General Licensing Notes 1890s

Folkestone Express 23-8-1890

Saturday, August 16^th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Carter, Aldermen Pledge and Dunk, J. Fitness, J. Clark, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Publicans` Licenses

A letter was received from Mr. Eastes, Secretary of the East Kent Licensed Victuallers Association, enclosing a copy of the Society`s rules, and pointing out that at Canterbury it was the custom for an agent to attend and apply for in one application the whole of the unopposed licenses, and thereby save a considerable amount of time.

The Bench decided to adhere to the old system of granting each licence separately.

Holbein`s Visitors` List 15-4-1891

Extract from “Folkestone Then and Now”

The old King`s Arms! Memories of all kinds come clustering around the little insignificant-looking building which had such a wonderful capacity of occupation. Our first idea of the name of the landlord over the door is distinctly Dunk, but with the advent of the railway came the model landlord and landlady, Mr. and Mrs. W. Medhurst, and it was easy and genial sway that the favourite King`s Arms Inn had it`s palmist days and became the rendezvous of the leading gentlemen and tradesmen of the town.

The old King`s Arms! Famous hostelry where local makers of “history” daily assembled to confabulate, conceive, and complete to the minutest complications the lots and schemes relating to every important project involved in the government of the town! Manufactory of all kinds of canards, and in which were planned all sorts of diplomatic local intrigues, including the “jobberies”, such as that which planted “with all it`s imperfections on it`s head”, the Town Hall nuisance over the way, and, which in the end wrought it`s own destruction. We believe there were certain chairs in certain positions in certain rooms where certain customers sat, not only on certain days, but every day at certain hours of the evening for twenty – twenty five – thirty, and more years! – and held “sweet converse” in the densest of tobacco smoke, on the exhilarating subjects which were always on hand, and requiring public comment!

The extraordinary accommodation that could be afforded at the King`s Arms was marvellous! There were the usual crowded conclaves every night in the smoking room and parlour, left and right, downstairs, and if necessary it was possible to find a room upstairs for the Folkestone Burial Society, in addition to a stray committee or two, anxious to sit on any possible subject; and at the same time, such a mere trifle as a catch club concert or Tradesman`s Ball with retiring rooms, could be provided, besides private apartments for special visitors! And yet the King`s Arms, to look at outside, was only a little two storey inn.

The bar at the King`s Arms was a curiosity in it`s way; the entrance was narrow, and two customers were enough to block up the gangway through which all “orders” had to be passed to the waiters who were engaged in supplying the others at the various parts of the house. A very good tale is told connected with the close quarters in which bar customers sometimes found themselves mixed. A regular patron of the house, who was a dwarf in stature, came one day to the bar, where two or three cavalry officers were taking their refreshment. One of these gentlemen was astonished to see the little fellow come into the bar amongst the legs of himself and companions and to hear him ask in a small, squeaky voice for a “Brandy and soda”. The officer looked down upon the school cap of the little creature, and playfully pretended to “box his ear”, saying jocularly “You don`t want a brandy and soda!”, upon which the little man turned up his face in amazement, and the tall one exclaimed “Good gracious, it`s a man” and retreated, leaving his friends to apologise for his rudeness, while he was overcome with mirth at the ludicrous situation.

Mr. John Tolputt became closely connected with the site of the old Inn. He eventually acquired it, and set himself the task of turning the King`s Arms of the old times into the present magnificent Queen`s Hotel.

Folkestone Express 29-8-1891

Wednesday, August 26^th: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, H.W. Poole, F. Boykett and James Pledge Esqs.

The Annual Licensing Session was held on Wednesday. A few applications for renewals were adjourned.

Folkestone Visitors` List 2-9-1891

Parish Patrol

The annual Sessions for the issue of licenses for public houses were not remarkable for that display of advocacy by the gentlemen of the long robe which we have sometimes heard on similar occasions. Some eighty licenses were issued at the rate of eight and sixpence for the full privilege of supplying me – or you – with “four of Irish cold”, or a six shilling permit to dispense the more plebeian refreshment appertaining to “the cold fourpenny”. The Victuallers came up smiling with their eight and sixpences all ready, in obedience to the wishes of the Superintendent of Police, who seemed very anxious about “Time, gentlemen”, and the business was quickly over.

There was a comic side to calling out the names of the houses:- The Marquis Of Lorne did not wear an aristocratic appearance, and a cold shudder was experienced when George The Third was wanted, and a little girl found to represent the shade of that distinguished monarch. The Honest Lawyer provided some good-humoured banter, as if such a personage was a rara avis, a magistrate adding that he understood there had never been but one, and that he was a fool!

Folkestone Visitors` List 4-11-1891

Old Folkestone Inns by Edward Dale (A Native)

Histories of old Inns, and some of the stories told in them, would make an interesting volume in any town, and the Inn Lore of Folkestone especially, would fill many pages in the hands of an industrious compiler. The Inns also that have ceased to exist, and been removed to give place to improvements, or that have been modernised, would fill with interest a chatty article of the local times of old.

The Folkestone Arms was an inn that stood on the site now occupied by the drapery establishment of Messrs. Gosling, and was for many years one of the principal hotels of the town, where it was the regular practice of our men of light and leading of those days to spend the evening in telling the news of the day – which was the old substitute for the modern local newspaper – and have a “hand of cards”. The Hope in Fancy Street, and the Royal Oak in New Highland (sic), what tales have been told at the “Club”, which had a migratory kind of existence, visiting those houses and others in turn.

The Kings Arms, too, was an inn where the making of Mayors, Aldermen and Councillors was settled, year after year, during the evening hours, under the soothing influence of good cheer in the Parlour, where our ancestors smoked themselves to that degree that they became so many fumigators during the remaining hours of their existence.

The True Briton, The Ship (with it`s ninepin alley in the cellar amongst the beer barrels), The Folkestone Cutter, The Three Mackerel, The Flower De Luce (Fleur De Lis), and The Fishing Boat all had their little circles of customers and coteries to publish the daily local news amid the most amicable and enjoyable surroundings.

The Morquis Of Granby, in High Street, was an interesting old-world hostelry abutting on the main street, with an entrance down to the stabling and the “Granby Yard”, where the pawnbroking establishment of Mr. Joseph now stands. There was a sight there one day that filled the town with an excitement that could scarcely be equalled in later times. It was a memorable occasion. The “Oddfellows” had determined on making a special demonstration of their existence, and of the picturesque adjuncts of the “Ancient Order” in public! The preparations for the procession took a long time in the presence of an excited crowd that blocked up High Street, and every special feature was watched with the keenest joy as it was added from the portals of the inn, where stood Mr. Harrison, the landlord, beaming upon the proceedings. First came a full band. The clarionets and bassoons required many a preliminary squeak and grunt before being considered ready for the start. Then the fifes and German flute had to be persuaded very pressingly before they would completely accord. There were no cornets in those days – not even a cornopean – but the key-bugle did duty for them, while a bass instrument called “The Serpent”, which wound itself round the performer, who snorted it`s notes out of the end over his head, was a sight to behold. And, above all, there was the drum! Even this required, in those days, considerable preparations and tuning. The tightening of this instrument of torture to it`s proper tension had especial care bestowed upon it, and received many preliminary taps to ascertain it`s perfect reliability. At last all being ready – the drum, the serpent, the key-bugle, and screaming clarionets all being turned on at full blast – “away” up the High Street, through the surging crowd, struggled the procession to the tune of “If I had a donkey that wouldn`t go, Do you think I`d wallop him, oh, no, no!” filling the hearts with delight, and finally reaching the old Parish Church, where the day`s arrangements included a sermon on good fellowship (or odd-fellowship) preached by Parson Pearce. Here the band “assisted” in the performance of the “Old Hundredth”, and with the refrain of “All people that on Earth do dwell” the service concluded. The “regalia” of that time was probably of a primitive nature, although that was not the estimate of the period, and Brother Tumber was especially admired carrying before him, in the manner of a seller of sweets, a large open book on a tray suspended around his neck. Quickly the procession reached the Granby Yard, where was erected, with the aid of scaffold poles and some old sails, a marquee, in which the important “feeding” portion of the day`s programme was to be carried out. This structure, with the decorative assistance of flags and evergreens, had cost great labour and study in it`s design and erection. The situation was not perhaps the most salubrious, with the open Pent Stream running down on one side of it, and a thickly-populated terrace of pigsties on the other, but it answered the purposes of the repast admirably, and the songs of the Noble Grands and Past Noble Grands, or plain Brothers, made the valley of Mill Bay ring when the favourite chorus was shouted: “Then here`s to the oak, the brave old oak, That stands in his pride alo-one, Still flourish he, that hale green tree, When a thousand ye-e-e-ars are gone”

The billeting of soldiers when on the march in the olden times sometimes caused considerable stir, and on one such occasion in the last century, when a regiment was marching through the town and had to stay here for rest, an incident occurred which gives a good idea of the period, and of which the following authentic record has been preserved:-

“Lines written over the fireplace of the largest and best inn in Folkestone, about a hundred years ago, by a party of gay-spirited young officers who were commanding a company of soldiers marching through the town, and billeted at this inn, then called the Folkestone Arms, the place at this time being only a small fishing town, and one of the most isolated on the coast.

The Great Almighty, Governor of Heaven,

For the sin of man, a punishment has given,

He never need more send offenders to Hell,

Send them to Folkestone, `t will do as well.

Upon the landlord going into the room after they had left to go to parade, his attention was called to this poetical effusion. He could not allow his native town to be so traduced, and therefore called a neighbour to assist him in replying to it, and if possible to lessen the conceit of these young men. They wrote:-

You red-coat poet, why take so much pains,

To show at once the virtue of your brains?

Since Folkestone`s Hell, a Devil it must need,

You want preferment, try!, no doubt you`ll succeed”

Folkestone Herald 6-2-1892

Editorial

Prohibited Hours

A subject that the Licensed Victuallers` Association of Folkestone should take in hand, and endeavour to enlighten their members upon, is the question of whether a publican has the right or not to keep his house open during what are called prohibited hours. It is a common and a fallacious belief that on the Sunday every house should be strictly closed with the exception of the respite allowed by law. This is a mistake, and it is one into which not the police, but the Magistrates themselves, fall. A reference to the Licensing Act proves this. The offence in keeping open does not consist in the mere fact that a landlord has left his doors unclosed, but that he has done so for the purpose of the sale of intoxicating liquors. Every door and window upon a publican`s premises may be left open from the beginning of the week until the end, provided that the object is not to facilitate the sale of commodities which have to pay a certain duty to the Inland Revenue. For a like reason no-one has to fear the pains and penalties of the law if found upon licensed premises during prohibited hours provided he can prove he was not there for the purpose of purchasing liquor. Of course the law naturally presumes that de facto a man being found on licensed premises, he is there with that object in view. Publicans, any more than other tradesmen, do not as a rule make free gifts of what they vend to those who choose to favour them with their company. But when P.S. Swift told an erring landlord, as he did according to his evidence on Saturday, that he should report him for keeping his house open during prohibited hours, he was charging him with an offence that does not exist. And the Chairman of the Bench was equally abroad when he told the defendant that he had been found guilty of doing so. The offence did not lie in the mere fact that the doors of the house were open, and that men had been seen to enter and leave, but rather that the landlady was stated to have served some of them. Even, however, in that respect the offence was not brought home, for it was not shown there had been any sale, without which an infringement of the Act could not take place. On the face of such a transaction Magistrates would rule, as they are entitled to, that the case has been established, subject to the version which might be given on oath by the landlord and those found upon his premises. In the case to which we are alluding, the solicitor who defended did not attempt to upset that presented by the police – he could hardly do so – but he contented himself with an ad misercordiam plea, which was most ably and judiciously argued, and was not without it`s effect. Our only reason for alluding to this case is that a great many people seem to fancy that during what are known as prohibited hours a publican has no right to admit even the fresh air of Heaven by opening his doors, and that the presence of a friend or a stranger upon his premises during them is sufficient to draw down upon him some of those pains and penalties which are held over his head. To show the foolishness of such an idea we have only to ask anyone to refer to the Act itself and see if they can find in it any section which expressly exempts any doctor or minister of the Gospel from the possible penalties which ordinary people risk in entering upon licensed premises during prohibited hours. They would fail to find anything of the kind. We remember a case tried a few years ago in an adjoining county where the landlord was charged with a breach of the licensing laws. He proved upon his oath, as did the guests themselves, that those whom he was entertaining were his own relations. The Bench admitted his plea, but were sorry that according to the Act (their own construction of it) they had no option but to inflict a fine. When their decision was appealed against they were speedily set right and the conviction was of course quashed.

Folkestone Chronicle 27-8-1892

Wednesday, August 24^th: Before Mr. J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Holden, and Messrs. J. Fitness, J. Boykett, H.W. Poole and W. Wightwick.

Annual Licensing Session

Folkestone Clergymen on Licensing

Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, not in any spirit of antagonism towards the Bench, but in order that they might know the Society`s views upon the subject, to put before them a resolution, passed the other day at the Vestry of the Parish Church, the Rev. M. Woodward presiding. The resolution was to the effect that the clergymen representing the various churches in the town, respectfully asked the Bench not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels and restaurants, such to be used for bona fide customers, and not for bars, etc. He also added that he was particularly urged to ask the Bench not to grant any additional licenses to grocers, as such licenses were fraught with very mischievous consequences, inasmuch as they held out great temptations to women. Mr. Gardner stated that the clergymen further added that the meeting also desired the Bench to consider the propriety of refusing the renewal of the licenses of those persons who had been convicted during the past year, and, in conclusion, they pointed out the great preponderance of public houses east of Alexandra Gardens over those west of the Gardens.

The Bench then proceeded with the renewal of the licenses.

Folkestone Express 27-8-1892

Wednesday, August 24^th: Before J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Annual Licensing Day

Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, presided over by the Vicar of Folkestone, to appear before the justices. He did not do so in any spirit of dictation to the Bench, but that they might see the views of the Society upon the subject, and he would put in a resolution passed the other day at a meeting held in the vestry, asking the justices not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels or restaurants. It also particularly urged that grocer`s licenses were peculiarly fraught with mischief as giving great facilities to women. They also thought that the number of licenses, of which there were 82, should be reduced, especially where there had been convictions for violation of the law. They did not specially single out any particular houses, but they thought when there had been recent convictions, they might refuse the renewal of licenses to such houses. Further they especially called attention to the preponderance in the number of houses at the lower end of the town – there were 79 east of Alexandra Gardens, while there were only three on the west. Mr. Gardner also referred to the fact that the magistrates last year refused to renew in English counties 117 licenses, and in boroughs as many as 101.

