, appeared on behalf of the Rev. D. Kedward, the Rev. E. Uden, and several property owners in the district.

Mr. Davis said the application was for the removal of the full licence of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, to proposed new premises at the Morehall Wine Stores. Mr. Kent, the licensee, wished to sell by retail at the new premises at Morehall either on or off the premises all intoxicating liquors, and under the full licence which he now held at the Rose Hotel he would be able to do that. Mr. Kent, he imagined, was well-known to the Bench as a licensee of some standing in Folkestone, he having held a licence or various licences for the last seventeen years. At this juncture Mr. Davis asked if there was any opposition, and both Mr. Mowll and Mr. Scorer stated for whom they were appearing.

Mr. Davis (to Mr. Scorer): Is yours a Temperance opposition?

Mr. Scorer: I am opposing on the grounds that the need is not there.

Mr. Davis, continuing, said first of all he proposed to deal with the need of the district around the Morehall Wine Stores. From the map he produced it would be seen that the Morehall Wine Stores occupied a corner site which was regarded as being of some importance having regard to the opportunities such a site gave for police supervision. The Stores were situated right in the centre of a rapidly growing district. On the northern side of the railway there were no less than six hundred houses, besides works such as the Folkestone Electricity Works, and shops which were unprovided for at all in a quarter mile radius by any licensed premises. A half mile away was a fully licensed house known as the White Lion, but if they took half a mile radius from the Morehall Wine Stores on the northern side, they got something like eleven hundred houses without any fully licensed hotel accommodation. If anything was required to convince the Bench of the need for granting the application there was situated very near Morehall one of the finest sports grounds in the world. The mere fact that this fine sports ground was situated in the district was an assurance that the district would be developed rapidly within the next few years. If they took the south side of the half mile radius they got another hundred houses, making in all twelve hundred. There was one licensed house in that district, and that was the Railway Hotel, but access to these premises was only possible from the northern side by crossing the railway under an arch in Shorncliffe Road. Numerous workmen engaged at the Electric Light Works and other places came from long distances and they brought with them their midday meal, and they naturally desired something to drink with their meal, but they would not go this long way round to the Railway Hotel. What was the result? Instead they cut across the railway, which was most undesirable. Fully licensed premises at Morehall would obviate that. There were over a hundred men employed at the Electricity Works. Mr. Hesketh, the managing director of the Works, had given this matter much consideration and he would tell them that from the point of view of economy the men were happier, more content, and better able to do their work if means were provided whereby they could obtain refreshment. Mr. Davis, continuing, pointed out that there was no hotel accommodation in the district; there was no accommodation for travellers, visitors, or club meetings. Provision, it was proposed, would be made so that clubs, friendly societies, etc., could meet on the premises. Mr. Davis then referred to the petition asking the Magistrates to grant a full licence. The Petition, Mr. Davis stated, was signed by three hundred and twenty three persons, and Mr. Kent`s instructions to the person taking the petition round was to see that only one person in each house signed. The petitioners represented one hundred and ninety nine occupiers, nearly a hundred owners of property, and some forty to fifty lodgers, and every one of the signatories resided on the northern side of the railway. In those roads nearest the Morehall Wine Stores a very large proportion of the householders had signed the petition for a licence. Continuing, Mr. Davis said that the nearest licensed house to the Morehall Wine Stores on the Folkestone side was the Bouverie Arms, which was a mile and a half away. His submission was that he made the application with some confidence because what was the opposition? There were various forms of opposition. Some they understood and some they did not; some opposition was entitled to respect, and some was not entitled to so much respect. It divided itself under two headings – trade opposition and what was regarded as temperance opposition. With regard to the trade opposition it was opposition for which one could not have much respect. Wasn`t  it self-destructive? If it was contended that a new house would take away a lot of trade from another house, it could not be said, having regard to the needs of the neighbourhood, that another fully licensed house was not required. He relied upon the opposition to support his case. He was told that twenty years ago Mr. Mowll was applying for a licence on that very spot. (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll: I hope learned counsel does not mistake me for a retired publican. (Laughter)

Mr. Davis, continuing, said twenty years ago the owners of the White Lion Hotel applied for a licence on that very spot. They applied on the only grounds which he that day was making the application – that there was a need for such premises. What was a need twenty years ago was a want today. With regard to the other opposition he doubted whether he quite understood it, but he realised that the opposition was put forward on the highest motive and it was opposition for which they must have the greatest respect. He could not help feeling, however, that their opposition was opposition to the law rather than the application. It might be that they desired all licences should be done away with, but the law being what it was, it was laid down that a licence should be provided in a district where it was required, and therefore he did submit with the utmost confidence that the opposition of the Temperance party was not opposition which ought to weigh with them. Counsel next referred to the case for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel. Within a quarter mile radius, taking the Rose Hotel as the centre, he said, there were no less than fifty three licensed houses, fully licensed houses numbering forty three, and off licences eleven. The Magistrates had to decide whether the removal of a licence from such an area was likely to cause any inconvenience to the people in the area. He did not think it could be suggested that there could be any inconvenience. They were proposing to remove a licence from this congested area to an area where there was a great need for a fully licensed house.

Mr. W.B. MacGowan, of 7, Beachborough Villas, gave evidence of the posting and serving of notices. He said that he knew the district well and there was no licensed house between the White Lion, Cheriton and the Bouverie Arms, unless one went to the Railway Hotel. Personally he did not want a licensed house, but he had not the slightest objection to one. There was a very large area with no licensed house, and he had frequently heard it stated by members of the public that a licensed house was required in that area.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll, witness said he had not had any difficulty in letting houses in that neighbourhood because there were no licensed premises.

Mr. J.H. Kent said he was the applicant in the application and also the licensee of the Morehall Wine Stores. He was also the licensee of the Rose Hotel, the licence having been transferred to him in January. He had over twenty years` experience as a licence holder. In his view there was undoubtedly a need for a licensed house at Morehall. There had been a great demand during the past ten or twelve years, and he frequently had applications to supply drink on the premises. There was no hotel accommodation in the area, or meeting place for friendly societies, clubs, etc. If the application was granted he intended making provision for those needs. He put in petitions signed by the residents in the neighbourhood in favour of the application. The signatures were obtained from persons living within a quarter mile radius of his present premises.

By Mr. Mowll: The licence of the Rose Hotel was transferred to him on January 5^th. Mr. M. Burton, the owner of the Rose Hotel, had a shop next door, but he could not say whether he (Mr. Burton) acquired the Rose Hotel for the extension of his premises. He could not say that the licence of the Rose Hotel would be extinguished in any event. The owners of the Morehall Wines Stores were Messrs. Nalder and Collyer. He could not see how the public were going to get any monopoly value through the transfer.

Mr. Davis interposed here and said that he did not wish to hide anything. A copy of the agreement arrived at between the brewers (Messrs. Nalder and Collyer) and Mr. Burton had been put in. Messrs. Nalder and Collyer had provisionally agreed to purchase the licence of the Rose Hotel from Mr. M. Burton if the transfer was granted.

Mr. Mowll: The suggestion is that this is going to put money into Mr. Burton`s pocket and deprive the public of monopoly value.

In reply to further questions by Mr. Mowll, Mr. Kent said he had been at the Morehall Wine stores since 1907. He had made two applications in the past for a full licence.

Mr. F.C. Hayward, an architect, said he had prepared an ordnance map dated 1907. Since 1907 the number of buildings erected at Morehall on the north side of the railway was a hundred and seventy, in a quarter mile circle. He was referring to residences, and the number did not include factories, garages, works, and a considerable number of shops. South of the line the number of new houses was seventy. Tgere were a hundred and fifty new houses between the quarter mile circle and the half mile circle, making a total of 320 on the north side.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll, witness said it was proposed to construct one new bedroom at Morehall Wine Stores if the transfer was granted. The existing shop would become the public bar and the store and office would be turned into the lounge. The kitchen would be shifted to the back.

Mr. Thos. Hesketh, Managing Director of the Folkestone Electricity Supply Coy., said from one hundred to one hundred and fifty men were employed by the Company. He supported the application on the grounds that he considered it was necessary to meet the requirements of the working men in the district. Some of his own men came long distances and brought their meals with them, and, of course, wanted something to drink when they had their meals. Some of the men crossed the railway line and went to the Railway Hotel. Other workmen had also trespassed across the line, and through the Electricity Coy.`s works to get to their goal – the Railway Hotel.

By Mr. Mowll: He had supported the application on previous occasions.

Mr. Mowll said the Trade had its rights and one of the rights of the Trade was that they paid very heavy taxes, and they were also called upon to pay certain duties and so on. The law had laid down a provision whereby in the case of a new licence a monopoly value should be assured to the public. The application before them that day was a manoeuvre to get over that payment of that monopoly value. He had heard, although it had not been mentioned that day, that the monopoly value was said to be £3,000 some years ago. They had seen the document with regard to the purchase of the licence by Mr. Kent from Mr. Burton and they would see that not one penny of that £3,000 would go into the pockets of the public. It was equally certain that some of the money would go into the pockets of Mr. Montague Burton. If they did not grant the transfer of the licence, the Rose Hotel licence, he contended, would disappear in a short time and no compensation would have to be paid. There was no doubt that Mr. Burton had bought the Rose Hotel with the idea of extending his premises. They were offering this gentleman a very substantial sum if he had the good luck to secure a certain decision from the Magistrates that day. If they made themselves a party to this manoeuvre they established a permanent licence at Morehall, and by removing the licence they would grant to Morehall another licence which could only be extinguished by compensation. Continuing, Mr. Mowll said it was not everybody who wished to live next door to a public house. They also had this significant fact – although there were some eleven hundred houses in the neighbourhood of the Morehall ine Store only just over three hundred persons had signed the petition. He also represented the tenant and owners of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton. That was a fully licensed and equipped house, and some years ago extensive alterations were carried out to meet the increased demands of the district. They looked upon this as an increase to the full licences because they knew that if the application that day failed the licence of the Rose Hotel would become extinct and they would get rid of that licence which Mr. Davis had said was not wanted.

Mr. Davis: I said no hardship would be occasioned by its transfer.

Mr. Mowll said he agreed with Mr. Davis that it was not wanted except by Mr. Burton, and he wanted to put into his pocket money which the public should get as monopoly value.

Mr. Scorer said he saw no connection between the Rose Hotel and Morehall. At Morehall Mr. Kent already had an off licence which, he understood, he had had ever since 1912. Since then the applicant that day had had many opportunities of asking for a full licence, but he had not done so until then. Now he asked for a full licence because he had a peg on which to hang his hat – that was the Rose Hotel. Would he have asked them for a full licence that day if he had not the chance of transferring the licence of the Rose Hotel to Morehall? The Bench`s policy during the past few years had not been to increase the number of full licences, but to decrease them, and that policy had worked very satisfactorily. He asked the Magistrates to continue to adopt that policy by reducing the redundant houses. The demands of the particular locality were well enough served by the Railway Hotel although people might have to go under a railway bridge to get to it. With regard to being near the cricket ground, he understood during cricket weeks a special licence was obtained for selling intoxicating liquors on the ground. He submitted that it had not been proved that there was a big demand on the part of the public in that particular neighbourhood for another fully licensed premises.

The Magistrates retired and upon their return the Mayor said the application for the transfer had been very fully considered and he was instructed to say that the application was not granted.

Folkestone Herald 19-2-1927

Council Meeting

A special meeting of the Folkestone Town council was held at the Town Hall on Thursday morning, the Mayor presiding. There were also present Aldermen T.S. Franks and C. Ed. Mumford, Councillors Commander H.F. Russell, Colonel P. Broome-Giles, R.L.T. Saunders, Mrs. E. Gore, J. Hanchard, C. Turnham, Mrs. M.I. Anness, Engineer Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, W.B. Banks, J.W. Stainer, Colonel W. Swinhoe Phelan, J.A.A. Barfoot, Major General J.N. Younghusband, R. Forsyth, and A.N. Castle, with the Town clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) and other Officers.

The Mayor said the meeting had been called on his instructions because something of great importance had happened since their last meeting and he thought if the members of the Council knew all the facts they would approve of his action in calling them together. They would hear from the Town clerk what had taken place since the last meeting. It would not have been possible to have waited for the next ordinary meeting, as the matter pressed.

Councillor Stainer asked if the Council had not already decided to defer the question of obtaining a licence to sell intoxicating liquors at the Leas Cliff Hall.

The Town Clerk said that was so.

Councillor Stainer: And yet the matter is to be re-opened?

The Mayor: Yes.

Councillor Stainer said he submitted that before anything in regard to that matter was considered by the Council it should first of all be considered by the Committee affected. He also submitted that in view of the fact that the matter had been before them so recently and deferred, that the Council hardly expected the matter to be re-opened within such a short time. It was an irregular proceeding and he did not think it commended itself.

The Mayor said he still maintained that he had not made a mistake in bringing the matter before the Council that morning. The matter, it was true, had been deferred, but not for any space of time.

The Town Clerk said the following letter, dated February 16^th, had been received from Mr. J.H. Kent: Dear Sir, As the owner of the full licence at the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, I beg to apply to the Council for the right to supply intoxicating liquors at the Leas Cliff Hall and can make the necessary application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall at the adjournment of the general annual licensing meeting to be held on the 9^th March next, if the Council agree thereto, subject to an agreement being made between the Council and myself on terms to be arranged to our mutual satisfaction.

Continuing, Mr. Kidson said he thought the letter practically explained everything. The reason Mr. Kent was in this position was that an application by him for the removal of the licence of the Rose Hotel to Morehall had been refused, and he was now willing to make use of that licence at the Leas Cliff Hall if they accepted him as caterer. If the application was made notices must be published in the local papers that weekend. Of course, if the notices were given and then they found they could not come to satisfactory terms with Mr. Kent, he would be able to withdraw the application when it came before the Magistrates, so the Council would have a free hand in that sense between then and March 9^th, the date of the adjourned Licensing Sessions. If the removal of the licence was sanctioned by the Magistrates of the borough in regard to general licensing matters, except in regard to any application in reference to that particular building. There was also no question of any monopoly value.

Councillor Stainer said he took it that the acceptance of Mr. Kent`s offer meant that they would be taking him on as caterer without throwing the position open to the public.

The Mayor said that was so if they took Mr. Kent`s licence.

Councillor General Younghusband: I move that we go into Committee.

This was carried.

Councillor Stainer said he would like to utter a protest against the Council appointing a caterer without any competition. There were hosts of caterers up and down the country who could do the thing well.

Councillor Turnham: They have not got a licence.

Councillor Stainer: I don`t know that Mr. Kent has any experience as a caterer; he is a wine merchant.

The Mayor said they could have two caterers – one to supply wines and spirits and the other food.

Councillor Saunders: Is there any monopoly value attached to a place of entertainment?

The Town Clerk: I have no doubt if we went for a new licence we should have to pay a monopoly value.

Councillor Saunders said he understood that for a place of public entertainment it was possible to get a licence on the payment of a yearly duty of £50. That seemed to him to be the licence that they required for the Leas Cliff Hall, and further he did not see why any Bench of Magistrates should refuse to grant an application for such a licence. That they should consider putting the licence in the power of one man right away without giving anyone a chance seemed to him to be grossly unfair. There was a lot of profit in this business and if it was properly run a good deal of revenue could be obtained for the ratepayers. They ought to consider the provision of bars and service rooms before making up their minds what kind of licence they should have. He thought the whole thing was being rushed, and he did not think it was fair. They had other very large ratepayers who were licensees and quite capable of doing the catering at the Leas Cliff Hall. He believed if the Town Clerk were to go into the question of obtaining a licence for a place of public entertainment, he would find that there was no monopoly value attached, and he thought that kind of licence would meet their requirements. Then they had the other hall at the other end of town. He thought they should take that place into consideration too. It was now closed and a big loss to the public. He did not think the public expected a full public house licence, and he did not think it was reasonable to expect them to discuss that matter that morning because they had not got sufficient data before them.

Councillor Turnham: Who is going to hold the licence you suggest, then?

Councillor Saunders: Either our own manager or some caterer who is appointed by the Corporation on terms to be made, and not on terms rushed on the Council.

The Mayor said there was no idea of rushing the matter through. They could send the matter to the Entertainments Committee, which could find out more about the whole matter and see Mr. Kent, and then bring up a scheme for their consideration at an early date.

Councillor Saunders: We have been told the advertisements must appear in the papers this weekend. If we pass a resolution here this morning we shall be tying ourselves down to a particular caterer and a particular form of licence. I am quite prepared, however, for the whole matter to be considered by the Entertainments Committee.

Councillor Russell: Is there anyone on the Council who can tell us something about Mr. Kent? Is he capable of doing this job? I would like to know something about him.

The Mayor: Of course the Entertainments Committee could interview Mr. Kent and find out what is his experience.

Councillor Russell: I submit that he has never done any general catering before.

Councillor Stainer: We decided in Committee that we did not want a full licence. I say the Council are taking a big step much too fast. This proposition will land us with a full licence.

Councillor Russell: That`s what we want.

Councillor Broome-Giles suggested the Council should consider buying the licence from Mr. Kent. At the present time the value of the licence of the Rose Hotel to Mr. Kent was very small.

Councillor Saunders said he could not see why the Magistrates should refuse to grant a licence to a public body for a place of public entertainment. A neighbouring town had got a licence last week. They knew that if the licence in question lapsed it would be of no use to Mr. Burton or Mr. Kent, and they (the Council) were simply doing something which was ridiculous, because they were getting something they did not require, and at the same time putting money into the pockets of an outside firm and also tying themselves down to one particular man.

Councillor Mrs. Anness said that day she did see eye to eye with the Mayor. (Laughter) She thought he was working on the right lines. They were proposing shortly to open a very big hall which had cost an enormous amount, and they would never make it pay unless they got a full licence for it. She thought that was a wonderful opportunity and she wanted to see the Council take advantage of it.

Councillor Swinhoe Phelan said he thought they should decide first of all whether the Council wanted a full licence or another kind of licence. Personally, he thought they wanted a full licence.

The Mayor said the decision come to that morning would decide the question of a licence for years to come, as if they turned down the opportunity they now had Mr. Kent would not make an application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. If they did as he suggested that day their hands would not be tied. If they were of the opinion later that the arrangements proposed between Mr. Kent and the Council were not satisfactory, they could still turn them down and Mr. Kent would go to the Brewster Sessions, or write to the Magistrates` Clerk, withdrawing his application. He was not a public house man, and never would be, but he wanted to see the Leas Cliff Hall turn out a financial success in the interests of the town. (Hear, hear) Unless they got a licence they would not hold their own people. They wanted to keep their own people in this country and not let them have excuses for going abroad for their holidays. If they did not avail themselves of the opportunity it would be far more difficult to make a success of this new building. He was out to do what was the best, and the objective he had in view was to make this new hall such an attraction that it would bring people to Folkestone during the off season.

Councillor Russell: I am convinced that unless we have a full licence the catering part of the business is going to be a dismal failure. Cannot we have a vote now whether we go for a full licence or not?

The Mayor: You can only have a full licence by making terms with Mr. Kent.

Councillor Russell: Could we not purchase a full licence and hold it in the name of an official?

The Town Clerk said if an official of the Corporation held a licence he was of the opinion that local Magistrates would be disqualified from dealing with local licensing matters, except in the case of charges of drunkenness. With regard to the transfer of local licences, etc., they would have to get county Magistrates to adjudicate.

Councillor Saunders asked how it was possible for them as a Committee without any competition in the matter to fix terms with Mr. Kent. If they advertised for tenders for the catering, as they had done in the past in regard to the Warren tea houses, they would accept the highest tender. Now it was suggested that they should pass a resolution which would enable the Committee to meet Mr. Kent and they would be tying their hands. They would have no figures to work upon, no facts, or any knowledge as to the price they should ask Mr. Kent. If they were going to have a licence, and he was in favour of one, surely in common fairness they should give other people in the twon a chance. The catering rights and the licensing rights were worth thousands a year. They were being asked to come to a decision without anything to work upon.

The Mayor: I agree it is worth thousands a year and those thousands are going to be divided between the Corporation and the caterer.

Councillor Saunders: Supposing at the end of twelve months we decide to terminate Mr. Kent`s agreement, would the licence then be the property of the Leas Cliff Hall?

The Mayor: I think Mr. Kent would either walk out with the licence or the money we paid him for it.

In reply to Councillor Forsyth, the Mayor said there had been no other offers from local caterers so far as he knew.

Councillor Forsyth said he honestly believed that if they were going to make a success of the building they must have a licence, and further, they must have a full licence. It was very awkward; they had no choice. They were in a position that day that a man came to them and to a certain extent he could dictate terms, but he was going to suggest that the Committee which met Mr. Kent should consist of the keenest businessmen they had on the Council. They should see that they got a fair share of the swag, or proceeds. They wanted a fair share, and if anything the biggest share, because they were providing the building. They had got to protect the town. A clause should be inserted whereby the Corporation should have an option to purchase the licence at the end of twelve months at a certain figure. He did not know whether it would not be possible even now, and between then and March 9^th, to get some competitive prices from other caterers. They should not rush into the scheme unless they were going to get the biggest half of the profits. Whatever they did he appealed to them to be careful and to see that there was a clause giving them the right to purchase the licence at the end of a certain period at a certain figure.

Alderman Franks: Will the terms of the agreement be submitted to the Council before the matter goes before the Magistrates?

The Mayor: Certainly.

Councillor Stephens said if they did not get a full licence they would never make the place pay. He paid no attention to what Councillor Stainer had said because he was a rabid partisan. If they did not come to a decision at once they would be left in the lurch and lose money for months and months. Councillor Stephens then moved that the Council were willing to let the catering for the sale of intoxicating liquors to Mr. J.H. Kent, and agreed to support his application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall, subject to terms being agreed with the Council prior to the application being submitted to the Magistrates.

Councillor Barfoot seconded.