Folkestone Herald 27-8-1892

Week By Week

The Annual Licensing Session for Folkestone was not distinguished by any very notable features.

At the same time it must be admitted the objectors, for whom Mr. Gardner, instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, did not push their opposition in an undue or irritating manner. Of course there was the stock protest as to the number of the houses; 82they number in Folkestone – not such a very large percentage as compared with some towns of a smaller size, although, doubtlessly, quite sufficient unto the evil thereof, and a resolution was read, which was gone into in Vestry, asking the Justices not to grant any fresh licenses, except to private hotels or restaurants, a matter upon which, it is quite probable, the trade, as represented by the existing holders of licenses in the town, are quite agreed with.

Folkestone Herald 10-9-1892

Week By Week

A contemporary, I notice, is very wroth because, at our Brewster Sessions, teetotal Magistrates are allowed to occupy seats on the Bench, while those interested in the trade are debarred from doing so. Well, on the surface, the writer would seem to establish a grievance, but a little reflection will show him that in reality the licensed victualler has nothing to complain of, and that his interests are tolerably safeguarded. When a licence is granted, it is an accomplished fact, and it`s renewal can only be refused for reasons that are neither frivolous nor vexatious. The judges have distinctly laid it down in recent cases that Magistrates cannot import sentiment into their decisions in such matters, but must be guided by common sense, and a due regard for the public interests. If they refuse to renew a licence an appeal can always be made to a superior court, so that a Bench may be composed of entirely teetotal Magistrates, and the publican, although he might be put to a little trouble, would not suffer in the end. Looking at the other side of the question, one only has to conjure up a Bench of brewers, and no argument is needed.

Folkestone Visitors` List 14-9-1892

Editorial

The remarkable recommendation of the Licensing Committee to the Town Council that legal assistance should be afforded Mr. Superintendent Taylor at the Adjourned Licensing Sessions in opposing certain licenses, the holders of which have already been punished for their misdemeanour, is creating considerable stir among the Licensed Victuallers of the town, more especially as one of the reasons alleged for opposition to the licence of a well known hotel at the lower end of the town is that it is not required for the convenience of the public. The local Protection Society are moving in the matter; every legal assistance will of course be forthcoming, and should things go wrong in the particular case I have instanced, I have every reason to believe that the matter will be  carried beyond the confines of local jurisdiction.

What is felt to be an extraordinary anomaly in connection with this action on the part of the authorities is that the Licensing Committee is understood to constitute the Licensing Justices, and that such being the case, these very gentlemen who advise legal aid to the opponent of the licenses would be the gentlemen to sit on the Bench and adjudicate! I am not prepared to say, of course, that the Licensing Committee, man for man, will be found upon the Bench on the 28^th inst. – that remains to be seen –but if such should prove to be the case, I submit that it is a matter which ought to be brought under due notice of the Lord Chancellor. There are surely limits, even to the vagaries of Licensing Justices.

Folkestone Herald 1-10-1892

Editorial

The Licensing Committee of the Magistrates have given notice to the owners of “houses” that at the next Licensing Sessions they must be prepared for a diminution in the number of permits granted, and that they had better agree among themselves beforehand as to what houses should be closed. On the face of it this looks a right move in the cause of Temperance. But will it really prove so?  The abolition of one drinking saloon will inevitably result in the transference of it`s custom to it`s nearest neighbour. Do the Bench imagine that if they close half a dozen houses there will be a pint of beer the less drank in Folkestone? If so we fancy they are mistaken. The publics allowed to remain will reap the benefit in increased custom, while men who habitually spend their “evenings out” will remain in one house, instead of having a glass in one, and then going for a walk and calling in at another. In our opinion the great remedy for the evils of intemperance is to abolish tied houses and grocers` licenses. The fact that an unfortunate landlord is compelled to sell any doctored muck his brewer chooses to send him is answerable for one half of the evils caused by drink among the general public; and that women of the middle classes, who would not be seen going into a public house, can obtain bottles of spirits from their grocers, is responsible for the other half. Why, that the unfortunate women who frequent them and thus remain out of sight, will be driven either into the better class of houses where they must be served if they behave themselves, and stay only a sufficient time to drink what they order, or they will obtrude their presence in our public streets, which are now singularly free of them. It would be as well for the Licensing Committee to consider this point before they act too hastily.

 

Sandgate Visitors` List 1-10-1892

Local News

The Folkestone Magistrates decided to take an important step at the Adjourned Licensing Meeting on Wednesday, the Chairman stating that the court of Magistrates were unanimously of opinion that there were too many licensed houses in the borough, and that if the owners did not reduce the number within the next twelve months the Magistrates would do so at the next Sessions. All the licences were renewed, with the exception of that of the Warren Inn, which was refused, a conviction for Sunday trading having been obtained against it.

 

Southeastern Gazette 4-10-1892

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The Magistrates decided to take an important step at the Adjourned Licensing Session on Tuesday, the Chairman stating that there were too many licensed houses in the borough, and that if the owners did not reduce the number within the next twelve months the Magistrates would do so at the next sessions. 

Folkestone Chronicle 12-8-1893

Local News

An important announcement respecting the course to be adopted by the Licensing Committee at the approaching Brewster Sessions was made on Wednesday morning at the Borough Police Court by Mr. J. Holden, the Chairman. Mr. Holden stated that the Licensing Committee had been elected that morning. Last year an appeal was made to the brewers to reduce some of the licensed houses in Folkestone, and now the Licensing Committee wanted to know whether there had been any meeting of the brewers to accomplish that.

Superintendent Taylor said there had been no alteration in the licensed houses in Folkestone.

Mr. Holden: Then of course when the Licensing Committee meet, the brewers will not be surprised if some steps are taken to reduce the number of licensed houses in the Borough.

Superintendent Taylor: That is a matter for the brewers.

Mr. Holden said he wished it to be understood that this was not an individual expression, but was the voice of the Committee, and it should be communicated to the brewers.

Superintendent Taylor: The press will no doubt take notice of it.

Mr. Holden said he made the statement that morning so as to give the brewers an opportunity of making an alteration in the number of licensed houses before the holding of the Brewster Sessions.

Folkestone Express 12-8-1893

Editorial

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Wednesday, the Superintendent of Police was asked by one of the Magistrates whether he knew of any steps having been taken by the licence holders in the Borough to give effect to a suggestion by the Licensing Justices at the last Brewster Sessions that they should arrange among themselves to reduce the number of licensed houses, failing which the Justices themselves would have to take steps to get rid of some of them. The Superintendent replied that he had no knowledge of any voluntary action, but he said he would communicate with the publicans and bring up a report. No-one will be inclined to dispute the fact there are more houses in some quarters than are necessary to supply the wants of the inhabitants, but we believe they have been exceptionally well conducted during the past year, and the task of selecting any for extinction will be a delicate and invidious one. But there is a strong feeling that the constitution of the Licensing Committee should be somewhat different. There are some of the justices who are very closely allied to the various temperance or teetotal bodies, to which they give more than passive support, and it is, as we have so often pointed out, quite as unfair to have gentlemen who are distinctly biased in favour of teetotalism as it is to allow persons interested in the liquor traffic to act. The latter, however, are barred, and subject to a heavy penalty if they take part in licensing matters.

A few days ago there was a most important appeal case in which the question was raised whether a magistrate, being a member of a temperance body who have resolved to oppose a transfer or a renewal of a licence, is disqualified from acting as a licensing justice in the decision of the question. In the case referred to, which came up from Ipswich, a Mr. Goddard, who was a member of the Nonconformist Council, one of the objects of which was to oppose the renewal of licenses, and who was present at a meeting of the Council at which it was resolved to oppose the renewal of the licence in question, although he left before the resolution was passed, sat on the bench and took part in the discussion, the result of which was that the licence was refused. The holder of the licence applied for a certiorari to the licensing magistrates to bring up the order to be quashed, on the ground of bias or interest taking away their jurisdiction. In the result the rule was granted. This of course was an exceptional case.

We do not know of any justice in Folkestone directly connected with any association of a similar character, but one`s ears cannot be closed to the utterances to which expression has been given by temperance orators, in which they have distinctly spoken of the influence they had been enabled to exercise. We do not say for one moment that the justices do not approach the question with perfectly fair minds, but nevertheless it is difficult to convince the public that it is so. There are plenty of justices in the borough who are not open to even a suspicion of partisanship, and it would be more satisfactory if these were selected to form the Licensing Committee.

Local News

At the sitting of the Magistrates on Wednesday, Mr. Holden asked the Superintendent of Police if he had any knowledge of any action on the part of the owners of licensed houses to reduce the number of such houses, in accordance with the suggestion of the Licensing Justices at the last Licensing Sessions. The Superintendent said he had not, but would enquire, and bring up a report. It will be remembered that last year the Magistrates intimated that unless the reduction was made by the owners the justices would take steps to reduce the number. Mr. Holden said the Licensing Committee now desired it to be known that they would adhere to their resolve. It would be too late a fortnight hence for the brewers to consider the matter, but that announcement would give them time to do so.

Southeastern Gazette 15-8-1893

Local News

At the Town Hall, on Wednesday, the presiding Magistrate (Mr. Holden) stated that the licensing committee had been appointed that morning. Last year the committee made an appeal to the brewers to reduce the number of the licensed houses in Folkestone. The licensing committee wanted to know from Supt. Taylor whether the brewers had had a meeting for the purpose of making a reduction? Supt. Taylor had not heard of any such meeting; no alteration had been made in the number of licensed houses. Mr. Holden said, then, of course, when the licensing committee met the brewers must not be surprised if some steps were taken to reduce the number of ale-houses in Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Visitors` List 16-8-1893

En Passant

The Licensing Justices have announced through Mr. Holden – and we suppose he was not speaking without his book on Wednesday – that they intend to adhere to the threat they held out at the last annual licensing meeting of reducing the number of houses, and with that determination in view the Superintendent of Police has been requested to see the brewers and ask them to come to some arrangements among themselves to carry this into effect without the need of Magisterial interference.

That Folkestone, when it`s population is considered, has quite as many houses as are necessary goes without saying, but what we would ask is whether the peculiar surroundings of the place do not call for a larger number than would suffice for an inland town of the same magnitude. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that we have the Camp close upon our borders, and that with the shipping that comes to the harbour a large number of aliens are imported who remain with us for longer or shorter periods.

We presume that it is intended if possible, and the Magistrates will bear in mind that their decision can be appealed from, to close some of what are known as low houses. If this is done what will be the result? Why, that a state of things we now happily can keep in our alleys and back streets will find it`s way into our chief thoroughfares, and complaints will be doubly as rife as they are now as to ears and sensibilities being shocked by vulgar language and rough behaviour.

We also hope the Magistrates will bear in mind that by closing a man`s place of business they are virtually throwing him and his family upon the parish. These small publicans do not make fortunes. They rub along content to make a modest living, and if they are turned into the street they are, as a rule, absolutely worthless for any other occupation.

That these measures at all promote the cause of temperance has long ago been exploded. The working of the Liquor Laws in Wales, Scotland, and America have proved beyond all possibility of doubt that restriction does not mean a diminution in consumption. If men want a glass of beer they will have it. Supposing, again, that Vegetarianism came to the front, and it was proposed to shut up a number of butchers` shops, what would our rulers say to that? And yet vegetarians tell us that the consumption of meat is responsible for more crime and misery than alcohol itself.

Yet one more point. We ask the Magistrates to avoid if they can the ill-feeling that this interference with what the people rightly or wrongly call their liberties must entail. We have seen the attitude the trade papers are taking up. Magistrates might think they can afford to snap their fingers at them; but they cannot. When mud is freely thrown a certain portion is bound to stick, and it will not add to the dignity of our rulers in their office.

There are three applications coming forward at the next licensing meeting which we venture to think the Magistrates will not hesitate to grant. Messrs. Wampach and Carlo Maestrani apply for licenses to sell wines, spirits, ales, &c., upon their premises. This does not mean the creation of a new house, but simply granting to the visitors the convenience of being able to be served with a glass of liquid refreshment without being subjected to the bother and the loss of time necessitated by the present state of things, which requires the visitor first to pay for what he wants and then to wait until it has been fetched from a neighbouring hotel. When we look at that palatial building, the Wampach Hotel, we should think the required permission would at once be granted, seeing that it is really for the benefit of visitors, for whom it behoves us to make everything as comfortable and convenient as possible. As things at present stand Mr. Wampach would be unable to provide anyone with a drop of brandy, however badly it may be needed, without first sending for it. Surely this state of affairs is simply ridiculous, and only needs to be pointed out to be remedied.

The third application is by Mr. Edward Bayliss, of the Agnes Inn, 15, Broadmead Road, for an indoor licence. Here again we venture to think the Magistrates will turn a friendly ear. Mr. Bailey is a very respectable man, his house is situate a long distance from any other, and there is no doubt that in that rapidly growing district the public, and it is they who have to be considered, not private leanings, demand it. If it is granted, we venture to say that before long a first class hotel will rise up in the place of the present inn which shall be an ornament to that part of the town.

Folkestone Up To Date 17-8-1893

Editorial

Although the publicans were put in a flutter and the temperance people somewhat jubilant by the remarks which were made by Mr. John Holden on Wednesday at the borough bench, when he informed the public that the Licensing Committee had been re-elected, and he also asked the Superintendent if he had any knowledge that the brewers intended to adopt any course in accordance with the recommendation of the last year`s Licensing Committee.

We ourselves attach not the least importance to the threats which were then made. We fully expect that the public houses will be closed on exactly the same day as the first and second class fares on the South Eastern Railway Company are reduced.

Of course, our advocacy is, and always has been, on the side of temperance, but by no means on the side of petty tyranny, and we perfectly agree that a better Licensing Committee might have been found. Interested as we are in the cause of temperance, we know that it will gain nothing by the present licenses being left in the hands of a Committee that at any rate have advocated the principles that they have been accredited to do for a long time past.

We assert, as temperance advocates, that we should have been better satisfied to have seen Mr. J. Sherwood on that Committee, who is excluded because he holds a British wine licence. We should have had perfect confidence in Mr. Stephen Penfold, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Wightwick, and others, who have filled quite as important offices, and conducted such business with an impartiality that has compelled them to leave and forget their own interests.

A body formed, as the present Licensing Committee is, of a majority of temperance advocates, however they might wish to fulfil their public duties in a fair manner, must labour under a certain amount of public suspicion, and they would not dare to do what Messrs. Penfold, Sherwood, &c. could do without incurring the least suspicion of partiality.

We shall be very much surprised indeed if the renewal of any licence worthy of the name is refused, or any house is closed that draws a quantity of beer, the certainty of which would prevent drunkenness. We shall watch the proceeding of the Licensing Committee with interest.