Councillor Saunders moved as an amendment that the Corporation apply for a licence for the Leas Cliff Hall for retailing liquor at a place of public entertainment, such licence to be held by an official of the Council or some appointed caterer. He believed that a licence held on those lines would be far more profitable to the ratepayers. The people of Folkestone were getting very cross at these quick decisions, and he did not think the action proposed that morning was fair. There were other people in Folkestone who paid big rates, and who at the same time were licensees and caterers, but they were not to have an opportunity of putting in a price.

Councillor Castle seconded.

Councillor Mrs. Anness: Do I understand that if the Council hold the licence for the Leas Cliff Hall it is going to tie the hands of local Magistrates so that they cannot adjudicate on local licensing matters in the future?

The Town Clerk: That is my opinion, and the opinion of others I have consulted. They could not deal with any question under the Licensing Act, except a “drunk”.

Councillor Saunders` amendment was lost, only Councillor Castle and he voting in favour.

The original proposition moved by Councillor Stephens was then put and carried by fourteen votes to one. Councillor Stainer voted against, and Alderman Mumford and Councillors Castle and Saunders did not vote.

It was eventually decided that the following Sub-Committee should negotiate with Mr. Kent: The Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, Aldermen Franks and Pepper, Councillors Younghusband, Brett, Giles, Forsyth and Saunders. A resolution that the Entertainments Committee, with the addition of certain members, should enter into negotiations was defeated.

The meeting then went into Council again.

Councillor Saunders suggested the following addition to Councillor Stephens`s resolution: “That we negotiate with Mr. Kent for the transfer of his licence to any person the Council should nominate”, and the Council agreed to this.

It was finally resolved “That the foregoing proceedings of the Council in Committee be approved, confirmed, and adopted, and that the Committee appointed by the Council in Committee be instructed to confer with Mr. Kent as to transferring his licence either to the Corporation or another caterer”.

Folkestone Express 5-3-1927

Council Meeting Extract

On Wednesday the members of the Folkestone Town Council were occupied for several hours in discussing recommendations by the Entertainments Committee, the principal of which dealt with the terms suggested for the proposal to transfer the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. The Council rejected the terms, and the result will be that there is very little likelihood of there being a licence obtained for at least a year.

The Special Committee`s report was as follows: The Committee have had several interviews with Mr. Kent and his Solicitor (Mr. W.J. Mason of Messrs. Hall and Co.), and have visited and inspected with them the Leas Cliff Hall. Suggestions were made by Mr. Kent that if he carried out the cater­ing he should pay the Corporation, as rental, a percentage of the net profits; but after fully considering such suggestion the Com­mittee came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory and simplest way of arriving at the amount to be paid by Mr. Kent was by a percentage on the gross takings, and this was eventually agreed to. Mr. Kent is the absolute owner of the licence, which is a free licence, and he definitely declined to consent to transfer, at the present time, his licence either to the Corporation or their nominee. The Committee having carefully considered the whole matter recommend the Council to enter into an Agreement with Mr. Kent for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall and for catering there, and submit the following terms as the best they were able to arrange, and recommend their approval and adoption by the Council:—(1) Mr. Kent to be the caterer for all purposes for the Leas Cliff Hall. (2) Mr. Kent rot to sublet, assign or transfer the right of supplying- refreshments without the consent of the Corporation and then only to a person approved by the Corporation. (3) Mr. Kent may sublet the catering for re­freshments, other than intoxicating liquor, to a person to he approved by the Corporation. (4) Mr. Kent to pay the Corporation 12½ percent on gross takings for intoxicating liquor and 15per cent on gross takings for other refreshments and articles except on cigarettes, the percentage shall be five and on chocolate 7½. (5) The prices to be charged shall be usual and reasonable prices as may be agreed from time to time and for the first year the charges for intoxicating liquor shall be “Commercial” charges. (6) Mr. Kent to pay for all gas consumed by him. (7) The period of the agreement shall be until, and may be determined on, the 31st December, 1930, by either party giving six months` previous notice, and if such notice be not given it shall continue from year to year determinable by either party giving six months` notice, to expire on the 31<sup>st</sup> December in any year. (8) After the expiration of the first 12 months of the Agreement, the terms as to the payment to the Corporation may be considered and revised. (9) On the termination of the Agreement, Mr. Kent shall sell the licence to the Corporation or their nominee for the sum of £2,000, plus an amount not exceeding £500 for Mr. Kent`s out of pocket expenses in connection with the acquisition, transfer and removal of the licence, if so required by the Corporation; and if the Corporation shall terminate the agreement, the Corporation shall buy the licence from Mr. Kent, if so required by him. In like circumstances, such equipment as is not stamped with the owner`s name belonging to Mr. Kent or to any person to whom he has sublet with the approval of the Corporation shall be sold and bought at a valuation. (10) No person will be admitted inside the Leas Cliff Hall except in accordance with conditions which may he prescribed hy the Council and no intoxicating liqour shall be sold for consumption off the premises except in conformity with restrictions from time to time made by the Corporation. (11)  One or more bars shall be provided in the Leas Cliff Hall as may be agreed. (12) Mr. Kent has absolute freedom of purchase for all intoxicating liqours and undertakes not to become tied in any way to any firm. (13) A formal agreement to be settled on behalf of both parties by Counsel, whose fees shall be paid in equal shares by the parties. (14) In case of disagreement between the parties as to any of these heads of agreement the matter shall he left to the decision of Counsel, which shall he accepted as final by both parties.

Mr. Councillor Saunders did not vote in favour of the above terms.

The Town Clerk was instructed to con­sider as to any further points of detail and if on any point he could not agree with Mr. Kent’s Solicitor, it was understood that the matter should we left to Counsel and each party would accept his decision.

The Committee recommended that there should be a bar on each side of the Cloak Room below the northern entrance of the Hall.

The question was raised that the Committee did not recommend the acceptance of the terms but merely submitted them.

The Council decided to revoke a resolution passed previously by them that no bar should be provided in the Leas Cliff Hall at present.

The Council then agreed to resolve themselves into a public committee for the purpose of discussing the Committee`s report.

Councillor Saunders said Mr. Kent`s original terms were 25 percent of his net profit, rising to 33 1/3 percent for a period of seven years, with compensation at the end of the first seven years of £5,000 if it was taken from his. He thought that was absolutely accurate.

The Mayor, in reply to Councillor Stainer, said the licence belonged to Mr. Kent, who had bought it for £1,000.

Councillor Stainer said he would like to move Clause 9 should be deleted – that dealing with giving £2,500 to Mr. Kent as compensation should the licence be required from him.

Councillor Dallas Brett said the terms were the final and best terms they could get from Mr. Kent. If they altered those terms the matter would fall through.

Councillor Saunders said he was not convinced that those terms were the best they could get. He thought they should negotiate on the 20 percent basis for intoxicants.

The Town clerk, in reply to Mr. Saunders, read a letter offering 30 percent of the net profits for the privilege of selling cigarettes, tobacco, etc., in the Hall for the first year.

Councillor Saunders said he had received letters from two reputable licensees stating that they would be prepared to pay £1,000 flat rent for the licence in the Hall. The Committee had had to negotiate with a pistol at their head, because Mr. Kent and his legal advisor had not budged. They should get a big revenue from the licence, because their capital charges were about £5,600, and that was the only chance of recouping themselves. For the 12½  percent the Council had to provide light, cleaning, heating, bars, bands, advertising and all the usual things that the trader had to pay for out of his profit. He suggested that the probable net profits for the licensee was somewhere about 50 percent. Mr. Kent’s offer was really one of 2s.  6d. in the £1 for all the facilities, and that was ridiculous. Mr. Kent was asking them to put him in the shop front of Folke­stone and giving hirn their most valuable site. The Committee never had a chance of discussing the matter on a business basis. Hastings and St. Leonards had got a licence for their new Hall, and there was no question of County Magistrates there. That licence was granted to the Hastings Entertainments Manager. He suggested that the attitude they should take up, unless they could get considerably better conditions, was that they should advertise for the general catering, and take the necessary steps before the next annual licensing sessions. Mr. Kent suggested that he would only get £26 a year out of it, but that was unthinkable.

The Mayor said the Committee majority re­commendations were in favour of the terms being accepted. With reference to what Councillor Saunders said about 50 per cent profit, that was not substantiated before the Committee. Mr. Kent’s figures were 35 per cent. The quotations  by Mr. Kent were on a commercial hotel basis The prices were similar to the Queen’s Hotel. If they charged Harbour Street prices the profits would be less. The Committee tried to get an offer of 15 percent on the gross takings, but Mr. Kent said it could not be done. The agree­ment was being brought up on the lines mentioned in the Committee’s report. Those were the best terms they could get.

Councillor Moncrieff: You say we can alter these proposals?

The Mayor: Mr. Kent is not prepared to ac­cept other proposals.

Councillor Moncrieff: Then it means we have to say that we accept or reject? The issue is a very simple one;we ought to reject.

 Alderman Franks said the Committee were instructed to negotiate for the best terms. They had done so, and it was for the Coun­cil to say what should be done. Those were the best terms the Committee could get, and he thought they were a fair and proper ar­rangement. He went so far as to recommend them to the Council.

Councillor Moncrieff said he was quite in favour of what had been said by Councillor Saunders, who had put the position so ably before them. At the end of the period stipulated by Mr. Kent they had no chance of retaining that licence except by paying an exorbitant rent. That was a ver bad bargain for the town.

The Mayor said they had been told 12½ percent on the gross takings was not sufficient. If Mr. Kent took £100 per week the Corporation`s share would be £650. He would have to employ six waitresses and one cellarman, and his expenses would run to nearly £20 a week. Therefore there would not be much profit for Mr. Kent. Hastings had got a licence, the Corporation having been granted it. The Council should be aware that did not mean that the Hastings Corporation were not paying for the licence. The Excise Authorities would fix the monopoly value, and the Hastings Corporation would have to pay some thousands for that licence. Mr. Kent had got the licence dirt cheap - £1,000. When he applied for the licence to be transferred to the Morehall the licensed victuallers fixed the monopoly value at £3,000. They also knew that when the Grand Hotel obtained tbeiir licence they had to pay £9,000. He took a line between the two, and he estimated they would have to pay some £4,000 or £5,000 for such a licence. Out of the £2,500, if they bought the licence at the end of the period for, £500 was for expenses. Therefore Mr. Kent would make £1,000 out of his deal. They did not think a man was coming there to pay to £1,000 a year for supplying drinks only. They would get £1,000 a year if the turnover was £150 a week. He never thought they were going to get £650 out of a £100 a week turnover. They would never get a cheaper licence. He was not satisfied with the 7½ percent. That was all they could get. The percentage on smokes and minor details they might negotiate upon. Mr. Kent would not accept anything different on the drinks and the price of licence. The Mayor mentioned that the refreshments, other than intoxicating drinks, would be let to a sub-contractor, who would be Messrs. Gironimos.

Councillor Forsyth said it was a well-known fact that the most prosperous and the biggest profit was made out of the licensing trade.

During the subsequent lengthy discussion Councillor Russell raised the point as to whether they could restrict anyone taking liquor out of the hall, and the Town Clerk said if a condition of that kind was put on the licence by the Magistrates on agreement by the two parties, that would be sufficient to carry such a condition out.