 

Folkestone Express 19-8-1893

Local News

Since the intimation given by Mr. Holden with reference to the reduction in the number of licensed houses, the owners of several have been served with notice of opposition by the Superintendent of Police. There is likely to be a field day on Wednesday next, or perhaps it will be at the adjourned licensing sessions.

Letter

In your issue of Saturday, August 12^th, you drew attention to the threats which the Licensing Committee of the Borough Bench of Folkestone have dared for the second time to hurl at the heads of those, or some of those, who own licensed property in that borough.

I think the inhabitants of Folkestone ought to know what an outsider thinks of the persons who rule over them, and I will therefore crave space to give the names of the gentlemen who presume thus to dictate to their fellow townsmen, and venture at one and the same time to sit as judges of first instance, and judges of appeal.

The Licensing Committee consists, I am reliably informed, of the following:-

John Clark: Schoolmaster, Nonconformist, Radical, Teetotaller

John Holden: Radical, owner or manager of Temperance Hotels which pay good dividends

James Pledge: Fair and just man

J. Fitness: Retired grocer, Nonconformist, Radical

H.W. Poole: Not at all unreasonable

F. Boykett: Nonconformist, and supposed Teetotaller

W. Wightwick: Conservative Agent

I describe them as they were described to me. As to the accuracy of the description of the first two names, the reports in your local press are ample proof.

Now, let me ask, who are the Magistrates who generally adorn the Bench when ahy licensing business comes up? They are (I only repeat what I am told) the whole of the above, omitting Mr. Poole, and substituting for him Mr. W.G. Herbert. Can anything be more monstrously unjust?

There are in all some twenty two borough Magistrates, every one of whom can sit and hear applications for renewals of existing licenses. Why do these twenty two gentlemen allow seven of their number to threaten to suppress licenses and to direct the police to serve notices of the intention to oppose some fourteen or fifteen renewals on the principal ground that these houses are not needed by the public?

Do not these seven gentlemen perceive the monstrous iniquity of sitting first as a Licensing Committee to advise the full Bench, and then sitting as a full Bench to adjudicate on their own recommendation?

This is what they did last year, and they will do it again unless public indignation stops them, and it has not many days to do it in.

What right has this gentleman, Mr. Holden, interested in Temperance Hotels, to endeavour to increase his own gain by the suppression of another man`s business? A Magistrate whi is a director of a Railway cannot sit on the Bench at Brewster Sessions if that Railway has a Refreshment Room at the place where he would otherwise have jurisdiction. Is a Temperance Hotel keeper, with a direct interest to serve, to be held superior to a Railway Director who has no such interest? Of course I admit, as anyone who knows the facts must admit, that there are too many licensed houses in Folkestone, but to hold a pistol to a man`s head is not the best way to get him to come to terms with you peaceably.

If these Magistrates want a war with the owners of licensed property they are going the very best way to bring it about, and if it breaks out let them remember it will be fought out to the last, and only the House of Lords will end the conflict.

Would the ratepayers relish this?

Your obedient servant,

Gladiator.

Folkestone Express 23-8-1893

Letter

Since I wrote my last letter I have picked up a little more information as to the Licensing Committee, which I will give for what it is worth.

I find, by the latest return filed at Somerset House, in the early part of 1892, that Mr. John Holden was then the holder of 445 shares of £1 each, fully paid, in the “Folkestone Coffee and Refreshment House Company Limited”, that his wife held 106, and other members of the family 29 similar shares, making the family responsible for 580 out of the 5,000 shares existing.

I have also been given to understand that the rating of this hotel stands at £44 (formerly £55), while other houses in the immediate neighbourhood which seem to be of the same size are rated at sums considerably over £100.

In this connection it is interesting to observe that there is a “John Holden” among the Assessment Commissioners, though as his address is not given to me I am unable to state whether he is the same gentleman as the J.P. of that name. The only person in the Directory of 1893 with that name resides at 18, Clifton Crescent, and is a J.P., so your readers can easily complete the investigation for themselves.

I also find it is in common knowledge in Folkestone that Mr. John Holden who is the J.P. sits on the Bench on Licensing Sessions with a blue ribbon in his coat. If this is really true – I can hardly credit such an iniquity – I challenge him to state when he takes his seat on the Bench next Wednesday, that he sits there with an unbiased mind, and is ready and anxious to hear judicially, and give his decision justly on the sworn evidence adduced in regard to any licensing questions which may come before him.

Applications for renewal of existing licenses are matters with which the Licensing Committee has no right to deal to the exclusion of every other competent magistrate. I would therefore most earnestly appeal to every one of those other gentlemen to take their seats on the Bench next Wednesday, or whenever the question of the renewal of existing licenses comes forward for decision, so that the public may see that by the exercise of the authority they possess, they decline any longer to permit important questions of this public nature to be heard and determined by a Committee whose minds are not, and from the nature of the case cannot be, unbiased; who have managed to secure a majority of votes on Licensing Committee for the Borough, and have in effect, by their public utterances in Court, announced how they hope the evidence, when it comes before them, will compel them to decide.

Your obedient servant,

GLADIATOR.

Folkestone Visitors` List 23-8-1893

En Passant

Brewers do not maintain houses for the good of impecunious tenants, and publicans would decline to carry on their trade for the mere accommodation of the public unless the said public were willing to pay for it. So that we find that these houses enable their occupants to live, to help pay their rates, and generally discharge their duties as townsmen, while the public say in return for the benefits we derive from your houses we are quite willing to pay to enable you to do so. Reasoning upon these premises it is therefore impossible to deny that they are a necessity to the public convenience. Again, it should be borne in mind that the argument as to the too great number of these houses becomes lessened with an increasing population every year. Upon these two points we think the opponents of the licenses fail in their case.

Take another view. Allowing that some of these places of entertainment are the resort of customers whose characters are not of the best; when these houses are shut, what will be the result? That objectionable individuals will find their way into better classes of establishments, and scenes now happily confined to our back streets will be enacted in our main thoroughfares. The Board of Guardians have succeeded in getting poor unfortunates warned off the Camp; turn them out of the houses they have been accustomed to frequent, and what will you do with them? Unfortunately, or rather fortunately, we can`t take a leaf from the book of the unspeakable Turk, and put them in sacks and drop them into the harbour. If we have moral cesspools it is as well not to empty them into the street.

In addition to these points there is to be considered the hardship which the refusal of these licenses will entail upon those who, with their families, are dependent upon their businesses for support. In one case, we believe, if it is refused the widow and the fatherless will be thrown upon the world; while it is quite certain a great deal of heart-burning and annoyance will be induced which it will take a very long time to wipe out. It is to be hoped, therefore, that a less Draconian mode of procedure than that which it is contemplated may suggest itself to the Committee.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-8-1893

Licensing Sessions

The Folkestone Licensing Sessions was held on Wednesday, the Magistrates present being Mr. J. Clarke and Messrs. Boykett, Fitness, Pledge, Holden, Hoad, Wightwick, and Poole.

The Opposed Licenses

Immediately on the court being opened, Mr. E. Worsfold Mowll said before the business commenced he would like to mention that in the cases of the 13 licenses which had been objected to by the Superintendent of Police, he was associated with Mr. Minter and Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury, in supporting the renewals on behalf of the tenants and owners of the houses. It had been utterly impossible within seven days to prepare the facts which it would be necessary to place before the Bench before they came to a decision in the matter, and his application was that the Bench would fix a special day for the hearing of these cases – say the 15^th of September. No doubt it would take the Bench the whole of the day, and possibly they would have to adjourn until the following day as well, because although the same principle might be involved, the facts connected with each licensed house would have to be gone thoroughly into before the Magistrates. He saw Mr. Bradley late on Saturday night, and he said that under the circumstances and looking at the mass of facts and figures it would be necessary to put before the Bench, he did not think there would be any objection to the adjournment.

The Chairman said the Bench would accede to the request, and a special sitting would be held on the 13^th September at 11 o`clock.

The Superintendent`s Report

Superintendent Taylor then read his report as follows: In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers` licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9<sup>th</sup> instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen`s Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.

The Chairman: Mr. Superintendent, I am requested to give you the thanks of the Committee for this report. You have only been acting under the direction of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.

Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.

Folkestone Express 26-8-1893

Annual Licensing Meeting

Wednesday, August 23^rd: Before: J. Clark, W.H. Poole, J. Holden, F. Boykett, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, J. Pledge, and J. Hoad Esqs.

The solicitors present representing the owners and tenants were Mr. W. Mowll, Mr. J. Minter, Mr. F. Hall and Mr. Mercer, and Mr. Clarke-Hall (barrister) and Mr. Montague Bradley for the opponents.

Mr. Mowll, at the opening of the Court, said: Might I mention before the business commences that there are 13 licenses that have been objected to by the Superintendent of Police. I am associated with my friend Mr. Minter, and my friend Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury in supporting the applications for renewals on behalf of the owners of these 13 houses. I have an application to make to you. It has been impossible in the short space of seven days to prepare facts and call witnesses with regard to those houses which have been objected to, and upon which I shall claim your judgement. And my application is that you will be kind enough to adjourn these 13 cases until Wednesday the 13^th September – to fix a special day in fact. No doubt it will take the Bench the whole of the day, and perhaps an adjournment day as well, to hear the cases. Because, although the same principle may be involved, the facts connected with these licensed houses may be different, and I shall have to give evidence with regard to each house. I have spoken to my friend Mr. Bradley, and asked him whether, under the circumstances, he saw any objection, and he said “No”. I may at once state that the houses objected to are the Jubilee, Radnor Street; the Harbour Inn, Harbour Street; the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street; the Granville, Dover Street; the Queen`s Head, Beach Street; the Royal George, Beach Street; the Victoria, South Street; the Cinque Ports, Seagate Street; the Wonder, Beach Street, the British Colours, Beach Street; the Ship, Radnor Street; the Oddfellows, Radnor Street; and the Folkestone Cutter, Dover Street. There are 13 of them that are objected to. Although, as I have said, no doubt the same principle is involved in all of them, yet the Bench can easily understand the facts and statements connected with every case are different, and it is necessary that they should be carefully and properly put before the Bench before they give their decision.

The Chairman: Will the 13^th be the adjournment?

Mr. Bradley: No, a special day. The adjourned meeting will be on the 27^th September. Will you accede to Mr. Mowll`s application?

Mr. Wightwick: Will you make it after the 18^th?

Mr. Mowll: I am in the Bench`s hands entirely as to the day. The 13^th would be the most convenient day.

Mr. Boykett: The 13^th is on Wednesday.

Mr. Bradley: This day three weeks.

The Chairman: The Bench will grant your application, Mr. Mowll.

The Superintendent`s Report

The Superintendent of Police read his report as follows:-

“Borough of Folkestone Police, 23^rd August, 1893.

Gentlemen, In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130. These consist of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers` licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9<sup>th</sup> instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen`s Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, in South Street two, and in Seagate Street three.

I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,

Your obedient servant,

John Taylor, Supt.

To The Licensing Committee”.

The Chairman: Superintendent, I am requested to give you the thanks of the Magistrates for that report. You have only been acting on the directions of the Licensing Committee, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken and the report you have presented.

Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.

Mr. Mowll: The Bench will not object to me having a copy of the report. I don`t know whether the shorthand writers took it – the Superintendent read it very rapidly.

Mr. Bradley: There is no objection to that at all.

The unopposed licenses were then granted.

Mr. Wightwick expressed a hope that the adjourned meeting would be held in the large room.

 

Folkestone Herald 26-8-1893

Police Court Notes

On Wednesday morning the annual licensing meeting of this borough was held in the Town Hall, the Bench being presided over by Mr. J. Clark. The other Justices were – Mr. J. Holden, Mr. James Pledge, Mr. H.W. Poole, Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Hoad, Mr. J. Fitness, and Mr. F. Boykett.

The Bench were supported by their legal adviser, Mr. Henry B. Bradley, solicitor. It had been anticipated that the proceedings would have been invested with a high degree of public interest and importance, inasmuch as it had got rumoured abroad that the renewal of a whole batch of licenses had been officially objected to. Owing, however, to an application reported below, the question was postponed until the 13^th September, and thus the meeting was divested of the principal elements of interest that had been looked forward to by the resident community.

There was a strong muster of solicitors. The interests of owners and tenants were in the hands of Mr. Worsfold Mowll (Dover), Mr. Minter, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury). The Temperance organizations were represented by Mr. Clarke-Hall (barrister), and Mr. Montague Bradley (of Dover).

The Black List

The following is a list, in alphabetical order, of the thirteen houses that have been objected to, the names of the tenants being given also:- (1) British Colours, 1, Beach Street, ---- Gatley; (2) Cinque Ports, 2, Seagate Street, R. Weatherhead; (3) Folkestone Cutter, 24, Dover Street, ---- Warman; (4) Granville, 63, Dover Street, F.G. Stickles; (5) Harbour Inn, South Street, S. Barker; (6) Jubilee Inn, 24, Radnor Street, J.L. Adams; (7) Oddfellows, The Stade, G. Whiddett; (8) Queen`s Head, 11, Beach Street, W. Tame; (9) Royal George, 18, Beach Street, A.J. Tritton; (10) Ship Inn, 38, Radnor Street, G. Warman; (11) Tramway Tavern, 4, Radnor Street, J. Bayliss; (12) Victoria Inn, 26, South Street, J. Watson; (13) Wonder Tavern, 13, Beach Street, G. Laslett.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll, addressing the Justices, said: My application this morning, sir, is that the Bench would be kind enough to adjourn these thirteen cases until Wednesday, the 13^th of September. No doubt it will take the Bench a whole day, and possibly an adjournment as well, to hear these thirteen cases, for although the same principle will be involved, the facts concerning each licensed house will have to be gone into. I saw my friend Mr. Bradley on Saturday night, and I asked him whether under the circumstances he would object to an adjournment, and he said that looking at the facts he would offer no objection. There are thirteen houses that have been objected to, and although no doubt the same principle is involved in dealing with them, yet, as the Bench can easily understand, the facts and statements connected with each case are different, and it is necessary that they should be very carefully prepared and put before the Magistrates for their decision.

The Chairman (after a short conference on the bench): Mr. Mowll, the Bench will accede to your request.

 

Superintendent`s Report

Mr. Superintendent Taylor read his report, which was in the following terms: Gentlemen, In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers` licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9<sup>th</sup> instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen`s Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.

The Chairman: Mr. Superintendent, I am requested to convey to you the thanks of the Committee for your report, and we all feel obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.

Mr. Boykett: Very much obliged.