The Mayor said that had been agreed between the parties.

The Mayor moved, and Councillor Broome-Giles seconded, the adoption of the minutes.

Councillor Hickson moved that having re­ceived the Committee’s report the Council re­garded the terms as entirely unsatisfactory, and decided to reject same, and they further decided to meet the licensing position in some other manner. He said if it was good busi­ness for Mr. Kent it was excellent business for the Corporation to do the thing thernselves.

Councillor Saunders seconded the amendment, which was carried by 13 votes to 7, and the Council approved of the resolution.

Folkestone Herald 5-3-1927

Editorial

The question of the hour so far as Folkestone is concerned is that of a licence for the sale of alcoholic liquors at the Leas Cliff Hall. Since it was first before the public it has passed through a variety of phases, and this week one metamorphosis has been swiftly followed by another. On Wednesday the Town Council devoted some hours to the consideration of the subject, eventually rejecting the recommendation of the Special Committee that the Corporation should enter into an agreement with Mr. J.H. Kent for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall, and for catering there, on certain terms, which are set out on another page. We believe that this decision will be approved of by the large majority of the townspeople. But that is not the end of the matter. Previously Mr. Kent had definitely declined to accept to transfer, at the present time, his licence either to the Corporation or their nominee, but subsequently to the meeting of Wednesday a letter was received from his solicitors intimating that he would sell the licence for £1,500. To consider this offer a meeting of the General Purposes Committee was held yesterday morning, when it was decided to accept it, and to call a meeting of the Town Council for Wednesday next, at nine o`clock in the morning, to confirm recommendation prior to the Adjourned Licensing Sessions, which are fixed for eleven the same morning. There is just a possibility of those who are against accepting the offer to sell keeping the discussion going so long that a final decision is not arrived at before the hour at which the Licensing Justices take their seats, but it is hardly likely that there will be a repetition of the tactics for which the late Mr. Joseph Biggar earned notoriety as an obstructionist in the House of Commons. Presuming that the recommendation is adopted, the matter will then come before the Licensing Magistrates.

It would be scarcely proper on our part at this juncture to indulge in any speculation as to what thje decision at the Licensing Sessions may be, and we must restrict our brief comments to the action of the Town Council. Whilst, as we have already suggested, that body adopted the right course in declining to agree to the terms embodied in the report of the Special Committee, in our opinion there is a good deal to be said in support of the recommendation to purchase. The one proposal is a totally different thing from the other. In our view, if the Leas Cliff Hall is to possess the advantage of a licence, it should be under the full control of the municipal authority, and the whole of whatever profit may accrue from the business should go to the municipal exchequer. There will doubtless be some difference of opinion as to whether it is reasonable that the holder of the licence should make a profit of £500 or thereabouts on the proposed transaction, but it must be borne in mind that, supposing the Council acquired an absolutely new licence, it would have to pay a substantial amount for monopoly value, an amount probably far exceeding the £1,500 asked by Mr. Kent.

Folkestone Express 12-3-1927

Local News

During the past week considerable interest if it was taken iri Folkestone regarding the question of the licence for the Leas Cliff Hall. Last week, it will be remembered that the Town Council turned down terms put before them by the Committee by which Mr. J.H.  Kent, licensee of the Rose Hotel, was to remove the licence of that Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. On Friday the General Purposes Committee considered an offer, and recommended its acceptance, from Mr. Kent to sell the licence for £1,500,  provided it could be removed to the Leas Cliff Hall. A protest mating was held on Tuesday evening in the Town Hall against the proposal and on Wednesday morning after considerable opposition the Council decided to purchase the licence. Subsequently a Bench of County Magistrates sitting in the Police Court granted the removal of the licence from the Hotel to the Hall, an undertaking being given by the licensee that there should be certain restrictions to the licence.

A special meeting of the General Purposes Committee was held on Friday morning to consider an offer to sell the licence he had previously offered to transfer from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall. The Mayor presided, and there were present Aldermen T.S. Franks, C.E. Mumford, A.E. Pepper, Councillors P. Broome-Giles, H.T. Kenny, J.W. Stainer, L.N. Younghusband, J.A.. Barfoot, A. Dallas Brett, W. Swinloe-Phelan, H.F. Russell, R.L.T. Saunders, A. Castle, Mrs. Gore, S. Kingsforth, A.W. Hickson, W.H. Moncrieff, Mrs. Anness, W.B. Banks, C. Turnham, with the Town clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson).

The Town Clerk read the following letter from Messrs, Frederic Hall and Co., solicitors for Mr. J.H. Kent:— Dear Sir,—Referring to the conversation which has taken place between the Mayor and Mr. Kent, we are now instructed to say that, in view of the decision of the Corpora­tion yesterday, Mr. Kent is willing to continue his application for the removal of the licence from the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall on condition that if the removal is sanctioned the Corporation will pay Mr. Kent £1,500 for the transfer of the licence to the Corporation of their nominee. As the application will not be continued by Mr. Kent unless the Corporation desire to acquire the licence on these terms, he thinks that, should such application be refused by the Justices, it would only be reasonable for the Corporation to pay his expenses in connection with the application for removal and transfer.

The Mayor said the conversation was between the Town Clerk and Mr. Kent, and not Mr. Kent and himself.

Councillor King-Turner said he had heard other men were prepared to offer their licences to the Council.

Councillor Younghusband: Then why don`t they?

The Mayor said he was afraid it would not take them very far that morning.

Alderman Pepper said he thought it was a very good offer, and he moved that it be Accepted.

Alderman Franks seconded.

Alderman Pepper said he took it if the application was made the transfer would be to the Leas Cliff Hall in Mr. Kent’s name, or in anybody’s name.

The Town Clerk said the transfer would be from Mr. Kent to some other individual.

Councillor Kingsnorth: Do I understand, supposing the Council purchase the licence from Mr. Kent, we are free to get another caterer altogether?

The Mayor: Yes.

Councillor Saunders said he would like to point out to the Council the very great difference in Mr. Kent`s attitude now, and prior to Wednesday`s Council meeting. (Hear, hear). They were told at the Committee meeting that Mr. Kent would not consider the sale of the licence, that he wanted it to trade with. They found, after the attempt to ex­ploit the ratepayers on Wednesday had failed, he was now prepared to sell his licence at a profit of £500. He was strongly of opinion they did not want Mr. Kent’s licence. He believed they wanted a licence at the Leas Cliff Hall, and they should get that licence in a straightforward and honest manner at the Brewster Sessions. They were asked to pay Mr. Kent, whose licence he respectfully submitted was not worth 4d., £1500, which was £500 more than he had paid for it, even if it was paid for. It was all very well to say it was a good business proposition. It was not; it was a rotten one. All they wanted was a licence similar to that obtained at Hastings. There they had their licence endorsed, which would have a considerable bearing on the monopoly value. At Hastings they could serve half-an-hour before an entertainment, and a quarter of an hour after. If they had a seven days' licence they would be the only place of public entertainment in Folkestone that would be selling intoxicating liquor on the seventh day. That was a strong point for the ejectment of this licence.

Councillor Broome-Giles said if Councillor Saunders had two licensed victuallers prepared to pay £1,000 a year for the licence, it would e a very economical thing for the Council to pay £1,500, and be assured of £1,000 a year hereafter. If any other licensed victuallers wanted to transfer their licence they had had plenty of time to do so. He was a teetotaller and a non-smoker, and he knew the evils of drink, and he knew there were more chronic diseases from either tea or cocoa than from alcohol. He supported the purchase of the licence.

Councillor Saunders said the view Mr. Kent was presenting showed he had got a colossal cheek. He asked them to pay £500 profit.

The Mayor said that at Hastings they were not allowed to sell anything outside the bars, which after the Brewster Sessions on Wednesday would not be worth 4d. to him. (Hear, hear).

The Mayor said the licence they had at Hast­ings was similar to the licence they had at the Theatre, nothing could be taken into the hall, and if they had a licence like Hastings they could not supply anything on the restaurant style. The bars they had at Folkestone would be all right for waitresses to go and get drinks to take into the hall. If they did not accept that offer they could not do anything for twelve months.

Councillor Saunders: If drink is supplied in the main hall of the building will it be possible for a child under fourteen to enter the building?

The Town Clerk: I am afraid I have not considered that point.

The Mayor: Yes, the child would not go into the bar, but the child could be in the hall where drinks are brought out from the bar.

Councillor Stainer said they had a very different proposition before them that morn­ing. On Wednesday Mr. Kent made an offer to the Corporation for the removal of the licence to the Leas Cliff Hall, on terms which were presented to the Corporation, and he trusted to his friends to uphold those terms, and a large sum of money to be put in his pocket.

Councillor Brett said he objected to the statement that Mr. Kent trusted to his friends.

Councillor Stainer: His supporters.

Councillor Younghusband: We are not his supporters.

The Mayor: I do object to this. It is unjust, and it is not worthy, and if you re going to treat people like that you are not going to get people to serve on the Committees.

Councillor Stainer said he did not want to offend anyone`s feelings.

Councillor Younghusband: Then don`t say these things.

Councillor Stainer said they were told on Wednesday night that they were rock-bottom terms, and not forty eight hours had passed before they found they were not rock-bottom terms. It was a suggestion on the part of Mr. Kent. Heads I win, tails you lose”. There were a great many people who objected to a licence at all. He did not think it was right the Council should involve themselves in a full licence when the opinion of the town was for something more restricted. If they applied for a full licence there would be opposition when the application was heard.

Alderman Pepper asked Councillor Stainer of he would support a modified licence.

Councillor Stainer said he would not.

Alderman Pepper said those people who wanted a drink were just as likely to go to Heaven as those people who did not. Everyone did not want to drink tea, coffee, or lemonade.

Councillor Mrs. Anness said the thing that struck her was Mr. Kent coming down in his terms.

Councillor Parfoot said they should have a full licence. He moved as an amendment that they should offer Mr. Kent £1,000 for his licence and £100 for his expenses, subject to the licence being kept alive.

Councillor Saunders seconded, and said he believed it was a fair and reasonable proposition.

Councillor Hickson asked, if the off-licence would be of no use to them, could they sacrifice it if they wished? There was a volume of opinion in the town, and if they could do something a bit tactful by surrendering something which would be of no use to them, could they do it?

The Mayor said the off-licence was of no use to them at all. The Magistrates could endorse it, nullifying the off-licence, if the Council consented.

The Town clerk suggested that when the application was before the Magistrates they should ask the Magistrates either to endorse it or for the Council to give an undertaking that they would not use it for off –consumption.

Councillor Hickson said he was of opinion i they wanted a licence, and he wanted to put the building on a footing so that it was going to make it a success. If they were not going to give it a fighting chance, how were they going to justify their future position with the ratepayers? By getting all these things necessary to the elements of success they were giving it a chance. If they dosed with the offer they would have cause to congratulate themselves in two or three years` time.

Councillor Brett said it seemed to him the Council were doing a thing that was clearly in the interests of the ratepayers, and the offer should be accepted.

The amendment was lost by 18 votes to 7.