Mr. Mowll applied that he be furnished with a copy of the report, and the application was at once acceded to.

The remaining licenses were then renewed.

New Applications

Mr. Mowll asked that the Bench should adjourn the consideration of a full licence to Mr. Maestrani, Mr. Wampach, and Mr. Bailey, and the other solicitors offering no objection, the Bench fixed September 13^th for the hearing.

Southeastern Gazette 29-8-1893

LICENSING SESSIONS

The intention of the Folkestone Borough Magistrates to make a substantial reduction in the number of licensed houses within their jurisdiction has caused great excitement not only among the licensed victuallers and brewers connected with the borough, but among the trade generally throughout the kingdom. The question has been taken up by brewers representing many millions of capital, and it will be stubbornly fought out.

The annual Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday, and the Town Hall was densely crowded. Gentlemen from London connected with the trade were present, and also representatives of the London Press; but their visit was fruitless, as it was arranged that the contentious business should be taken at an adjourned session. Mr. Worsfold Mowll represented various brewing firms: Mr. Minter, the proprietor of the Wonder Tavern ; Mr. Hall, solicitor, several applicants for licences ; Mr. Montagu Bradley, solicitor, Dover, the Licensing Committee of the borough; Mr. W. Clarke Hall, barrister, certain societies connected with the temperance cause.

OPPOSED RENEWALS ADJOURNED.

On the Court being opened Mr. Mowll stated that the Superintendent of the Police had served notice of objection to the renewal of 13 licences, on the ground that these licensed houses were not required for the accommodation of the public. It was impossible for him (Mr. Mowll) in the seven days which had elapsed since the service of the notices to prepare the facts necessary in each case to enable the justices to arrive at a right decision. He therefore asked them to adjourn the whole of the cases to the 13^th September, when possibly not only the whole of that day, but of another day would have to be devoted to them, inasmuch as although no doubt the same principle was involved in regard to every house, yet the facts would differ widely, and it was necessary that those facts should be carefully prepared and put before the Magistrates.

Mr. Minter wished the case of the Wonder to be excepted from the adjournment. The house was licensed before 1869, and, as a consequence, the Bench had no power to refuse the licence except upon certain grounds which were not raised. He understood that Mr. Andrews (clerk to the justices’ Clerk) was of opinion that the licence was not granted until 1870. The reason he had for knowing that the Clerk was mistaken was that in the spring of 1869 he (Mr. Minter) applied to the Judge of the County Court (Mr. Scott), on behalf of the owner, Mr. Beaney, brewer, of Wye, for an injunction to restrain the then tenant, Mr. Bowen, from pulling out the fixtures. He had searched the County Court records in proof of his contention.

The Bench thought the documentary proof should be given, and the case was adjourned with the others; temporary authority being given to the widow of the late landlord, who had died since the service of the notice.

SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT.

Supt. Taylor then read the following report to the justices “In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licences granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130. These consist ot 82 full ale-house licences, 12 beer-house on-licences, and six beer-house off- licences; the remainder being wine licences to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licences, and grocers’ licences. The bulk of the public-house and beer-house licences are granted in respect of premises situated in the area bounded by South Street, High Street, and Dover Road, and the Sea Front. No full licences have been granted for many years. The last beer-house licence was granted in 1886 to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the licensing meeting in 1892, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licences of the Jubilee, Radnor Street; Harbour Inn, Harbour Street, Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street; Granville, Dover Street; Queen’s Head, Seagate Street; Royal George, Beach Street; Cutter, Dover Street; Victoria, South Street; Oddfellows, Radnor Street ; Cinque Ports, Seagate Street; Wonder, Beach Street; British Colours, Queen’s Square (Harbour) ; and the Ship, Radnor Street. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria, and Ship, I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licences to these houses. The general grounds of objection to the renewal of these licences are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public, being within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some years been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner; but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship, or Harbour. With reference to the necessity for these houses, it will be found that in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beerhouses; in Beach Street, seven; in Radnor Street, eight; in Dover Street, five; in South Street, two; in Seagate-street, three.”

The Chairman (Mr. Boykett) said he was requested to give the thanks of the Licensing Committee to Supt. Taylor for his report. Supt. Taylor had only been acting under the directions of the Licensing Committee, and they all felt obliged to him for his report.

 

Folkestone Visitors` List 30-8-1893

Police Court Notes

It was thought on Wednesday last that we were going to have a grand field day, but everything went off in a little puff of smoke, the contest between the landlords and their opponents being by mutual agreement deferred until September 15^th. This was done on the application of Mr. Worsfold Mowll, who appeared for the publicans whose licenses had been objected to, and who put it to the Bench whether it was possible in seven days to get up all the particulars necessary to meet the objections to 17 houses (sic). The Magistrates present were Messrs. J. Clark (Chairman), J. Holden, F. Boykett, J. Fitness, Alderman Pledge, W. Wightwick, E.W. Poole, and J. Hoad.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor submitted the following report, which will no doubt be read with interest: In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers` licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. (this locality mentioned by the Superintendent is in the immediate vicinity of the harbour, and the quarters of a considerable fishing population)  No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9<sup>th</sup> instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen`s Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none of these houses are required for the accommodation of the public within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.

The Chairman explained that the Superintendent had only acted upon the instructions of the Licensing Committee, and the Magistrates all felt very much obliged to him for the trouble he had taken.

Mr. Holden, J.P.: Very much obliged.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 31-8-1893

Editorial

The Licensing Committee did not care about taking the whole responsibility of carrying out their threats of last year, but very skilfully compelled the Superintendent to share that responsibility.

As Temperance advocates we are by no means satisfied with the procedure, for if Temperance is to advance, which we sincerely hope it will, it will only be advanced by fighting the battle justly, and fearlessly attacking the strong as well as the weak. Now is this being done by the Licensing Committee in Folkestone? We contend it is not. By making a selection it is only the very weakest opponents, and those houses that draw lesser quantities of drink have been attacked, and if they are closed which we do not for a moment think they will be, the cause of Temperance will be no gainer, for there will be just as much drink consumed as ever, and by closing these it will only increase the trade and value of the neighbouring houses; that the Committee know full well.

For our part we don`t believe in the Magistrates acting the part of accuser, prosecutor, and judge in this matter – it should have been left to the people. If they were dissatisfied with any house or houses, let them sign a memorial opposing the renewals. This had not been done when Mr. Holden gave notice to the Superintendent to caution the brewers.

Whatever may have been done since, and of course any expression of public opinion that might be brought up to strengthen the Licensing Committee`s views, should be received with a considerable amount of caution. Temperance must not be advanced at the cost of the liberties of the people.

Halls Of Justice

Wednesday, August 23^rd: Before Justices J. Clark, J. Holden, Wightwick, Hoad, Poole, Boykett, Fitness and Pledge.

The Superintendent had given notice to oppose thirteen notices of renewals of licenses on the ground that they were not required by the public. He read a lengthy report, for which he received the thanks of the Licensing Committee.

All contentious matter was adjourned.

The Court and it`s approaches were considerably crowded, and considerable dissatisfaction was shown at the Magistrates not holding the Brewster Sessions in the large hall. At the commencement of the Court it was found necessary to open all doors and windows. One of the counsel described the place as the Black Hole of Calcutta.

The publicans whose licenses were not opposed obtained their renewals on the payment of 8s. 6d.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor could be heard with his sonorous voice commanding them to get their money ready and take off their hats. If one unfortunate individual appeared at the table with half a sovereign he was severely reprimanded for not having smaller change.

The adjourned meeting takes place on Wednesday, September 13^th.

Folkestone Up To Date 7-9-1893

Editorial

On Wednesday next the Magistrates will decide the all momentous licensing question. We hope every interest, both publican and temperance, will be treated in a calm and impartial manner. We also hope that the whole of the Magistrates Bench will sit, as they are privileged to do by law, and decide this question. We especially recommend them to do this in order to restore that public confidence in the administration of justice, which, we are bound to admit, has been somewhat shaken by the injudicious action of the Licensing Committee in giving the extraordinary notice, first through their chairman, Mr. Holden, and secondly through the Superintendent of the police.

We do not think Mr. John Clark showed the very best taste in the world by publicly thanking him in open court for carrying out this somewhat unpleasant duty. We hope the Licensing Committee, in their zeal for temperance, will also consider that £20,000 worth of property is at stake, which contributes a large amount in rent, rates, and revenue, both to local and imperial taxation.

They will only be justified in closing any of those houses by the absolute certainty that less drink will be sold and consumed, and without they are absolutely convinced of this beyond the possibility of doubt they will only be defeating the object of temperance by increasing the brewers` monopoly by increasing the trade of the more wealthy publican at the expense of his poorer neighbour, and at a loss to local taxation and imperial revenue.

Of course, we believe in these things being decided by the people themselves, and hope the day is not far distant when the matter will be taken out of the hands of the Magistrates altogether, but until that happy time arrives we call upon the Magistrates, as the custodians of public rights and morals, to do their duty fairly to all, to “be just and fear not”. Not to be swayed on the one hand by any threats or loss of support from the publicans, or by any promises of support by the enthusiastic temperance party.

Folkestone Up To Date 14-9-1893

Licensing

The adjourned licensing meeting was held in the large hall before Justices Hoad, Pursey, Davey, Holden, Clark, Fitness, Poole, Herbert and Pledge.

Messrs. Glyn and Bodkin were the counsel for the owners, Mr. J. Minter for the tenants.

Superintendent Taylor conducted his own case.

Mr. Montagu Bradley, of Dover, said he represented the Temperance party, but the Bench decided that he had no locus standi.

At the commencement Mr. Glyn handed in a written objection to the jurisdiction of certain Magistrates, and asked them to retire and consider it. They did so and returned minus Mr. J. Holden.

Mr. Glyn opened his case at great length, and asked “Where is the public complaint? Where is the Watch Committee?” He did not ask where Mr. Holden had gone.

The Bench eventually decided to close the Tramway Tavern only.

Of all the houses we should think this is the most insignificant, and any benefit that the Temperance cause may gain will be very trifling.

We shall give a fuller report in our next issue, with comments thereon.

   

Folkestone Chronicle 16-9-1893

Editorial

It was only natural that there should be so much interest felt in the proposal made by the police to close several public houses in the lower part of the town. The temperate way in which Mr. Glyn put the case to the Bench on behalf of the publicans was a lesson to those who rabidly advocate the abolition of licensed houses, and probably these will be reminded that intemperate tactics in the cause of teetotalism has again frustrated their efforts. The retirement of a Magistrate from the Bench, whose special pleading against the interests of the liquor trade have become proverbial, marked a sense of justice in that gentleman which goes far to appease the feeling that has sometimes been aroused against him. The result of the deliberations of the Justices has been accepted as most satisfactory, and there has been a distinct gain on the side of open-handed justice in dealing with the question. Another phase of the local licensing requirements will soon come up for consideration. The resolve of the Justices to grant no more licenses for Folkestone is an altogether untenable one in a growing town like ours, and the scheme now in course of development for building the Grand Hotel on the Leas will of course upset such a rigid rule. There is also the annual application to be again made for a licence for the Central Restaurant, which may well be granted now that the licenses of the Borough have been lessened by the abolition of that held for the Tramway Tavern.

Local News

Not many hours had elapsed since the Town Hall was occupied by a gay and brilliant company who were enjoying the pleasures of the terpsichorean art, when a gathering of a very different nature took place within it`s walls at eleven o`clock on Wednesday morning. In the short space which had elapsed the Hall had been denuded of all it`s tasty decorations and luxurious appointments, and had put on it`s everyday appearance for the transaction of the business of the Special Licensing Session, which had been appointed for the purpose of dealing with the licenses to which notice of opposition had been given by the police.

At the end of the Hall, backed by high red baize screens, raised seats had been arranged for the accommodation of the Licensing Justices. Here at eleven o`clock the chair was taken by Mr. J. Clark, ho was accompanied on the Bench by Alderman Pledge, Messrs. Holden, Hoad, Fitness, Davey, Poole, and Herbert.

Immediately in front of the Bench were tables for the accommodation of Counsel and other members of the legal profession, while in close proximity were seats for Borough Magistrates who were not members of the Licensing Committee, and for the brewers and agents interested in the cases that were to occupy the attention of the Bench. The body of the Hall was well filled with members of the trade and the general public, whilst there was quite an array of members of the police force who were present to give evidence.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation

This concluded the list of objections, and Mr. Glyn addressed the Bench, saying the result of the proceedings was that with regard to all the houses, except the Tramway, there was no serious charge of any kind. As to the Tramway, he challenged anybody to show that any Bench of Justices had ever refused to grant licenses unless the landlords had had notices, or unless there had been a summons and a conviction against the tenant since the last renewal. With regard to the other houses the only question was whether they were wanted or not. Superintendent Taylor, who, he must say, had conducted the cases most fairly and most ably, had picked out certain houses, and he asked the Bench to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their interest in respect of those houses, while the other houses were to remain. How on earth were the Bench to draw the line? There were seven houses in one street, and the Superintendent objected to four, leaving the other three. In respect to one of these there had been a conviction, and in respect of the others none. Why was the owner of one particular house to keep his property, and the others to be deprived of theirs? Mr. Glyn enforced some of his previous arguments, and said if the Bench deprived his clients of their property on the grounds that had been put forward they would be adopting a doctrine of confiscation, and setting an example to other Benches in the county to do the same.

The Decision

The Bench adjourned for an hour, and on their return to the Court the Chairman announced that the Magistrates had come to the decision that all the licenses would be granted with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern.

Mr. Glyn thanked the Bench for the careful attention they had given to the cases, and asked whether, in the event of the owners of the Tramway Tavern wishing to appeal, the Magistrates` Clerk would accept service.