Councillor Barfoot moved that they should accept Mr. Kent`s offer, but that the £1,500 was to include all expenses.

Councillor Mrs. Anness seconded.

The amendment was lost by 10 votes to 6.

Alderman Pepper`s resolution was carried by 12 votes to 7, not voting, 1.

It was decided the Council should meet on Wednesday morning to confirm the recommendations of the Committee.

The Town Clerk mentioned the question of bars at the Leas Cliff Hall, and the matter was referred to the Entertainments Committee.

It was decided to give an undertaking that the off-licence would not be used.

Councillor Hickson: What about the Sabbath day?

The Mayor: You will keep it.

Despite the early hour, nine o`clock, of the special meeting of the Council, there was a very large attendance of members, the only absentees being four aldermen and Councillor Hanchard, who is unwell.

The Mayor presided, and there were also present Aldermen T.S. Franks, G. Spurgen, A.E. Pepper, Councillors P. Broome-Giles, H.T. Kenny, J.W. Stainer, L.N. Younghusband, A. Dallas Brett, W. Swinloe-Phelan, J.A.A. Barfoot, R.L.T. Saunders, Mrs. Gore, R. Kingsforth,  L.J. Stephens, G. Gurr, H.L. Russell, W.H. Moncrieff, R. Forsyth, Mrs. Anness, A.H. Ulyett, C. Turnham, W.B. Banks, W.J. King-Turner, C. Bell, A. Castle, and A.W. Hickson.

The Town Clerk said since the meeting on Friday he wrote a letter to Messrs. F. Hall and Co., stating that at the meeting of the General Purposes Committee it was decided to recommend the Council to accept the offer made on behalf of Mr. Kent for the removal of the licence, subject to the conditions decided upon at the meeting. On the following day he wrote a further letter to Messrs. Hall stating that there was another condition which the Corporation wished made, and that was that the payment of the purchase price was subject to the sanction of the Ministry of Health for a loan of the payment of £1,500 for the licence. He had received a letter from Messrs. Hall in which they stated that they agreed to the first condition that the removal of the licence should be granted and confirmed. With regard to the second condition that Mr. Kent would take any steps necessary and required by the Corporation to prevent the licence from lapsing, Messrs. Hall wrote that Mr. Kent would, if the necessary order was made, remove the licence to the Hall and would hold the licence until required by the Corporation, and that he was not required to render any service to the Corporation. Messrs. Hall agreed to the third condition that if the removal be refused, or not confirmed, the Corporation pay expenses incurred after that meeting, and to the fourth condition that a formal agreement be prepared if the Magistrates grant the removal. With regard to an undertaking being given about consumption of drink off the premises and the endorsement of the licence to that effect, Mr. Kent, Messrs. Hall and Co. stated, was willing to ask the justices to so endorse the licence and to give an undertaking that sale for consumption off the premises would not take place. Concerning the condition that the payment should be subject to the sanction of the Ministry being obtained for a loan, Messrs. Hall wrote they felt the Corporation must see the impossibility of that condition. They felt that the agreed purchase price should be paid in 14 days, and the proposed agreement with the Council must be required for that to be done. Mr. Kidson, continuing, said on Saturday the Rev. D. Kedward and the Rev. J.W. Inglis came to see him and they asked if they would be able to come to the meeting that morning in order to place the views of the people they represented before the Council. After consultation with the Mayor he intimated to them that he  could not promise that the Council would receive the deputation inasmuch as they had so recently put their case before the Council, but if the deputation did attend the question would be put before the Council to decide. He had since received a letter in which the Rev. J.W. Inglis expressed thanks to him for letting them know the Mayor`s decision, but it was not their intention to wait upon the Council and beg for a hearing. If they wished to insist upon the point they had a statutory right to be heard because the proposal was an entirely new proposal which had not been placed before the Council. They therefore had no option but to oppose the application before the Magistrates. No notice had been taken of the suggestion of a round table conference, which might have obviated such a necessity as going before the Council. Mr. Kidson added that it was not the Mayor`s decision that the deputation should not be allowed to speak.

Councillor Stainer said the previous night a public meeting of ratepayers was held to protest against the proposal, and the resolution, which he read, was passed at the meeting by a large majority. The meeting was thrown open entirely to the public, and the expressions of opinion by the meeting was strongly opposed to the application.

The Mayor: You are not suggesting the ¹meeting was unanimous?

Councillor Stainer: It was not unanimous. A vast majority of the people voted in favour of the resolution.

Councillor Saunders : Do I understand that Mr.  Kent expects us to pay any loss incurred in the keeping of the licence running from the day of our purchase?

               

The Town Clerk: You have only undertaken to pay if the licence is refused.

Councillor Saunders: The licence has to has to be kept alive until we require it.

The Town Clerk: That does not mean keep­ing the licence running. It was not necessary for anything to he done.

Councillor Saunders: You mean it is not necessary for him to continue trading on the Leas? The licence can be suspended until it is removed to the Leas Cliff Hall?

The Town Clerk: That is so.

Councillor Saunders: We may possibly incur some expense until it is removed to the Leas Cliff Hall?

The Town Clerk: As soon as the removal to the Hall is confirmed the licence is removed to the Hall.

Councillor Saunders: Then the trade under it would be suspended.

The Town Clerk: That is possible. The Hotel Metropole is a case of a licence suspended for a time.

Councillor Saunders: Has this licence been previously offered to the Corporation before this offer was made by Mr. Kent?

The Town Clerk: Strictly peaking, no. Messrs. Sherwoods` representative called upon me at the beginning of September and said he understood this licence could be purchased because it was going to be discontinued. I brought it up before the Entertainments Committee, and they did not think it necessary to take any steps. There was no record on the minutes. There was a General Purposes Committee at the end of September, and I as not quite certain whether I had been approached in confidence or not, so I went, up and saw Mr. Boughton and asked him if I as at liberty to mention it to the General Purposes Committee. He replied “You are, but it is no use you doing so now as it is sold”.  Therefore it did not come before the Committee. I think £1,000 was suggested as the price then.

Councillor Saunders said there was no doubt that the price was £1,000. Could they close a place when they thought fit without losing the licence?

The Town clerk: If you wish to close it one day a week you can do so. You need not keep it open all the year round. You have an instance in the Hotel Metropole.

Councillor Russell: Would £1,500 be a final payment for this licence, or is it likely there will be a reassessment of the monopoly value next February by the Excise people.

The Town clerk: I don`t know what you mean by assessment.

Councillor Russell: It is assessed at £1,000.

The Town Clerk: We are buying it for £1,500.

Councillor Russell: Is it possible for the Excise people to largely increase the amount.

The Town Clerk said he knew nothing to come along at all except the annual duty which was paid according to the scale.

Councillor Russell: I understand this payment will not be final.

The Mayor: It will, except for the final duty to the Excise authorities.

Councillor Brett said there was an attempt in 1909 by the Excise authorities to put a monopoly value on a transferred licence. There was a decision in the Divisional Courts that no such assessment could be made on the monopoly value on removal of licence.

Councillor Phelan said in the event of the Council not accepting Mr. Kent`s offer, would the Council have to apply for a new licence, if they required a licence?

The Town Clerk: Yes, sir.

Councillor Swinhoe-Phelan: Would it cost you £4,000 or £5,000?

Councillor Turnham: It would cost you £6,000 or £7,000 at least.

Councillor Saunders: It might.

Councillor Swindhoe-Phelan said he understood that a licence in Radnor Street might be abolished and available. Would it be possible to take that licence over instead?

The Town Clerk said if they bought a licence in Radnor Street they would have to apply for the removal of it to the Magistrates.

Councillor Swindhoe-Phelan said if licensed premises fell to them in that way through the Radnor Street schme, when would they apply to the Magistrates?

The Town Clerk: At next year`s annual sessions.

Councillor Swindhoe-Phelan: If we do not accept Mr. Kent`s offer this year we cannot trade in liquor this year?

The Town Clerk: You can only obtain a removal order at the same time as a new licence is obtained.

Councillor Saunders said the matter had been bungled from beginning to end. He hoped the Council was going to turn the recommendation down because it was bad business.

Councillor Dallas Brett said the subject had been decided really by the General Purposes Committee, and they should pass the resolution.

Alderman Franks moved, and Councillor King-Turner seconded that the meeting be resumed as a Council meeting.

Councillor Saunders: Surely we are entitled to more discussion than this?

Councillor Moncrieff: There has not been a resolution moved yet.

The Mayor: You don't want to move a resolution until you go into Council.

Councillor Monerieff: Why not? At the moment we are simply skirmishing, and asking for information. It is a matter of most vital importance to the town. The discussion on a resolution should take place in Committee, and the resolution confirmed at a later date.

The Mayor: Immediately we go into Council I shall move the confirmation of the minutes of the General Purposes Committee, and then discuss it in the usual way.

Councillor Saunders: You are only doing it I to stifle independent discussion. At the previous meeting you moved your resolution in committee, and this morning you don`t want to give up a chance to discuss it.

Councillor Barfoot: If it goes before the Council you will have amendment after all.

The Mayor: You want to talk it out, that is all I know.

The resolution was carried by 16 votes to 10.

Councillor Moncrieff moved that the offer in the minutes be deleted, and said they would be wise in waiting until the next Brewster Sessions, and proceed in a straightforward and honourable way to procure a licence. The Council should have the costs that would be entailed by the acquiring of the licence in front of them before they discussed the expediency of the same. The £1,500 would mean a 1¼ d. rate on next year`s rates. They would require two bars, and have to advertise for a caterer. He gathered they would surrender the off-licence part of the licence, and they would not use the bars as an ordinary public house, and no-one would have a drink unless they paid for admission. He would like to know what would be the cost of a new licence. He knew when they were talking about a question like this they were frightened about the monopoly value. Margate had no licence for any of its Halls.

Councillor Saunders seconded, and said he was one of those people who believed the Leas Concert Hall required a licence, but he believed it required a licence not of the character and description they had offered them that morning. The whole business of this licence had been badly handled, and it had created a bad impression in the town. If they had a round table conference between now and next February they would get a general census of public opinion. He was told that any endorsement or agreement with the Magistrates was not legally binding under the Licensing Law. People were getting frightened over the monopoly value. It was another red herring. They had heard Councillor Dallas Brett`s red herring. They had not got a monopoly of red herrings. Councillor Brett had got some. (Laughter) They should set an example as a local government body. They should be perfectly honest. He did not think it was an honest attempt to give the ratepayers, in the best interest of the town, what they wanted. They had not been trying to do what the ratepayers wanted. They had been hustled and bustled into this thing. He hoped the Council would definitely turn it down. In his opinion it was not a clean deal, and the sooner they washed their hands of this thing the better. He had offered at the Council meeting to give the Town Clerk, in confidence, the names of two people whose letters he had in his pocket. Whether they doubted his word or not was immaterial. He had still got the offers in his pocket.

The Mayor: I hope they will prove useful later on.

Councillor Brett said he could not conceive in what way it was suggested that the purchase from any person who had something to sell, which was beneficial to the Council, was in any way not straightforward and honest. His suggestion was that if they could buy for £1,500 what it would coat he them £5,000 to £6,000 to get elsewhere, and if they could start making a profit on that at once so that they got something additional in their pocket, they were making an exceedingly good bargain for the Council.

The .Mayor said it had been mentioned to some authority in the Ministry, and the Town Clerk was encouraged to think there would be no difficulty in getting a loan for it.

Councillor Moncrieff: And pay double the amount.

The Mayor said the Town Clerk would tell them that an endorsement by the Magistrates that morning would be absolutely binding. If they broke that endorsement they foreited their licence entirely. There was a feeling it should be the same type of licence as at Hastings. When the Council went before the Magistrates for a licence on the same lines as Hasting he would join the opposition, and he would fight against them for all he was worth.

Councillor Saunders: Good.

The Mayor: You say good. When I fight I don`t fight for nothing.

Councillor Saunders: Right. Let`s take our coats off.

The Mayor said he preferred the cafe system where the fsrnily could sit together at a table, and not be divided. At Hastings they would have to go through a door and have drink, and a child could not go through that door. If that was what they wanted at Folkestone he would oppose it. What he wanted was where intoxicating drink could be served on their beautiful balconies, where a wife, and the son and daughtier were taking coffee, and if they wanted a liqueur they could have it.

Councillor Stainer rose to speak.

The Mayor: Sit down, cannot I speak?

Councillor Stainer: I wanted to ask          a question.

The Mayor: Haven’t you had a good turn, do you want all the talk?

Alderman Pepper: Whenever the Mayor is speaking a member should sit down.

Councillor Stainer sat down.

Councillor Castle asked if the licence could be endorsed, if outsiders could demand to be served.

The Mayor said it would be absolutely illegal.

Councillor Kenny said what was the deal; he could sum it up in one word “Rotten”.  It was absolutely wrong the Council should attempt to rush it through when there was so much opposition against it in the town.

Councillor Forsyth said people thought they were not getting a square deal. They would have the choice of two or three licences when they proceeded with the Radnor Street scheme.

The Mayor said that scheme had gone by the board and there was only one house, and it was not proposed to acquire it.

The resolution was lost by 15 votes to 11.

There voted in favour: Councillors Kenny, Stainer, Barfoot, Swinhoe-Phelan, Saunders, Castle, Moncrieff, Forsyth, Bell, Anness and Banks. Those against were the Mayor, Aldermen Spurgen, Pepper and Franks, Councillors Broome-Giles, Younghushand, Brett, Russell, Mrs. Gore, Kingsnorth, Stephens, Gurr, Hickson, Turnham, and King-Turner.

Councillor Barfoot moved that the resolution for the purchase of the licence be not approved, and that an offer be made to the owner of the licence to purchase the licence for £1,000, if and when the Justices consented to the removal of the licence, and the transfer of the licence, and the transfer of the licence to the nominee of the Council.

It struck eleven o’clock at this point, and the Mayor suggested that in common courtesy to the county magistrates they should get on.

Councillor Saunders was speaking, when he said "You are rude, Mr. Mayor, reading when I am speaking.” (Laughter)

The Mayor: I have heard this (the argu­ments used by the opposition) about half-a-dozen times.

Councillor Saunders: That is right. I shall hear lots of things about six times. It is roughly a ½d. rate, and Councillor King-Turner tells us it is a piffle. I cannot understand him going up to an election in the East Ward and putting £500 in one person`s pocket.

The amendment wan lo«t by 14 votes to 11.

The members voted as follows on this motion: For; Councillors Mrs. Anness, Banks, Barfoot, Bell, Forsyth, Kenny, Moncrieff, Saunders, Stainer, Swinhoe-Phelan and Ulyett—11. Against: The Mayor, Aldermen franks and Spurgen, Councillors Mrs. Gore, Brett, Giles, Gurr, Hickson, Kingsnorth, King-Turner, Russell, Stephens, Turner, and Younghusband. Not voting; Councillor Castle.

The Mayor moved that the offer be accepted on the terms previously agreed to in the General Purposes Committee.

Councillor King-Turner seconded.

The resolution was carried by 15 votes to 11.

The members voted as follows:— For: The Mayor, Aldermen Franks and Spurgen, Councillors Mrs. Gore, Brett, Giles, Gurr, Hickson, Kingsnorth. King-Turner, Russell, Stephens. Swinhoe-Phelan, Turnham and Younghusband—15. Against: Councillors Mrs. Anness, Banks. Barfoot, Bell, Castle, Forsyth, Kenny, Moncrieff, Saunders, Stainer and Ullyett—11.

The Entertainments Committee was in­structed to proceed with the provision of a bar or bars.

The meeting then closed.

Immediately after the Town Council meet­ing closed the Magistrates to hear the appli­cation for the removal of the licence took their seats in the Police Court. Mr. H. Rigden presided, and there were also on the Bench Brig.-Gen. Tylden, and Messrs H. P. Jacques, W. G. Tester and A. S. Jones. They are members of the Elham County Bench.

Mr. G. W. Haines appeared to make the application for Mr. Kent, and Mr. Rutley Mowll was present representing the Licensed Victuallers` Association. Mr. A. F. Kidson, the Town Clerk, represented the Corporation.

'There was a large attendance in Court, including a number of clergy and ministers, for whom the Rev. Dr. Carlile was deputed to act as spokesman.

Mr. Haines said he appeared in support of that application for the removal of a licence known as the Rose Hotel in Rendezvous Street to a new building called the Leas Cliff Concert Hall, which was the property of the Town Council. By an anomaly of the law by reason of the Justices being ratepayers, and they being interested in Corporation property, they were disqualified from sitting on the Bench, in connection with the application. By reason of that, the Bench, being County Justices, had been asked to come there to arrange the domestic affairs of Folkestone. He might say the Licensing Act provided under certain circumstances that an application should be treated as a new licence, and therefore he thought it would be better if he proved the necessary steps for serving and posting notices.

Mr. E. Cook gave evidence of serving notices and the posting of them.

The Clerk read a letter from Mr. Montague Burton, as freehold owner of the premises, consenting to the removal of the licence.

Mr. Haines said the application was for a full licence, and an undertaking would be given asking the Magistrates that the licence should be endorsed that no sale should be made for intoxicants to be consumed off the premises, and he thought he would not have any farther objection from Mr. Mowll.

Mr. MowlI said it was suggested that an undertaking should be given by the licensee as binding upon the licence, and to be en­dorsed theron, that no person should be served with intoxicating liquor at the Leas Cliff Hall unless such person had (1) previously paid the usual charge for the time being for ad­mission to the building (which was to prevent persons using this place as an ordinary public house), and (2) no intoxicating liquors should be served for consumption off the premises (that was to prevent it being used for supplying persons off the premises). He understood that they were endorsed on the licence, and would become binding upon the licence, and the licensed victuallers would withdraw their opposition.

Mr. Haines: We should have asked for these conditions ourselves.

Mr. Mowll: That means that my friend considers my presence is unnecessary.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. Andrew): I think they heard sometime ago that you were likely to oppose.

Mr Haines said it was known that Mr. Kent purchased the licence of the Rose Hotel, and the Corporation had agreed to buy him out for £1,500. Seeing the monopoly value might have been something very considerable, they were to get that licence, subject to the Bench granting the licence`s removal, for what they considered to be in the interests of the town from the financial point of view and from other interests. The Leas Cliff Hall had involved a cost of over £60,444. The justices would understand what Folkestone was trying to do in putting its attractions before the visitors that they had with regard to a building like that in its ordinary amenities in which facilities should be given to such a building as those that could be obtained in other places. The Council had arrived at a conclusion by which they had resolved that matter should go through. The Council would be only too glad to comply with any suggestion of the Magistrates to conduct that place as it should be. He did not know what opposition he might have now the Licensed Victuallers' opposition had gone.

The Clerk said he had not received notice of any opposition.

The Rev. Dr. Carlile: I represent the ministers and clergy of the entire area, and about 50 residents and tenants and occupants on The Leas adjacent to the building.

Mr. Haines: That is all I have to deal with, then.

Mr. J.S. Dahl produced plans of the building, and said it was the suggestion that two service bars should be made in the building on the gallery level. Ample arrangements had been made for closing these during prohibited hours.

The Town Clerk said nothing definite had been decided as to what use would be made of the middle floor. It had been suggested it might be used by members of a club, and members of the public could enjoy the club. If it was not used as a club it would probably be used as a  writing and reading room.

Dr. Carlile: I want to ask whether Mr. Dahl can tell you whether the position of these bars has been considered by the Council, whether any vote has been taken as to where these bars should be? Arising out of what has been said by the Town Clerk, is it intended to ask the Bench to grant a licence before it is determined what use shall be made of these premises? If there is to be a restaurant, then surely an application should be for the supply of intoxicants there with food. If it was a club then surely they would need a licence for the club. The whole point I want to make is, if it is not clear what the licence is, it is very difficult to oppose it.

The Town Clerk said there had been a meeting of the Council that morning, at which a resolution had been passed, which invested an interest in the new building with the applicant. It was the intention of the Council that no one should be admitted to the building without paying. It was the Council`s wish it should be on the licence.

Dr. Carlile asked whether the Council had any power to bind its successors.

The Magistrates’ Clerk said it was an undertaking by the licensee, and if there was a breach of the regulation it would be a subject for the refusal by the Justices to renew the licence. From the legal point of view it did not matter whether the Council agreed or not, it was a binding undertaking rendering a licensee liable if it was not carried out.

Dr. Carlile asked if the Council had come to any decision to give this power to the licensee. If the Council could not bind its successors, surely it could hardly give authority to someone if they could not bind their successors.

The Town Clerk said he did not agree the Council could not bind their successors. The successors of the Council were already bound in respect of the building. The Corporation were constantly binding their successors.

Dr. Carlile said that supposing in a year’s time the Leas Cliff Hall did not attract the number of people who would pay the price determined, and the price was reduced to 2d. or 3d., that would alter the whole complexion of the licence, it would simply be the same that the prison was paying to go in, the payment would be so small that it would practically be a public-house. (Cries of “No”)

The Town Clerk said he had not heard any amount as to the charge mentioned that morning.

Dr. Carlile said it was purely a matter quite friendly, and he was not trying to score a point. There was a statement made in Council that the charges would be so much, and the point he wanted to ask was, if the charges were reduced to quite a nominal sum, or dispensed with altogether, would not that materially affect the licence?

The Chairman: Is there any chance of the public getting in without paying?

The Town Clerk: Only surreptitiously.

Dr. Carlile raised the point of a big conference or public service, where obviously there would be no admission.

The Town Clerk said they must comply with the undertaking, whatever the undertaking was.

Dr. Carlile asked whether it was the intention of the Town Council, and whether any vote had been taken at all, to shut the place entirely from the possible use of congresses or religious conferences.

The Town Clerk: No.

Dr. Carlile: Then what about the licence?

The Magistrates’ Clerk said there could be no sale of liquor except under the circumstances he had mentioned. It was not a question of the Corporation; it was a question  of the licensee.

Dr. Carlile said he was asking whether the effect of this would be that the use of the building could not be obtained for a conference and meetings. If so, had it been de­termined by the Council?