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

Folkestone Express 16-9-1893

Editorial

The Folkestone Brewster Sessions, in which there was a great deal of interest taken throughout the country in consequence of the somewhat peculiar circumstances attending the opposition, have resulted in the temporary suspension of one licence. We say temporary suspension, because there is very little doubt that the decision of the licensing justices will be appealed against. It was very satisfactory to many to note that the composition of the Bench had been considerably changed. Mr. Holden, to whom there was a strong objection, did not sit, and the Committee was composed of Messrs. John Clark, W.G. Herbert, J.R. Davy, J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey, James Pledge, H.W. Poole, and John Hoad. At the original sitting there were present Messrs. F. Boykett, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Hoad, H.W. Poole, W.G. Herbert and James Pledge. There can be very little fault found with the ultimate decision of the Bench. On the strength of the evidence laid before them, they decided to refuse to renew only one licence, but that evidence was given by corporals of military police, of whose complaints against the conduct of the house nothing was known by the owners, and after all they were not very grave. A question, however, arises as to the manner in which the opposition was brought about. It was alleged by the learned gentlemen who were engaged in the matter that it was opposition directed by the Licensing Committee, and the allegation was not challenged. But it is pointed out that, although the Licensing Justices, through Mr. Holden, requested the Superintendent to bring up a report, with a view to the extinction of some of the licenses, they did not direct him to oppose any. But when the report came up, in which the Superintendent said he had served notice of opposition to thirteen houses, they thanked him for the report, and said that he was only acting under the direction of the Licensing Committee. The inference is that the Superintendent having acted without the sanction or the knowledge of the Watch Committee, that body declined to furnish him with legal assistance. The testimony of the learned gentlemen engaged clearly proved that he did not require any assistance, and that he conducted his cases fairly and skilfully. The owners, however, complain, and very justly, that they have been subjected to all the trouble, expense, and anxiety of establishing their claim to renewals, and they not unreasonably contend that the Superintendent, without reference to the body to which he is directly responsible, and as it turned out without any reasonable justification whatever, served notices of objection to thirteen houses, the extinction of the licenses of which would entail an enormous loss upon the owners. It is evident that a Superintendent may on his own personal responsibility, and acting on his own judgement, oppose any number of licenses. An officer may come into power who holds very strong views upon the temperance question, and who would not exercise his powers so fairly and judiciously as Superintendent Taylor does. The duty is an unpleasant and an invidious one, and it is very clear that the system requires amendment. It is unfair to impose such a duty upon a police superintendent. The craze for the extinction of licensed houses which followed the “Sharpe and Wakefield” judgement has died out. People generally have come round to the view that the extinction of licenses simply means enhancing the value of those left in existence. Opposition on the ground that a house is not required is everywhere held to be untenable. It might be fairly said that if local circumstances, such as a large diminution of population, could be urged, the argument should prevail. It occurs to most people that where there are clusters of licensed houses, some of them could well e dispensed with. But it would not necessarily imply a diminution of drunkenness – but simply the taking away of one man`s livelihood, in order that another may grow rich through increased trade induced by the swallowing up of his neighbour`s little vineyard. The main contention on Wednesday was that unless misconduct could be proved against houses, the licenses should be renewed, and in the few but very practical remarks made by Mr. Minter, he pointed out that the legislature had wisely ordered that after a third conviction endorsed on the licence, the licence was forfeited. If this course were adopted, the owners could not complain; they would be exceedingly careful that their tenants committed no offence, the best possible class of men as licence holders would be selected, and the public generally would be benefitted.

Note: Sharpe v Wakefield case here: http://takecourage.info/files/22_QBD_239.htm

Adjourned Licensing Session

The special sitting for the hearing of those applications for renewals to which the Superintendent of Police had give notice of opposition was held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. J. Clark, J. Hoad, W.H. Poole, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, J.R. Davy, J. Holden, C.J. Pursey and J. Pledge.

Mr. Lewis Glyn and Mr. Bodkin supported the applications on behalf of the owners, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, with whom were Mr. Minter, Mr. F. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury), and Mr. Montagu Bradley (Dover) opposed on behalf of the Good Templars.

Before the business commenced, Mr. Bradley handed to Mr. Holden a document, which he carefully perused, and then handed to Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman.

Mr. Glyn, who appeared for the applicants, speaking in a very low tone, made an application to the Bench, the effect of which was understood to be that the Justices should retire to consider the document. The Justices did retire, and on their return Mr. Holden was not among them.

Folkestone Herald 16-9-1893

Editorial

The large audience who crowded into the Licensing Justices` Court at the Town Hall on Wednesday last were evidently representative of the interests of the liquor trade in this Borough. Every stage of the proceeding was watched with the closest attention, and it was impossible not to recognise the prevalent feeling that a mistake had been committed in objecting wholesale to the renewal of licenses. Thirteen houses in all were objected to, but as two of them, through a technical point of law, were entitled to a renewal, there remained eleven as to which the Justices were asked to exercise their discretionary powers. In the event, after a long hearing, and a weighty exposition of law and equity, the decision of the tribunal resulted in the granting of ten of these eleven licenses and the provisional extinction of one, as to which, no doubt, there will be an appeal. As this journal is not an organ of the trade, and as, on the other hand, it is not inspired by the prohibitionists, we are in a position to review the proceedings from an unprejudiced and dispassionate standpoint. At the outset, therefore, we must express our disapproval of the manner in which the cases of those thirteen houses have been brought up for judicial consideration. It was rather unfortunate that a Magistrate who is so pronounced a Temperance advocate as Mr. Holden should have taken a prominent part in having those houses objected to. We say nothing of his official rights; we only deprecate the manner in which he has exercised his discretion. We think it likely to do more harm than good to the Temperance cause, inasmuch as it savours of partiality if not persecution. We also think that Mr. Holden would have done well not to have taken his seat on the Licensing Bench. It would be impossible to persuade any licence holder that the trade could find an unbiased judge in the person of a teetotal Magistrate. Conversely, it would be impossible to persuade a Temperance advocate that a brewer or a wine merchant could be capable of passing an unbiased judgement upon any question involving the interests of those engaged in the liquor traffic. The presence of Mr. Holden on the Bench was not allowed to pass without protest. Counsel for the owners handed in a written document, the Justices retired to consider it in private, and as the result of that consultation Mr. Holden did not resume the seat he had originally taken. The legal and other arguments urged by the learned Counsel for the owners and the tenants are fully set out in our report. We attach special importance to one contention, which was urged with a degree of earnestness that made a deep impression in Court, and will make a deeper impression outside. All these houses, be it remembered, had had a renewal of licence at the annual licensing meeting held last year. At that date the discretionary power of the Court had been as firmly established in law as it is at the present moment. At that date whatever laxity had taken place during the previous year in respect of the conduct of any one of those thirteen houses had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. At that date the congestion of public houses in particular parts of the town was as notorious as it is now, and nothing had happened in the interval to change in any material degree the general circumstances which prevailed in 1892 when the licences were renewed. In no single case out of the thirteen has there been a conviction recorded on the licence since the licenses were renewed in 1892, and under these circumstances it was argued by Counsel that to extinguish any one of these licences would amount to an act of confiscation. There can be no pretence for saying, therefore, that the objections raised this year to the renewal of the licences originated in the laches of the tenants themselves. They had their origin with either the Bench as a whole or a section of the Bench, and it was at the instance of the whole body or of a section of the Justices that the chief officer of police was instructed to report upon the question. So far as the ordinary course of police supervision was concerned the houses, with one solitary exception, appeared to have had a clear record, there being no conviction for any infraction of the Licensing Acts. It therefore savoured of persecution to arraign the whole of these thirteen houses and to press against them the argument that they are not required by the population, although last year the Justices, by renewal of the licenses, had decided that they were. Under these circumstances it was rather unfair to throw upon the Superintendent of Police the onerous and invidious duty of making the best case he could in support of the objections. It is only right to say that the fair and straightforward manner in which that officer discharged the duty elicited the commendation of everybody in Court – Bench, advocates, and general audience. Ultimately the Justices renewed all the licenses, with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern, and on this case their decision will be reviewed by an appellate court. The impression which all these cases have created, and will leave on the public mind, is that the Temperance party have precipitated a raid upon the liquor shops, and that in doing so they have defeated their own object. Persecution and confiscation are words abhorrent to Englishmen. The law fences the publican round with restrictions and penalties in abundance, but in teh present case the houses had not come overtly within the law. To shut up the houses would therefore savour of confiscation, although in strict law the licence is deemed to be terminable from year to year. In the result the victory lies with the trade, and the ill-advised proceedings against a whole batch of houses have created a degree of sympathy for the owners and tenants which was given expression by the suppressed cheers that were heard on Wednesday at the close of the investigations.

Licensing

It will be remembered that on the 23^rd ult. the Justices adjourned until the 13^th inst. the hearing of objections to the renewal of the following licensed houses – Granville, British Colours, Folkestone Cutter, Tramway, Royal George, Oddfellows (Radnor Street), Cinque Ports, Queen`s Head, Wonder, Ship, Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria – thirteen in all. These cases were taken on Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the large room having been transformed for the purpose into a courtroom. The Justices were Messrs. Clarke, Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Fitness, Poole, Herbert, Davy, Pursey, with the Justices` Clerk (Mr. Bradley, solicitor).

Mr. Glyn, and with him Mr. Bodkin, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, of Dover, appeared on gehalf of the owners of the property affected; Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared for the tenants; Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Good Templars, Sons of Temperance, Rechabites, and the St. John`s Branch of the Church Temperance Society. Mr. Superintendent Taylor, Chief Constable of the borough, conducted the case for the police authorities without any legal assistance.

Mr. Glyn, at the outset, said: I appear with my learned friend, Mr. Bodkin, in support of all these licences except in the case of the Royal George, for the owner of which my friend Mr. Minter appears. Before you commence the proceedings I should like you to consider an objection which I have here in writing, and which I do not desire to read. I would ask if you would retire to consider it before proceeding with the business.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I appear on behalf of some Temperance societies in Folkestone.

Mr. Glyn: I submit, sir, that this gentleman has no locus standi.

The Justices now retired to a private room, and after about ten minutes in consultation all the Justices except Mr. Holden returned into Court. It was understood that the objection had reference to the appearance of Mr. Holden as an adjudicating Magistrate, that gentleman being a strong Temperance advocate.

Mr. Glyn then proceeded to say: Now, sir, it might be convenient if you take the Queen`s Head first, and I have formally to apply for the renewal of the licence of the Queen`s Head. That is a house which is well known by everybody, and by all you gentlemen whom I have the honour of addressing, as a most excellent house. The licence has been held for a very considerable number of years, and the present tenant has had it since 1889. It is worth £1,500, and the present tenant paid no less than £305 valuation when he entered that house. I need hardly tell you that the licence was granted a great many years ago by your predecessors and it has been renewed from time to time until now, when the Superintendent of Police has objected on the grounds that the house is not required and that it is kept in a disorderly manner. As to the objection made by the Superintendent, for whom I in common with all others have the highest possible respect, I think he will admit that the objection in not made of his own motion but that it is made in pursuance of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course the point has occurred to my learned friend and myself, and it is a very nice one, whether under those circumstances the requirements of the Section had been complied with, and as to whether, the Superintendent having really been acting as agent  for the Justices, he had any locus standi at all to oppose these licences. I must leave that to your body, guided as you will be by your most able Clerk. He knows the Section better than I do. He knows under what circumstances and objection can be raised, and that it must be done in open Court and not introduced in the way these objections have been raised. These observations apply to the whole of these renewals, and you will find in this case, sir, indeed in all these cases, that the Superintendent of Police in raising these objections has been raising them, as he says in his report, in pursuance of instructions he received from the Magistrates; therefore those gentlemen who formed that body and who give the Superintendent these instructions are really in this position, if I may so put it to them with humility, of people complaining, by having themselves directed an inquiry, upon which inquiry they propose to sit, and, as I understand, to adjudicate. Now, sir, I know from some long occasional experiences of this Bench that there is not a single member of this Bench who desires to adjudicate upon any case which he had prejudged by directing that the case should be brought before him for a particular purpose, and I only draw your attention to these matters because I am perfectly certain that on the grounds I am going to place before you this Bench will not refuse to renew any of these licences. I think it right, after very careful attention, to put those facts before you in order that when you retire you will consider exactly what your position is. There is another thing I ought to say which applies to all these applications. There is not a single person, not a single ratepayer, in all this borough – and I don`t know exactly what the numbers are, but they are very considerable – but there is not a single ratepayer who has been found to object to the renewal of any of these licences. Anyone would have a right to do it if he chose, and I feel certain that the Justices will think that where none of the outside public care to object, this Bench will not deprive the owners and tenants of their property simply because they themselves think that the matter ought to be brought before them, as I understand has happened in this case, for adjudication. Now, let us see the first ground of objection in respect of all these licences. The first ground in respect of each of these licences is that the licence is not needed, and I desire to make a few observations on that. I repeat that no ratepayer can be found here who is prepared to come before the Bench and raise this point. No notice has been given by anybody except by my friend the Superintendent, who has told us in his report that he has been acting upon the instructions of the Bench. But, sir, there is another and very important matter. I understand that in the Watch Committee, which one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, if it is to be rolled at all – if, as my friend suggests, there is any public opinion upon it that these licences are not required – the Watch Committee has actually been approached in this case, that is to say, by some gentlemen connected with the Corporation. I don`t know whether it is any of the gentlemen I have the honour of addressing, but they have declined to have anything to do with it or to sanction any such device for the purpose of depriving my clients of what is undoubtedly their property. Therefore I venture to think, speaking with some little experience, that there never was a case in which licences were taken away simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought that the matter ought to be brought before them, and instructed the Superintendent to do so. Now, sir, I am dealing with the Queen`s Head, but among the licences are some beerhouses that existed before the passing of the Act of 1869, and the owner is therefore entitled to renewal, for although notice of objection has been given on the ground of disorderly conduct there has been a renewal, and that renewal has condoned any misconduct there might have been. Therefore these houses are absolutely entitled to renewal. Now, sir, with regard to these licences that were granted a great many years ago. Of course at that time, when the population of the borough was about half of what it is now, the Magistrates then thought they were required. Those licences have been renewed from time to time by your body, and are you really to say now that although these, or some of these, licences were granted when the number of inhabitants was 12,000, whereas it is now 25,000 – these licences were not required or are not necessary for more than double the original population? I venture to say that such an argument reduces the thing to absurdity. Of course I know, with regard to these houses, that in this case the Magistrates are clothed with authority, if they choose to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, if they think the licences are not required. But you will allow me to point this out to the Bench, that there is not a single Bench in this County – I am glad to be able to say – who yet have deprived an owner or tenant of his property simply because a suggestion has been thrown out. That is at any rate the case as far as Kent is concerned. It was done at one Bench in this County, but when it came on appeal at the Quarter Sessions they upset the decision of the Magistrates who had refused the renewal of the licence on that ground. This is the only instance I know, and I am sure that I am right, where a Bench in this County had been found to deprive an owner of his property which you are asked to do in this way, and a tenant of his livelihood. I venture to express my views, and I am sure that all the Bench will coincide with me, that it would be very unfair in such cases, when owners – whether brewers or private individuals – have paid large sums of money in respect of licensed houses, when those licences have been renewed from year to year, when the tenants have paid large sums in respect of valuation, and some of them have been tenants for many years and have gained a respectable livelihood in this business – it would be very unfair to deprive the owners and tenants of their property without giving them compensation of any kind for being turned adrift. That brings me again to a consideration I must bring before you, that these licences were granted at a time when the population of the borough was about half what it is now; but now you are asked to say that the licences are not required when the population has become twice as much as it was when the licences were originally granted. Perhaps my friend Mr. Minter will coincide with me that if you should consider this point in the first place and form an opinion on it, it would save a great deal of time. It is now a question as to whether you are, under those circumstances, prepared to refuse the renewal of any of these licences, having regard to the fact that there has not been a single conviction since the last renewal. Having regard to the fact that these licences were granted so long ago and have been renewed from time to time, having regard to the fact that there has been no conviction in the case of any one of them during the present year, and that if any offence had been committed prior to the last renewal it was condoned by that renewal – are you going to deprive the owners and tenants of their property? Now, I only desire to say another word. Some of these objections are made on the ground that the licences are not required; others refer to the fact that here have been previous convictions or that the houses have not been kept in an orderly way. Of course we shall hear what the Superintendent says, and we know that he would be perfectly fair to all sides, but I want to make a general observation about it, and it is this; whether or not these houses have been disorderly. As to that I think you would say that inasmuch as in any case where there has been a previous conviction and you had renewed the licence, that renewal condoned any previous offence. It clearly is so, and if there had been any offence committed since the renewal we should have to consider what was the class of offence which had been committed. But that does not apply in this case. In no single instance has there been a conviction in respect to any of the houses which Mr. Minter and myself ask for the renewal of the licence, and I am going to put to you what I understand to be an elementary proposition of law, that you would not deprive an owner of his property because it is suggested that a house has not been properly conducted where that owner has never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench or instructing some counsel or solicitor to appear before the Bench in answer to any charge under the Act of Parliament which had been brought against his tenant. If there had been any charge in respect of any of these houses since your last renewal, the tenant would have been brought here, he would be entitled to be heard by counsel, and the question would be thrashed out before the Bench. That has not been done in any single case since you last renewed the licences of these houses, and I am perfectly certain that no Bench in this County, and no gentleman in Folkestone, would deprive an owner of his property simply because it has been suggested that since the last renewal a house has not been properly conducted, although no charge has been made against the tenant, so that he might have a right to put the the authorities to the proof of the charge. I am not aware of such a case, and I challenge anybody to show that there has been any single case before any Bench where a licence has been taken away after renewal following a conviction when there has been no criminal charge against that house, but only a general charge after the renewal. I submit that you are not going to deprive the owners of their property when there has been no charge of any kind investigated in this or any other court against the holders of those licences, and if you would retire and consider this point and give an answer upon it, it would save us a deal of time.