The Town Clerk said he did not see why they should not allow conferences to be held.

Dr. Carlile said there would be no charge for admission.

Mr. Haines: Such members attending the conference would be debarred.

Dr. Carlile asked whether the bars would be in part of the building which was specially licensed, or whether the whole of the premises were proposed to be licensed, whether part of the premises upon which intoxicants were sold would be open to children under fourteen years of age.

The Town Clerk: Yes, I have no doubt they will.

Dr.Carlile: Does that mean that people going to that lovely place will have to leave their children outside?

The Town Clerk: It does not. He further pointed out that children would be excluded from those rooms where drink was sold.

Dr. Carlile asked for the numbers voting for the application to be made to the Magistrates that morning.

The Town Clerk: 15 in favour, and 11 against.

Mr. J.H. Kent, licensee of the Rose Hotel, said he had purchased it under an agreement from the owner, and he had agreed to be the Council`s nominee.

In reply to Dr. Carlile, he said he agreed to surrendering the off licence, and that no one should be supplied unless they paid for admission.

Dr. Carlisle asked if anyone could say whether it was for a full licence.

The Magistrates’ Clerk said the licence in question was a full licence with full con­ditions, and the magistrates could not attach any agreement with regard to Sunday sales.

Dr. Carlile asked if he would he prepared, if the licence was endorsed, not to trade on Sunday.

Mr. Haines: He has not power to vary the statement already agreed to.

Mr. Kent: No.

Dr. Carlile said he was exceedingly sorry it was necessary he should make any application to the Magistrates that day. He was there with gentlemen who represented the clergy of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic priesthood, and all the denominations in that area. They presented a memorial a week ago when the proposals came before the Council. Some important changes had taken place, and for those they were very grateful, and they only regretted the concessions had not gone further so that it might have been possible for them not to appear in opposition to their friends. There was no personal feeling in this matter, and no opposition to the Mayor and members of the Corporation. It was a matter involving very considerable issues. The application they had before them placed the Bench in a very considerable difficulty. They had considerable haziness as to what the licence really was, and if he was rightly informed, the Council had not taken any vote as to where the bars should be, or as to what should be done. They were asking the Magistrates now to very seriously consider the application for MORE TO COME!!!

Sunday licence. The licensee had told them that he was not prepared to give any under­taking not to proceed with the application for a seven day licence. It sometimes hap­pened that in Folkestone they had a united service. The Pleasure Gardens Theatre was not large enough to hold the people who wished to go. He was sure it would be the intention of some of the churches to apply for services in this building. It would be a very objectionable feature if they had in one part of the premises religious services going on, and in another part open bars They had in Folkestone, as in all places of this kind, a large number of conferences. They had a church congress, and various other congresses. For these congresses to come, and not to pay admission, would mean that it would be necessary to shut up the bars altogether. That would be a very awkward thing, and exceedingly difficult for the licensee to determine who had paid, and who had not paid. The first year was sure to be an experimental year in Folkestone. It was obvious Folkestone did not know its own mind on the subject. There had been an emergency meeting that morning to decide whether the application should be made, and it showed there was considerable haze on the matter. If the hall on the cliff was no more successful than the Marine Gardens Pavilion on the Lower Road, it would be closed for part of the winter. If this licence was granted the hall must be open, and that would mean the ratepayers would have to pay for the staff to keep the place open, although very few people were going in. They heard it might be possible to have a club in one of the rooms. He submitted to the Licensing Magistrates that the Folkestone ratepayers never intended building a west end club when they agreed to this large sum of money being spent upon this place. Here was a west end club, and anyone who wanted a club could do the same as he did, and pay for it, and not go on the ratepayers for it. To ask them to grant a licence for premises that were not yet determined as to their character was to come before the Bench with an application which was at least premature. The two points that had been conceded were very valuable, and they were glad. A large number of people in the town were very concerned about this licence. It was no use telling them this licence was necessary to put Folkestone in the forefront, they did not admit Folkestone was in the background. A large number of places had a licence, but Margate had no licence for its Winter Gardens. There were a number of other places where they had not a licence. A large number of people were concerned in the town as a matter of conscience. They conscientiously objected, as ratepayers, to be made parties directly to the sale of intoxicating drink That was an objection which weighed heavily with a large number of people. The difficulties about a licence were very considerable. No authority had been given from the ratepayers to apply for a licence of that kind. The Sunday application was a matter which they regarded as of great importance. The presence of little children on the part of the premises in which drink would be served was to them a very important matter. At the present time Folkestone had a splendid record.

Mr. Haines said he wished to assure Dr. Carlile that his clients, and he knew the Magistrates always had lent a sympathetic ear to any dictates of conscience, and they were serious and conscientious in the objections they raised from the Temperance view. They always had them, and it was perhaps wise they should be reminded they had got these points on Temperance. They had in Folkestone a splendid record, and they had a great thing to be proud of, and they did not want to mar it, and up to the present Folkestone was likely to maintain its reputation. They hoped to keep good. Dr. Carlile did not think that when there was a conference anyone would go to the bar and say they had paid for admission when they had not. The instructions would be that people attending conferences who had not paid would not be served.

Dr. Carlile: My point is that it would be a very objectionable thing if you had the open bar while the conference was going on.

Mr. Haines: At one time I see there is a letter by Dr. Carlile in which he is trying to bring the Licensed Victuallers.......

Dr. Carlile: I suggest the whole thing has so changed since that paper was printed that anything it contains is not worth your attention.

Mr. Haines said Dr. Carlile raised the point as to whether it would be fair to Licensed Victuallers in the same neighbourhood. They had surrendered the off licence, so naturally they were not represented that day. This was some of the imagination that got into the head of the people that they had not faith in. Dr. Carlile had said at the last Council meeting “There was a possibility of anybody, accompanied by his young baby, going to the Leas Cliff Hall, purchasing drinks, and then taking them down to the Lower Road”. He suggested they were facing a very serious moral problem, which would make them pause before they took out a licence. That was a libel on their young people, and upon their town – (hear, hear) – and the police who administered the law, to say that such a thing could possibly happen. Imagination ran away with their discretion, and although they meant well, they made that opposition. He rather liked to take Dr. Carlile in what he said – Folkestone had a splendid record, and they should do nothing to mar it, and he hoped they never would.

After the Magistrates had retired, the Chairman said they had decided to grant the licence, but they made the suggestion that possibly some arrangement might be made as to Sunday trading, to meet the objections.

 

Folkestone Herald 12-3-1927

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

At the adjourned annual licensing sessions on Wednesday the application for the transfer of the licence of the Rose Hotel to the Leas Cliff Hall was heard before the following Magistrates of the Elham Petty Sessional Division: Mr. H. Rigden, Mr. W.G. Tester, Mr. A.S. Jones, Mr. H.P. Jacques, and Brigadier-General Wm. Tylden.

Mr. G.W. Haines, on behalf of Mr. J.H. Kent, of the Morehall Wine Stores, applied for the transfer of the licence of the Rose Hotel, Rendezvous Street, to the Leas Cliff Hall. The Town Clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) was present, supporting the application on behalf of the Corporation, and Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers`Trade Protection Association.

The Court was crowded, those present including the Mayor, many members of the Town Council, and a strong body of local ministers.

Mr. Haines said he appeared to support the application made by Mr. J.H. Kent for the removal of the licence of the Rose Hotel in Rendezvous Street to the new building on The Leas known as the Leas Cliff Hall, which was the property of the Folkestone Corporation. The Magistrates no doubt knew the building. By an anomaly of the law, and by reason of the fact that the Magistrates usually sitting there to deal with applications, etc., were ratepayers, and therefore interested in Corporation property, they were disqualified from sitting that day to hear the application. As a result, a number of County Magistrates had been asked to hear the application, and they were very grateful to them for kindly sparing their time to consider the matter now before them. The Licensing Act provided under certain circumstances that an application for a removal should be treated as a new licence, and therefore he proposed to commence by proving the preliminary steps that had had to be taken.

Mr. E. Hook, a clerk in Mr. Haines` office, gave evidence of serving and posting of the necessary notices.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) read a letter, dated March 7^th, from Mr. Montague M. Burton, giving his consent, as the freeholder of the premises known as the Rose Hotel, to the removal of the licence.

Mr. Haines said so far as the application was concerned, it was for the transfer of a full licence, but he understood under certain circumstances Mr. Mowll, who represented the local licensed victuallers, would object to the transfer. Mr. Kent was practically the nominee of the Town Council. He (Mr. Haines) was going to ask that the licence, if transferred, should be endorsed so that there could be no sale of intoxicating liquors off the premises, and that drinks should not be sold to persons on the premises other than those who paid for admission to the hall in the usual way. If those conditions were endorsed on the licence, he understood the Licensed Victuallers would have no further objection to the transfer.

Mr. Mowll said the suggested undertaking was in the following words: “Leas Cliff Hall. The following undertaking is given by the licensee as binding upon the licence and to be endorsed thereon: (1) No persons shall be served with intoxicating liquor on the said premises unless such person has previously paid the usual charge which for the time being is made for admission to the building. (That, Mr. Mowll said, was to prevent persons using the building as an ordinary public house). (2) No intoxicating liquor shall be served for consumption off the premises”.

The second clause, added Mr. Mowll, was to prevent the supplying of drink to persons not using the building in the ordinary way. He understood that Mr. Haines agreed to those conditions being endorsed on the licence, and therefore they would become binding. Further, if that was done, his clients would withdraw their opposition.

Mr. Haines said if Mr. Mowll had not asked for those conditions to be endorsed on the licence, he (Mr. Haines) would himself have asked for the licence to be endorsed in such a manner.

Mr. Mowll: That means to say my presence is entirely unnecessary. (Laughter)

Mr. Haines said as they were probably aware Mr. Burton had purchased the premises known as the Rose Hotel, and Mr. Kent had purchased the licence from Mr. Burton. The licence was offered to the Corporation, and the Corporation had agreed to purchase the licence from Mr. Kent. The price to be paid was £1,000 to Mr. Burton, and Mr. Kent would be getting the balance - £500. They had nothing to conceal. He would like to point out that if an application for a new licence was made the monopoly value would be very considerable. With regard to the building itself, Mr. Dahl, the architect, would give them any particulars they required. The building was costing something like £60,000, and Folkestone was trying to provide something which would be an attraction to its visitors. They (the Corporation) felt that the ordinary amenities enjoyed by people at home should also be provided at this building. After many, should he say, vicissitudes, the Corporation had arrived at a decision by which they had resolved that the purchase of the licence should be agreed to subject to the transfer of the licence being granted. Any suggestions which the Magistrates would care to make, the Council, he felt sure, would be only too pleased to comply with an order to assist in conducting the building as it should be conducted. He did not know what opposition he might have.

Dr. Carlile: I represent the ministers and clergy of the entire area, and about fifty residents and owners and occupiers on The Leas and the adjacent premises.

Mr. Haines: That is all I have to deal with then.

Mr. J.S. Dahl, the architect of the Leas Cliff Hall, then went into the witness box and produced plans. It was proposed, he stated, that two service bars should be provided in the building. Ample arrangements would be made for closing the bars during prohibited hours.