Mr. Bodkin followed on the same side dealing with the legal questions involved in the application.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Court as follows: I appear for the tenants of these houses. The learned Counsel have been addressing you on behalf of the owners, and though I cordially agree with everything that has been said by them, it will be necessary for me to make a few observations. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since these licences were granted, but there is another very important consideration, and that is this – that although the population has increased twofold since the whole of these licences were granted, within the last twelve years, I think I am right in saying that no new licence has been granted. Not only were the licences now under consideration granted when the population was half what it is now, but there has been no increase in the number of licences since that period I have named. The second point is with respect to the hardship which would fall upon owners if a licence were refused on the ground of convictions against the tenant. The learned Counsel has urged that it would be unjust to take into consideration a conviction that took place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, and you will feel the force of that argument. What is the intention of the Legislature? The Legislature has provided that in all cases where the tenants of licensed houses are convicted of a breach of the Licensing Laws the Magistrates have power to record that conviction on the licence, and on a third such conviction the Legislature says that the licence shall be forfeited altogether. Appearing on behalf of the tenants, I am happy to say that there is no such record on the licence of any one of the applicants, and notwithstanding that a conviction may have taken place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, the conviction was of such a trivial character that the Magistrates did not consider it necessary to record it on the licence. Is there any argument to be used that is stronger than that observation? You yourselves have decided that although you were bound to convict in a certain case, it was not of a character that required the endorsement of the licence, and after that conviction you renewed the licence, and again on a subsequent occasion. One other observation occurs to me, with regard to suggestions that have been put before you by Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, and I entirely concur in what has been said upon it. It is very pleasing to be before you, but I think it will be pleasing to us and you will be as pleased yourselves if time can be saved, and if you will only retire and take into consideration the points which Mr. Glyn has suggested to you, I think you will come to the conclusion that the applications should be granted, but I am excepting the one or two cases in which I appear and in which I can claim as a right to have the licence renewed as they existed before 1869, and therefore these special cases do not arise on the notice served upon my clients. I am sure you will not take offence if I put it in that way, but if we have to go through each one of these cases, and I appear for nine or ten, the tenants are all here and will have to go into the box and be examined, and their evidence will have to be considered in support of the application I have to make. Now let me call attention for a moment to the notice of objection. You may dismiss from your mind the previous conviction; the suggestion is that the houses are not required for public accommodation. I am prepared in each case with evidence to show that the public accommodation does require it, and the test is the business that a house does. I am prepared to show by indisputable evidence that the tenants has been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, that it has not decreased, and how is it possible with that evidence before you to say that the licence is not wanted? You may regret, possibly, that the number of houses is larger than you like to see, but you would not refuse to entertain the application made today unless you were satisfied that the houses were not wanted for the public accommodation. I hope you will take the suggestion of Mr. Glyn and that you will renew all the licences that are applied for, particularly as there is not a single complaint against them.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I claim the right to address the Bench.

Mr. Minter: I object.

Mr. Bodkin: My friend must prove his notice of objection.

Mr. M. Bradley: I should like Mr. Glyn to state the Section under which he objects to my locus standi.

Mr. Glyn: I should like to know for whom my friend appears – by whom he is instructed.

Mr. M. Bradley: I appear on behalf of Temperance Societies of Folkestone – Good Templars and others.

Mr. Glyn: Now, sir, I submit beyond all doubt that the practice is clear.

Mr. M. Bradley: I think, sir, that the question ought to be argued. I should like to hear Mr. Glyn state his objection.

Mr. Minter: We have objected on the ground that you have not given notice of objection.

Mr. Glyn: My friend should show his right – how he proposes to establish his right.

Mr. M. Bradley referred to Section 42, subsection 2.

Eventually the Chairman said: Mr. Montague Bradley, the Bench are of opinion that you have no locus standi.

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

The Chairman on their return said: The Magistrates have decided that where there is a case of disorderly conduct it is to be limited to within the year, and that the Superintendent is not to go into any case previous to the annual licensing day of last year. We think it right that Superintendent should state these cases and that they should be gone into in order that we may know what these objections are.

On the conclusion of the cases Mr. Glyn rose and said: The result of these inquiries is, sir, that in respect to all the houses except the Tramway Tavern there is no serious charge of any misconduct of any kind. It is only in the case of the Tramway Tavern that a serious attack has been made, and I have already addressed you as to the Tramway Tavern. If the brewers had notice they might have had an opportunity of testing the case, whether the house has been properly conducted or not, and I challenge anybody to allege that any Bench of Justices in this County other than the Bench I have alluded to have ever refused to grant the renewal of a licence unless the landlord had had notice, or unless there has been a summons or conviction against the tenant. I take that point, sir. It is a technical point, but I have not the slightest doubt that it is conclusive against the points raised. Now, with regard to the other houses, except the beerhouses which have a positive right of renewal. The only other question is whether the remaining houses are wanted or not. The Superintendent of Police has conducted his case most fairly and most ably indeed, and he picks out certain houses and asks the Magistrates to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their livelihood, and he asks that other houses may remain. How on earth are you to draw the line?  There are seven houses in one street, and how can you deprive four of them of their licence, and grant the renewal of licence to the other three?  I must again put before you that no Bench of Magistrates in this County have refused to renew a licence – with the exception of the case which I put before you, and in that case they were overruled – to any old licensed house on the ground on which you are asked to refuse, viz., because it is suggested that the house is not wanted. The County Magistrates, as well as the Magistrates in Boroughs, have felt this, inasmuch as their predecessors in office have granted licences upon the faith of which repairs have been done and expenditure has been incurred, it would be unfair to take that property away unless – as the late Lord Chancellor pointed out – something fresh had happened to alter the neighbourhood since the time of the last renewal. It is not suggested here that anything has occurred with respect to any one of these houses in order to satisfy you that they should be taken away as not being required, and I venture to submit that this Bench at any rate would not adopt a policy of confiscation, for I cannot call it anything else, and, as it were, set an example to other Benches in the County by confiscating my clients` property in any of these cases, having regard to the fact that they are old licences, having regard to the fact that the population has increased twofold, and having regard to the fact that nothing fresh, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, has arisen to induce you to deprive the owners of the licences that were renewed last year. I submit that you, gentlemen, will not be a party to the confiscation of property. It is no small matter that you have to consider. It is not a question of £10 or £15, for the lowest in value of the houses before you today is £800, and the licences have been granted by your predecessors and renewed by you. Your population has largely increased since those licences were granted, and as my friend (Mr. Minter) has pointed out, you have refused to grant any new licences, and under these circumstances I venture to submit that you will not deprive my clients of their property. My clients look to you to protect their property; they have no other tribunal. If there had been any strong view in the Borough against these licences the public would have expressed their views by giving notice of opposition, but they have not done it, whereas the Watch Committee, the proper body to raise these objections, have declined to touch it. Where does the objection come from? It comes from a member of your body, who has not taken part in these proceedings, but who has suggested that the Superintendent of Police should give notice in respect of these houses and have these cases brought before you. I thank you very much for the kind way in which you have listened to my observations and those of my friends, and without fear of the result I am confident that you are not going to deprive my clients of their licences, to which, I submit, the law entitles them. (Suppressed applause in the body of the court)

It being now 2.50, the Justices adjourned for an hour, returning into court just before 4 o`clock.

The Chairman then said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licences be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Suppressed applause)

Mr. Glyn now applied that, in the event of an appeal, notice of appeal served on the Justices` Clerk should be accepted by the Justices.

This was at once acceded to.

Mr. Glyn: My clients all feel, sir, what the professional men around the table knew before, the fair way in which Mr. Superintendent Taylor has conducted these proceedings.

Southeastern Gazette 16-9-1893

Local News

Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., has been retained to support the renewal of the licences of the thirteen houses at Folkestone, to which objection has been made on behalf of the Licensing Committee by the Superintendent of Police. The question will be fought out with all the resources the trade of the kingdom can command. Objection is to be made to Mr. Holden taking part in the adjudication, inasmuch as that gentleman is not only a wearer of the blue ribbon, but is a holder of shares in the Folkestone Coffee Palace Company.

Southeastern Gazette 19-9-1893

Local News

Much interest was manifested in the Special Licensing Sessions held at the Folkestone Town Hall, on Wednesday, for the purpose of dealing with thirteen cases in which notice of objection to the renewal of the licences had been given by the Superintendent of Police. The opposition was conducted by Supt. Taylor, of the Borough police force, while Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, barristers, with Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the licence holders and owners of the houses. At the outset, Mr. Glyn objected to one of the Magistrates, Mr. J. Holden, who is one of the proprietors of a temperance hotel, and that gentleman retired, his place being taken by another Magistrate.

The general ground of objection to the licences was that they were not required for the accommodation of the public, and, further, in some of the cases, that the houses were not conducted in a satisfactory manner. It was shown that in one case there were eight houses in a street near the harbour, five of which were licensed, and several other instances where the proportion was unusually great were mentioned. In another case there were seventeen licensed houses within an area of 100 paces.

Mr. Glyn strongly commented upon the fact that the objections were brought forward by the police in pursuance of instructions received from some members of the licensing committee. He questioned whether the requirements of the section had been complied with, and whether the Superintendent, acting as agent for certain members of the committee, had any locus standi at all to oppose the licences. Dealing with the question whether the licences were required for the accommodation of the public, it was pointed out that they were granted a great many years ago, when the population of the town was about half its present number. Could it be suggested that, with a population of about 25,000, licences which were held to be required for a population of 12,000 were not necessary now? With regard to the way in which the houses had been conducted, Mr. Glyn remarked that there had not been a single conviction during the past year, and urged that any offence which might have taken place previously had been condoned by the renewal, and could not be taken into consideration now.

The Magistrates then considered the cases, and in those instances where disorderly conduct was alleged limited the complaints to occurrences during the last year. In the course of the inquiry it transpired that most of the licences had been in existence since 1810. In giving decision, the Chairman said the Bench had decided to renew all the licences, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern, which was said to be frequented by persons of loose character, and was the scene of frequent disturbances.

It was intimated that an appeal might be made in this case.

   

Folkestone Visitors` List 20-9-1893

Licensing

That the lot of the publican, like that of the policeman in the “Pirates of Penzance”, is not over and above a happy one, must be conceded. There is no business to which so many pains and penalties are attached, and to embark in which a man must be prepared to go through so keen an enquiry into his antecedents as well as his character at the time when he applies for his licence; and in which he has at last, by the expenditure of much time and money, obtained permission to sell, during certain periods out of the twenty four hours fixed for him by a tender-hearted legislature desirous that he should not overwork himself, he is so heavily handicapped by the restrictions which surround him. In fact, the proverbial toad under the harrow would seem to lead almost a pleasant existence in comparison with unfortunate Mr. Boniface. His natural enemy, the teetotaller, is ever on the alert to worry him, and, if possible, to shut up his shop for him, totally careless at to the ruin which may accrue to him and his family.

In pursuance of some of these tactics some of the members of the Folkestone Licensing Committee a twelvemonth ago discovered all at once, after a lapse of some fifteen years, that there are too many houses in the town. How some few weeks back a prominent member of that Committee, and a steadfast advocate of the Temperance movement, reverted to that decision, and announced that if the brewers did not agree among themselves as to what houses should be closed, the Committee would forthwith proceed to act upon their own judgement, is all a matter of history. Between the time when this announcement was made and the licensing day proper, the Superintendent of Police, who does not seem to have held any pronounced opinions as to the number of houses, drew up, at the request of the Committee, an elaborate report upon that point, showing that there were in the town 130 houses; and in consequence of it he was directed to give notice to the owners and occupiers of thirteen houses that they would be objected to at the adjourned session.

On Wednesday, the 13^th, the Special Adjourned Session was held. The Magistrates had wisely provided for the very great interest taken in the question by holding the enquiry in the Town Hall, a great improvement on the stuffy little apartment dignified by the name of a police court. As soon as the doors were opened the body of the hall rapidly filled, the trade, of course, being present in strong force, neighbouring towns also being represented. The teetotallers also mustered pretty strongly, but it may here be stated that Mr. Montagu Bradley, of Dover, who appeared for them, was objected to, and the Bench ruled that he had no locus standi; or in other words the Magistrates could decide the questions that would be submitted to them without the interference of any outside body. So Mr. Bradley politely took his leave shortly after the commencement of the proceedings. A somewhat singular feature in connection with them was the large force of police in attendance in the Hall; probably the authorities anticipated some exhibition of feeling, but none such took place, except early in the morning a working man shouted out “How can you expect justice from that lot? They gave me eighteen months for nothing”. He was speedily ejected, and the business for the remainder of the day was conducted in the most orderly manner. The Magistrates on the Bench were Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Pursey, Herbert, Davey, Clarke, Fitness, and Poole. Mr. Holden also took his seat, but in deference to a written protest handed in by counsel for the owners he retired. Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the owners, instructed by Mr. Mowll, of Dover, Mr. F. Hall, Folkestone, and Mr. Mercer, Canterbury; Mr. Minter, the solicitor for the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association, for the tenants.

Mr. Glyn first opened the proceedings in a temperate and exhaustive speech, delivered quite in the best Nisi Prius style, argumentative and without an attempt at claptrap or sensational appeal. It was a capital forensic effort, and afforded unmitigated pleasure to the Licensed Victuallers themselves, whilst we fancy, from the somewhat lengthened faces of the opponents of the licenses, they must have felt at it`s conclusion that the ground had been cut from under them. There was just the faintest attempt at applause when the learned counsel sat down, but this, the only manifestation of feeling throughout the day, was speedily suppressed in the call for silence.

The Superintendent of Police supported his own objections – or rather the objections of the Committee – in person. Armed with a voluminous brief he made the best of a weak case, but evidently it was not a labour of love to him.

Mr. Bodkin`s work was chiefly confined to the examination of witnesses, and those who attentively followed him could not have failed being struck with the fact that not an unnecessary question was put to a single witness.

Mr. Glyn based his arguments upon three general grounds, which he applied to all the cases collectively. The first was that this opposition did not emanate from the police. The Superintendent had no grounds for complaint, but was acting under the direction of certain members of the Bench. How far that was approved of generally was evidenced by the fact that the Watch Committee refused to grant him legal assistance in opposing these licenses. The objection urged against them was that they were not required. Now, up to the present time not a Bench in the county of Kent had been found to deprive an owner of his property or a tenant of his livelihood because someone chose to say a house was not necessary. But what were the facts in the present case? Why, that all these licenses were granted a dozen years ago, and if they were thought requisite when the population was only half what it was at present, surely they could not say they were not required now. Secondly, some of these houses had been objected to as not having been properly conducted. To meet that assertion the learned counsel adduced the fact that during the last twelvemonth not a single conviction had been recorded against any one of the tenants. Any previous conviction had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. That was common sense. The Bench admitted that it was so by subsequently deciding not to enquire into any laches that might have taken place previous to the last licensing meeting in 1892.

Mr. Bodkin followed briefly in the same vein, and Mr. Minter, on behalf of the occupiers, addressed himself to the requirements of the town, arguing, as we have ourselves pointed out in the List, that the very fact of their being supported by the public was a prima facie argument in favour of the existence of these houses.

The Magistrates, at the conclusion of the learned gentlemen`s arguments, retired, and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour, on their return announced they would hear any complaints there were against any house since the last licensing meeting. This involved the calling of a large number of witnesses – owners, tenants, civil and military police, the examination of whom lasted well into the afternoon.

Folkestone Up To Date 21-9-1893

Licensing Committee

We redeem our promise of last week by giving further particulars and comments on the Licensing Committee.

We reported the disappearance of Mr. J. Holden. Although numerous rumours are being circulated the public do not know why he disappeared. He might have had another engagement, or been suddenly indisposed, for aught the public know, as no intimation was given by the Chairman of the Bench and no public protest was made, but a most unusual course was taken by counsel when they handed up a private written communication, which, they thought, should not be read in open court. We are sceptical as to whether that communication had anything to do with Mr. Holden`s disappearance, for from our knowledge of that gentleman, we consider that he would be the last man to be frightened out of doing his duty by a private communication from two barristers, which they did not feel justified in making openly, according to the constitutional law of England. All the public can know is that a communication was made and that Mr. Holden disappeared.

We do not disguise the fact that from the very commencement of the licensing proceedings some few weeks ago up till last Wednesday they were a sham – we might almost say a miserable farce. First, Mr. Holden prejudiced his case by asking the superintendent to act as agent to the Licensing Committee and give notice that certain licenses would be opposed. Then Mr. J. Clark further prejudiced his position by thanking him on their behalf for what should only have been a public duty. Then the Watch Committee were decidedly wrong in refusing legal assistance. They should either have refused to have allowed their superintendent to act at all or they should have given him hat legal assistance to carry out those duties with dignity and respect, not but what Mr. Taylor possessed sufficient ability for cross-examining &c., but had counsel appeared for him and the Watch Committee he would first have objected to counsel asking the Magistrates to retire and consider before they had finished it, and thirdly, he would have insisted in producing evidence extending beyond the area of the present year on which the original action of the Licensing Committee was taken.

From our observation of the case as it appeared, it seemed, first, that the Licensing Committee had placed themselves in a false position and they were anxious to get out of it as best they could. That they had not received the support of the Watch Committee, although that body did not possess the courage openly to support the publicans, although, as we understand, several license victuallers sit upon it, hence the Magistrates showed great signs of nervousness and timidity, especially when they were met with such an array of counsel on behalf of the licensees.

We do not know whether others were entitled to sit on the Bench, such as members of the Watch Committee and reputed owners and agents of licensed premises. Perhaps this had something to do with courteous way in which the Bench conceded every point that was asked for by counsel. To say the least of it, after all, it was a great cry for a little wool, only one licence being refused, which, we understand, is appealed against, and will be decided at the Canterbury Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Herald 21-10-1893

Editorial

The Court of Quarter Sessions for the district of East Kent has promptly reversed the decision of the Folkestone Licensing Justices in the matter of their refusal to renew the licence of the Tramway Tavern. It would be the idlest affectation to deny that the verdict of the appellant court is in harmony with the anticipations of the majority of the Folkestone community. All who have given an impartial consideration to the merits of this case must have felt that the refusal to renew the licence was somewhat arbitrary. Two main grounds for the refusal were relied upon by the Court below. One of these grounds was that the locality was more than adequately supplied with licensed houses; the other ground was that the business of the Tramway Tavern had been improperly carried on. As to the first of these reasons, it is one which applies with equal force in every old town in the country. If it be taken for granted that this multiplicity of licensed houses is a valid reason for refusing a renewal, we are landed in a very awkward complication. The congestion of liquor houses in that part of Folkestone is not a thing of today or yesterday. It has existed for a considerable time, and for the fact of it`s existence the licensing Magistrates, and they alone, are to be held responsible. In past times the licensing Justices created the supply which is regarded as excessive, and they created it, be it remembered, at a period or periods when the requirements of the population were fewer and less important than they are now. If the house was required when the licence was granted, and we are bound to assume that it was, it is still more needed at the present time, in consequence of the increase in population, both resident and casual. If it was not originally needed, the licensing Justices of that day must have taken a very lax view of the duties they had to discharge and the responsibilities they had assumed. This is a very awkward dilemma, from which there is no reasonable method of escape. It`s awkwardness is enhanced, however, by the further consideration that from year to year the licence has been renewed, down to the last annual licensing meeting. This circumstance must be accepted as a conclusive proof that, in the opinion of the licensing justices, the renewal of the licence was warranted by the needs of that particular locality. As a matter of fact, nothing has occurred since the Brewster Sessions of 1892 to call for or to justify the suppression of the licence. The congestion of licensed houses in that neighbourhood was quite as notorious in 1890 as it is in 1893, but the Justices, in the exercise of their discretion, made no attempt until this year to diminish the drinking facilities in the East End. The presumption is that in granting and in renewing the licence the Justices acted in the interests of the community, and therefore, to abolish the licence without due cause shown for so strong-handed a proceeding would be an arbitrary if not despotic exercise of discretionary power. Under these circumstances the upper Court held that it would be unfair to extinguish the licence on the ground that the district was sufficiently provided for in respect of drinking facilities. When we turn to the second ground on which the renewal was refused we are bound to concur in the opinion of the appellate Court, that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the house had been improperly conducted. A general allegation of disorderly conduct is too vague a charge on which to visit a tenant or owner with the pains and penalties of forfeiture. We are quite aware of the fact that it is quite difficult to bring home a charge of disorderly conduct in many cases of this kind. An unprincipled tenant may successfully baffle the police for a long time, but where there is a systematic violation of the law, the offender is almost certain to be made amenable to justice. How does it stand with regard to the present case? In other towns there is at every Brewster Sessions a list of incriminated licence holders, known as the “Black List”. A record is kept during the licence year of every case brought against a tenant, and the result is appended. When the licensing day comes round all these licence holders are called up to show cause why the licence should not be refused. If the cases are serious, the licence is in peril in each instance; if the cases are not serious, the landlord is solemnly warned against the consequences which may result in the event of a fresh complaint being brought against him before the Magistrates. In the case of the Tramway Tavern there was no conviction against the tenant, and of course there could be no endorsement of the licence, and it certainly does seem hard that a licence should be forfeited on a general allegation of disorderly conduct, unsupported by even a single conviction, or even by a prosecution before the Justices in petty sessions. That is the view which commended itself to the members of the appellate Court, the majority of whom, presided over by the distinguished County Court Judge of this Circuit, have held that there was not sufficient evidence to justify their saying that the house had been carried on in an improper manner. On due consideration of all the circumstances we cannot come to any other conclusion than that which has been arrived at  by the Court of Quarter Sessions. Apart from the temperance question altogether, and viewing the matter from a legal and equitable standpoint, we think that the decision of the Court below was unfair, not to say oppressive. The Licensing Laws are about to be overhauled, the theory of Local Option has made considerable headway, and before many years there will probably be a fundamental change in the regulation of the liquor traffic. It is a time of transition, and therefore it is doubly inexpedient that the licensing Justices shouls so exercise their power as to be liable to the construction that they favoured a policy of confiscation. The nett result of our Brewster Sessions this year is the refusal to grant a licence to the proposed Metropole Hotel, a building which has thus been classified in the same category as the Tramway Tavern.

Brewing Trade Review 1-11-1893

At the Folkestone Brewster Sessions, Superintendent J. Taylor submitted the following report: In accordance with your instructions I have the honour to report that the number of licenses granted at the general annual licensing meeting, 1892, was 130, these consisting of 82 full ale-house licenses, 12 beer-house on and six off, the remainder being wine licenses to refreshment houses, strong beer and spirit licenses and grocers` licenses. The bulk of the public house and beer house licenses are granted in respect of premises situate in an area bounded by South Street, High Street, Dover Road, and the sea front. (This locality mentioned by the Superintendent is in the immediate vicinity of the harbour, and the quarters of a considerable fishing population.) No full licence has been granted for many years, the last beer-house licence being granted in 1886, to premises situate in Westbourne Gardens. Acting upon the intimation given at the last annual licensing meeting in 1892, and renewed at the special sessions held on the 9<sup>th</sup> instant, I have given notice of objection to the renewal of the licenses of the Queen`s Head, Royal George, Victoria, Jubilee, British Colours, Granville, Harbour, Tramway, Cinque Ports, Folkestone Cutter, Ship, Wonder and Oddfellows. With the exception of the Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria and Ship I have at former licensing meetings opposed the renewal of the licenses of these houses. The general grounds of the objection to the renewal of these licenses are that none  are required for the accommodation of the public, all being within the boundary referred to, and evidence will be given as to the number of licensed houses within a short distance of those objected to. The second ground is that the houses have for some time been conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, but this does not apply to the Jubilee, Victoria, Ship or Harbour. With reference to the necessity of these houses it will be found in Harbour Street there are four ale-houses and beer-houses, in Beach Street seven, in Radnor Street eight, Dover Street five, South Street two, and Seagate Street three.

The Chairman explained that the Superintendent had only acted upon the instructions of the Licensing Committee, and the Magistrates all felt very much obliged to him for the trouble he had taken.

Mr. J. Holden, J.P.: Very much obliged.

The consideration of the renewals objected to was postponed until September 13^th, and at the adjourned sessions the following Magistrates were present: Messrs. J. Clarke, J. Holden, W.G. Herbert, H.W. Poole, J. Hoad, J. Pledge, J.R. Davy, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, instructed by Messrs. F. Hall, W. Mowll, and R.M. Mercer, appeared in the interests of the brewers and private owners; Mr. J. Minter for several of the tenants; and Mr. M. Bradley for the temperance section. Superintendent Taylor conducted his own case, the Watch Committee having refused him legal assistance.

Mr. Glyn, at the outset, explained that he appeared in support of the renewal of all the opposed licences, with the exception of the Royal George. Before the proceedings commenced a written communication was handed to the Bench, and a desire was expressed that they would consider it before hearing the cases. The Bench retired for about quarter of an hour and on their return Mr. J. Holden did not resume his seat. The communication handed in was understood to be a written objection to the adjudication of Mr. Holden, he being interested in various temperance hotels in the town.

Mr. Glyn then formally applied for the renewal of the Queen`s Head. This was known to be a most excellent house, the licence having been in existence for eighteen years. The present tenant had occupied the premises since 1889, and the house was a valuable property. The Magistrates` predecessors granted the licence, and it had been renewed from time to time, but the Superintendent was now objecting on teh ground that it was not required, and was disorderly. With regard to the objection of the Superintendent, Mr. Glyn thought he would admit when he went into the box that it was not an objection that he had made from his own motives, but an objection made in pursuance of the instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. In Mr. Glyn`s opinion, and that of his learned friend, a very nice point might arise on this – whether under these circumstances the requirements of the Section had been complied with, and whether the Superintendent, acting really as an agent for some of the Justices, had any locus standi to oppose these licences. The Bench would find that these objections were served in pursuance of instructions received from the Magistrates. Therefore, those gentlemen who formed that body who gave the Superintendent these instructions, were really in this position, to speak plainly – those who had directed the inquiry proposed to sit upon the inquiry. Another matter he should like to place before them was that not a single ratepayer or a single individual in the whole of the Borough had been found to object to these licences. Therefore the Bench would see that they had no grounds to deprive the owners and tenants of their property simply because they themselves thought the matter ought to come before them for the purposes of adjudication. He (Mr. Glyn) understood that even the Watch Committee, who would be expected to put the ball rolling, if there was any public opinion upon the matter, had been approached, but they would have nothing to do with it, and declined to sanction legal assistance to deprive his clients of their property.