In answer to a question, the Town Clerk said nothing definite had been decided yet as to the use to be made of the middle floor, but it would be used by the public. It had been suggested that it might be used for club purposes. It might be used as a reading and writing room, or a restaurant.

DR. Carlile: Can Mr. Dahl tell us whether the position of these bars has been considered by the Council, and whether any vote has been taken as to where these bars should be? Further, arising out of what has been said by the Town Clerk, is it intended to ask the Bench to grant a licence before it is determined what use shall be made of these premises? If there is to be a restaurant there, surely application should be made for the serving of intoxicating liquor there with meals. If there is to be a club, surely they will need a licence for the club. If i is not clear what the licence is actually for, it is very difficult to oppose it.

Mr. Haines said Mr. Dahl could not answer those questions, but Dr. Carlile would have an opportunity of putting them to the Town Clerk.

The Town Clerk, in the witness box, said there had been a meeting of the Town Council that morning, and a resolution gad been passed and sealed. That resolution vested a new interest in Mr. J.H. Kent in regard to the new premises. It was the intention of the Council that no-one should be allowed into the building without payment, and it was the Council`s wish that that condition should be endorsed on the licence in regard to the serving of drinks.

Dr. Carlile: Has the Town Council any power to bind its successors?

The Clerk: It is an undertaking by the licensee. If there is any breach of the undertaking given in connection with the licence there would be good grounds for refusing to renew the licence at some subsequent licensing meeting. Whether the Council agree or not, it seems utterly immaterial. If certain conditions are endorsed on the licence, they are binding.

Dr. Carlile: I would like to ask whether the Council has considered and come to any decision upon the position of giving these powers to the licensee. If the Council cannot bind its successors, surely it can hardly give authority to the licensee in regard to something which does not bind its successors.

The Town Clerk: I do not agree that the Council cannot bind its successors. The successors of the Council are already bound in respect of this building. The Corporation are constantly binding their successors. In some circumstances, I admit they cannot.

Dr. Carlile: Suppose in a year`s time it is found that the Leas Cliff Hall does not attract the number of people it was hoped, and the price of admission is dropped to twopence or threepence, that will alter the whole complexion of this licence. The payment for admission would be so small that the building would be practically a public house.

The Town Clerk said he had not heard any definite charge for admission mentioned that morning.

Dr. Carlile: There was a statement made by the Mayor in Council as to the charges for admission, and the point I want to clear up is if the charges are reduced to quite a nominal sum, or dispensed with altogether, would it not materially affect this licence?

The Town Clerk said if the charge for admission was dispensed with, of course they would be breaking the undertaking given.

The Magistrates` Clerk: Is there a possibility of the public getting in without paying?

The Town Clerk: Only surreptitiously.

Dr. Carlile: What would be done in the event of these premises being let for a conference or public service? Those people would obviously not pay for admission.

The Town Clerk: We must comply with the undertaking whatever it is.

Dr. Carlile: Is it the intention of the Council to shut the place entirely on conferences?

The Town Clerk: No.

Dr. Carlile: Then what about the licence?

The Magistrates` Clerk: There will be no sales of liquor except under the terms of the undertaking.

Dr. Carlile: I am asking whether the effect of this would be to prevent the building being used for conferences and meetings such as I have mentioned.

The Town Clerk: I don`t see any reason why it should have that effect. I do not see why we should not have conferences there. Those taking part in the conference would not pay for admission, but the Corporation would have no power to sell intoxicating liquors to the persons attending the conference.

Dr. Carlile: I should like to know whether these bars will be in a part of the building which will be specially licensed, or whether it is proposed that the whole of the premises shall be licensed. Will that part of the premises where intoxicants are sold be open to children under fourteen years of age?

The Town Clerk said children would not be admitted to the bars.

Dr. Carlile: Does that mean that people will be compelled to leave their children outside?

The Magistrates` Clerk said the presence of children in the bars would be restricted.

Mr. Haines said the Corporation would have to conform with the ordinary licensing laws in regard to children.

Dr. Carlile: If children are shut out from a considerable part of these premises, it will be very detrimental to the prosperity of the building. If the premises where intoxicants are sold, however, are to be open to children then there would be an advantage which is not generally given to the trade.

The Town Clerk: I suggest that is not the effect of the Act of Parliament.

Dr. Carlile: Is Mr. Kidson aware of the numbers voting for this application?

The Town Clerk: Yes, fifteen in favour and eleven against.

Dr. Carlile: That means a majority of six.

Voices: Four. (Laughter)

Dr. Carlile: That is better still from my point of view.

Mr. J.H. Kent stated that he had purchased the licence of the Rose Hotel under agreement with Mr. Burton. He had agreed to be the Council`s nominee.

In reply to Dr. Carlile, Mr. Kent said he had agreed to surrender the off licence, and further, that no sales should be made to persons other than those paying for admission.

Dr. Carlile: Would you agree to surrender the licence in respect to Sundays?

Mr. Haines: Mr. Kent is under a contract with the Corporation.

The Magistrates` Clerk: The licence in existence is a full on licence without conditions, and the Magistrates cannot attach any undertaking as regards Sunday trading.

Dr. Carlile: Would the applicant for the removal of the licence surrender the Sunday licence?

Mr. Haines: He has no power to do so in view of the agreement entered into with the Corporation.

Dr. Carlile: Someone must have the power to answer that question.

Mr. Kent then stated that he was not prepared to surrender that part of the licence as suggested by Dr. Carlile.

Dr. Carlile, addressing the Magistrates, said he was exceedingly sorry that he should have to make any application to them that day. He was there with other gentlemen, who represented the Clergy of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic priesthood, and all denominations in the borough. They presented a memorial a week ago when certain proposals which were of a very different character to those before them that day came before the Council. Some important changes had taken place, and for those they were very grateful, and they only regretted the concessions had not gone further, so that it would not have been necessary for them to oppose the application that day. He would like to say that there was no personal feeling in the matter in opposing the Mayor or members of the Corporation. The matter involved a very considerable issue, and the ministers and ratepayers, who were deeply concerned for the future of the town, were very much concerned as to what would happen that day. The application before the Bench placed the Magistrates in a considerable difficulty, because there was considerable haziness as to what the licence really was, and if he was rightly informed up to the present, the Town Council had not taken any vote as to where the bars should be, or what was to be done with certain rooms. They had not decided whether certain rooms should be covered by the licence or excluded. They were asking the Bench now to very seriously consider the application for a Sunday licence.

The licensee had told them that he was not prepared to give any undertaking not to proceed with the application ofr a seven days` licence. It sometimes happened in Folkestone that they had united services. The Pleasure Gardens Theatre was not always large enough to hold all the people who wished to come, and he was sure it would be the wish of some of the churches to apply for permission to hold occasional services at the Leas Cliff Hall. It would be a very objectionable feature, however, if drinking was going on in the building whilst those services were being held. They also had from time to time conferences held in the town. They had had the Church Congress at Folkestone, and other conferences. Those attending the conferences would not pay for admission to the building, and therefore it would be necessary to shut up the bars altogether. That, he suggested, would be a very awkward thing, and it would be extremely difficult for the licensee to determine who had paid for admission to the hall and who gad not.

The first year in the history of the opening of the hall would be an experimental year. The Town Council did not yet know its own mind. A special meeting of the Council had been held only that morning, and if the matter had not been got through in the Council no application would have been made that day, and the matter would have had to be left over for a year. If the hall on the Leas was no more successful than the one in the Marine Gardens it would have to be closed for a part of the winter in the ordinary way. If the hall, however, was licensed it would have to be left open, and that meant the ratepayers would have to pay the staff to look after the building whilst it was open. They had heard that possibly a part of the premises would be used for a club. He submitted that the Folkestone ratepayers never intended that the building should be used as a West End club when agreeing to the spending of this large sum of money on the hall. They had also heard something about a restaurant, but there was nothing definite. They were being asked to grant a licence to a building the exact use of which had not been determined in many respects, and he thought the application before the Bench was at least premature.

A large number of people in the town were very concerned about this licence. It was no use telling them that that licence was necessary for putting Folkestone in the forefront. They did not admit Folkestone was in the background. They knew that a large number of places similar to Folkestone had not got licences for their halls. Their near neighbour, Margate, had not got a licence for its building. There were a number of other places which had not got a licence. A large number of people were also concerned as a matter of conscience. They did not want to be involved in any complicity with this trade. They conscientiously objected as ratepayers to being made parties to the sale of intoxicating liquor. Continuing, Dr. Carlile said the difficulties in regard to the licence were very considerable. No authority had been given to the Council by the ratepayers to apply for a licence of the kind before them that day. The Sunday application was a matter which they regarded as a matter of great importance. If the Magistrates agreed to grant the transfer, he urged, as a sort of deathbed repentance, that Mr. Haines should surrender that part of the licence permitting Sunday trading. The presence of little children on premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating drinks was also a very important matter. At the present time Folkestone had a splendid record, and they did not want to see that record marred in any way.

Mr. G.W. Haines said that he knew the opposition were serious and conscientious in the objection they raised from a Temperance point of view. Perhaps it was just as well that they should be reminded that they should keep within the bounds of Temperance, although, in spite of what might be said, they had in Folkestone a splendid record – a great thing to be proud of – and they did not want to mar it. He thought that Folkestone was quite likely to hold that reputation. It showed that the Rev. Carlile did not know the ways of the world when he talked about Sunday afternoon.

Dr. Carlile: I did not restrict myself to Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Haines referred to a letter to the Press from Dr. Carlile, in which the writer referred to the licensed victuallers.

Dr. Carlile (to the Bench): I suggest that the whole thing has so changed since that paper was published that anything it contains is not worth your attention. (Laughter)

Continuing, Mr. Haines referred to a statement by Dr. Carlile in his speech before the Council on Wednesday in last week, when Dr. Carlile said “There was just a possibility of any boy, accompanied by his young lady, going to the Leas Cliff Hall, purchasing drinks, and then taking them down to the Lower Road. He suggested that they were facing a very serious moral problem, a moral problem which should make them pause before taking out a licence or consumption off the premises”. Mr. Haines said that it was a libel upon the young people, upon the town, upon the Judiciary, and upon the police who administered the law to say that such a thing could possibly happen. He thought their imagination ran away with their discretion, although they meant well.

The Magistrates retired for about ten minutes. On their return the Chairman said: “We have decided to grant this licence, but we make the suggestion that possibly some arrangement might be made as to Sunday trading”.

Folkestone Express 7-12-1929

Notice

Whereas in the course of the past few months I have published or caused to be published certain scurrilous documents containing libellous statements and innuendoes relative particularly to Mr. J.H. Kent, of the Morehall, Folkestone, and his wife and certain of his friends. Now I desire publicly to state, acknowledge and admit that all such statements and innuendoes are and were entirely false and without any foundation whatsoever, and I tender to all concerned my sincere apology in respect thereof. Further I unreservedly withdraw all and every imputation contained or inferred in such publications.

Dated this 29^th day of November, 1929.

(Signed) G.D. Ellard.