Most of the houses were beerhouses, and, in some cases, where licences were granted before the Act of 1869, the tenants were entitled to renewal. With reference to the point of disorderly conduct, there had been no convictions during the year, and any convictions prior to last sessions had been considered then. He felt sure the Bench would coincide with him that it would be very unfair to deprive owners of their property, for which they had paid large sums of maney, or the tenants of their livelihood, without compensation. He asked the Bench to decide these points, and if Mr. Bradley would agree with him it would save a good deal of time.

Mr. Bodkin supplemented Mr. Glyn`s observations by pointing out the exact legal position. Considering that during the year there had been a marked improvement in the conduct of the houses, a most inopportune moment had been chosen to object to any of these licences.

Mr. M. Bradley claimed the right to address the Bench, but his request was contested by Mr. Glyn, and the Bench ruled that he had no locus standi, and he retired from the court.

Replying to the appeal of Mr. Glyn, the Chairman stated that the Bench had decided that the previous convictions before the last sessions should not be entertained, but thought the Superintendent`s objections should be heard.

The Queen`s Head, Beach Street, is kept by Walter Tame.

Police Sergeant Dawson proved that a man was convicted of drunkenness on the premises on the 1^st April, 1893.

Mr. Minter: But the case against the defendant was dismissed?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Minter: You couldn`t prove that the man had any drink in the house?

Witness: No.

Sergeant Swift said he found there were 17 licensed houses within a radius of 100 paces of the house.

Mr. Glyn contended that there was nothing to answer.

Eventually Superintendent Taylor said he could not prove disorderly conduct, and withdrew his opposition.

Sergeant Swift gave evidence that there were 12 licensed houses within 100 paces of the Royal George.

William Henry Wray, of the London Brewery Company, said there was a large and increasing trade, and bedrooms were let there nightly. The house was used as an hotel, and provision made for guests to dine there.

Mr. Glyn: It is a very old house, and the Mayors of Folkestone used to hold their dinners there?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Glyn: When the more modern Pavilion was erected, down went the Royal George?

Witness: I am sorry to say it is so.

Evidence of a similar nature was given as to the Jubilee, Radnor Street, kept by Joseph Adams, and belonging to Messrs. Mackeson and Co., and the Ship, Radnor Street, kept by George Warman, and owned by Messrs. Flint.

Superintendent Taylor said there were sixty three houses in Radnor Street, eight of which were licensed.

With regard to the Harbour Inn, Harbour Street, Sergeant Swift complained that it was the resort of sailors and girls, who created a  great deal of noise in the back room.

By Mr. Glyn: He could not suggest how they were going to select which houses should be done away with, and the owners deprived of their property.

After discussing the cases of the other houses the Bench retired. After an hour`s deliberation the Chairman announced that the Bench had decided to renew all the licences, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern, which would be refused.

Mr. Glyn gave notice of appeal.

(These cases were amongst the most prominent events of this years` Brewster Sessions. Early in August, Mr. Holden, one of the Justices, took upon himself to breathe threatening and slaughter against the Trade, because they had not seen fit in pursuance of an intimation given by the Justices last year, to voluntarily abandon some valuable licences. Acting, as will be observed, really as an agent of the Licensing Committee, the Superintendent of Police objected to no less than thirteen renewals. Mr. Holden, the most active of the Justices in prejudging the issue, appears to have intended to adjudicate, although in addition he is said to be interested in a local temperance hotel. When the cases came to be properly examined, the Justices found that in all save one they would not be justified in refusing to renew. Even in this one instance – the Tramway Tavern – a reference to our report of Quarter Sessions will show that an appeal has restored the licence. A foolish attempt to be guided by fads instead of facts has therefore completely failed. Those interested in the houses have, however, been put to most unjustifiable trouble and expense)

Note: I do not have the Quarter Sessions report in this publication.

Folkestone Up To Date 2-8-1894

Editorial

In a very short time the licensing question will commence in Folkestone. What is going to be the result of the application for that of the Grand Metropole Hotel? Is Folkestone to be held up to ridicule and made a bye-word of as she was last year. Are the best interests of the town to be scarificed to petty interests, bigotry, and fanaticism? I point this out now so that the whole Bench of Magistrates may take means to prevent it or otherwise share the responsibility. They will be called upon in a few days to elect a Licensing Bench, and in doing so they must bear in mind that they are responsible for the action of that Licensing Bench, and I sincerely hope that the bungle of last year will not be repeated.

Mr. John Holden is a very worthy man, an old and respected townsman anxious to do right, but from his connections with certain businesses and societies it is mistaken kindness to place him again in such a false position. The temperance cause is prejudiced and injured by such administration, as last year when the critical moment arrived public opinion and pressure was so strong that Mr. J. Holden succumbed to it and retired from the Bench. Surely in the face of that the Magistrates will not re-elect him. Then as to Mr. Fitness, it is questionable whether he is entitled to adjudicate as a Licensing Justice, as he is reputed to be the owner of two places of business where wines, spirits, and beers are sold, namely Mr. Fisk`s in Sandgate Road, and Mr. Makins` in Guildhall Street. Mr. Poole and Mr. Hoad are two very good Justices, but it is questionable whether they are entitled as Licensing Justices, as Section 156, Sub Section 3, of the Municipal Corporation Act says that “he (the Justice) must while acting as a justice reside in or within seven miles of the borough, or occupy a house, warehouse, or other property in the borough”. Mr. Poole at present lives at Dover, Mr. Hoad lives at Staplehurst. These are nice points of the law which no-one would care to press under ordinary circumstances. I merely point out that if the law is strained on one side it might be strained on the other. My advice to the Justices is to elect a fully qualified Licensing Bench that would be free from any charge of being biased on one side or the other. It should not contain publicans or anyone indirectly connected with the public house interest, neither should it contain anyone connected with temperance hotels or teetotal interest.

There are plenty of gentlemen on the Bench to select from, and I hope that things will be managed better than they were last year.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31-8-1894

Notes And Notions

Mr. Superintendent Taylor`s report of the working of the licensing laws in Folkestone, presented at the Brewster Sessions on Wednesday was eminently satisfactory. In so far as it testified to the absence of any increase in cases attendant upon the abuse of stimulants. As Mr. Taylor very properly pointed out, such a state of affairs is equal to a positive decrease in these unfortunate cases when the increase in the twon`s population is taken into consideration. True friends of Temperance must rejoice at the steady decline of intoxication which is generally noticeable. Everything tends to prove that alcoholic excess – terrible evil as it undoubtedly is – does not grow greater, but rather diminishes with time. At the same time total abstinence is probably not more general. The golden mean of Temperance is being more and more realised. There are different reasons alleged for this ameliorated condition of things. We, of course, have our own. Without dogmatising, we argue that the spread of national education, the possession of the franchise, and the permeation of practical religious truth and teaching are responsible for the spirit of self respect and equality which keeps the masses more and more as the years roll on from the evils of undue indulgence in intoxicating liquors.

We do not hesitate to express our sense of warm sympathy with the promoters of the Memorial presented before the Bench opposing the granting of the licences for which application was made. At the risk of incurring displeasure, we deliberately place this feeling on record. As was said in these columns three weeks ago, the principle is worth something in the consideration of these licensing questions. It was the evident duty of those who signed the memorial, holding the opinions which they do upon the role in intoxicants, not to let the Bench remain in ignorance upon their views on the business to be brought forward. It was a duty imposed upon them both as local ratepayers and as Temperance reformers. And the cheap sneer directed against these signatories by the Queen`s Counsel, who supported the application, would have been much better left unsaid. The presiding Magistrate does not, it is to be hoped for the credit of his colleagues, possess a monopoly of the politeness of the Bench. The memorialists, if they really meant at all to be effective, should have secured a representation of counsel.

Licensing

The annual Brewster Sessions were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, when the following members of the Licensing Committee were present:  Captain Crowe, Alderman Pledge, Councillor Herbert, Captain Carter, Mr. Wightwick, and Mr. Fitness. The only member absent was Mr. E.T. Ward. Great public interest was manifested in the proceedings, and the Court was unpleasantly overcrowded.

Superintendent Taylor`s Report

The business commenced with the reading of the report of the Superintendent of Police, which was as follows:-

To the Chairman and Gentlemen of the Licensing Committee.

Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that the number of licences issued in the Borough is 133, of which 82 are “full”; 13 beerhouses “on” and four beerhouses “off”; nine spirit dealers; seven wine “off”; seven wine “on”; and nine grocers`.

In November last one publican was fined for a breach of the Licensing Laws and the licence endorsed. Another tenant shortly afterwards took the premises and as this and the other licensed houses in the Borough have been conducted generally in a fairly satisfactory manner the police do not oppose the renewal of any of the existing licences.

I have the honour to bem Gentlemen, your obedient servant,

29^th August, 1894, John Taylor, Supt.

The Chairman asked if there had been any increase in drunkenness during the past year.

Superintendent Taylor replied that the number of cases of drunkenness had not altered more than three or four for the last four or five years, and when they took into consideration the increase in the population it would be seen that there was really a decrease.

A Memorial

The Rev. Foster Jeffrey asked to be allowed to present a memorial against the granting of the licences which were applied for.

The Chairman said he did not think the Bench wanted to receive any memorial.

Mr. Jeffrey said he asked for the courtesy of the Bench in this matter. A copy of the memorial had been forwarded to the members of the Licensing Committee.

The Chairman said if it had been forwarded to all the members that was all that was necessary. He agreed with a great deal that was said in the memorial, but they had a great deal of business to attend to.

Mr. Jeffrey pointed out that the memorial was signed by persons who represented the Christian communities and the Temperance bodies, and went on to remark that he thought they already had a great deal too many licensed houses in the town.

The Chairman: We are as thoroughly alive to the evils of intemperance. We cannot allow you to make a speech.

Mr. Jeffrey said they also had a strong feeling that the police had a great claim on the support of the Bench and the Watch Committee. He then went on to read the memorial list.

The Chairman said they had all received a copy of it and there was no occasion to read it.

(The memorial, which was extremely lengthy, was printed, and of a purely general character).

Folkestone Express 1-9-1894

Licensing Sessions

The annual licensing was held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Captain Crowe, Captain Willoughby Carter, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, and J. Pledge Esqs. Mr. Ward was not present.

The Superintendent reported that in November last one publican was convicted for breach of the licensing laws, but as another tenant had been found, and the other public houses in the borough had been well conducted, he did not oppose the renewal of any of the licences.

Captain Crowe: In your opinion drunkenness has not increased in proportion to the population?

Superintendent Taylor: The figures have only varied three or four for some years. Allowing for the increase in population, the figures show a decrease of drunkenness.

Mr. Fitness: Taking into consideration the increase of population.

Superintendent Taylor: The figures remain calm at stationary as regards drunkenness.

The whole of the existing licences were then renewed.

The Rev. R.F. Jeffrey was sitting in the Court, and Captain Crowe asked: What does Mr. Foster Jeffrey want? I don`t think we desire to receive any memorial. I suppose it is the Temperance question which you wish to bring forward, is it not? Our views are pretty much the same.

Mr. Jeffrey: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee, I ask the courtesy of being allowed to present a memorial, a copy of which I understand has already been furnished to each member of the licensing Bench.

Captain Crowe: Then you need only present it. A copy has been received by all the Magistrates. There is a good deal in it of which I personally approve, but at the same time we have a good deal of business to do, and I think that the memorial having been received, there is nothing more to say.

Mr. Jeffrey: I am in the hands of the Bench. It is usual in such cases to extend such an act of courtesy to a gentleman wishing to present a memorial publicly, and I now desire to do so. There are only three sentences I desire to say in presenting the memorial, the number of names upon which are few, but I think they will be found to be largely representative of Temperance organisations. Secondly, the memorialist feel there are by far too many licensed houses.

The Chairman: You are making a speech. Confine yourself to presenting the memorial. We are in possession of the facts, and we are fully alive to the evils of intemperance, but we have a great deal to do today.

Mr. Jeffrey: I have no intention of making a speech.

He went on to say that the police and those who administered the law had a very difficult duty to perform, and they had a strong claim on the support of the community, and also the active support of the Watch Committee and of the Bench. There were one or two trifling alterations in the petition.

Capt. Crowe: Is it necessary to read it? It has already been presented to the Bench – we have each had a copy of it. It is perfectly useless taking up our time and the time of the public in reading it.

Mr. Jeffrey: I understood I had your permission.

Capt. Crowe: I have allowed you to go so far. I think you have said enough. We are quite as much alive as you are to the evils of intemperance or as any of the signatories to that memorial. Personally I agree with a great deal that is in it, but we have other things to do.

Mr. Jeffrey: Do I understand ...........

Capt. Crowe: There is no occasion to read it.

Mr. Jeffrey: I still urge my claim on the courtesy of the Bench to be allowed thus publicly to present our memorial.

Captain crowe: You have presented it to the Bench. We have all received copies.

Mr. Jeffrey thanked the Bench and sat down, but remained an interested spectator.

Local News

A petition was presented to the justices on Wednesday, praying them to use measures for the better suppression of drunkenness, in which the memorialists said: We would earnestly represent to your Worships that the time has fully come when the law should not be administered in this one-sided fashion. The fining and imprisoning drunkards is absolutely of no avail in curing them of their vicious habits; whereas if the Trade understood that “permitting” drunkenness would certainly be visited by the rigours of the law, the end that we, and your Worships alike, have in view, viz., the reducing to a minimum the abuse of strong drink, would immediately result. Will your Worships therefore not order the police to use their best endeavours to bring before you, not only drunkards, but all such licence holders who “permit” drunkenness by selling drink to men until they are drunk?

The signatures include the Revs. M. Woodward, John W. Merry, Nicolas R. Toke, Thomas Overton, R. Foster Jeffrey and A.J. Palmer, and several persons connected with Temperance Unions.

Folkestone Herald 1-9-1894

Local News

The Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Folkestone was held on Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the sitting Justices being Captain Crowe, Mr. J. Fitness, Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. J. Pledge, Captain Carter, and Mr. W.H. Herbert. Mr. J. Ward was the only absent member of the Committee. The Committee sat at ten o`clock so as to get through the signing of the licences that were renewed in the absence of opposition. At eleven o`clock the Court was thrown open to the public, and the other business was proceeded with.

The Superintendent`s Report

Mr. Superintendent Taylor read his report, which was as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that the number of licences issued in the Borough is 133, of which 82 are full, 13 beer houses on, four beer houses off, 9 spirit dealers, 7 wine off, 7 wine on, and 9 grocers`. In November last one publican was fined for a breach of the Licensing Law, and the licence was endorsed. Another tenant shortly after took over the premises, and as this and the other licensed houses in the Borough have been conducted generally in a fairly satisfactory manner, the police do not oppose the renewal of any of the existing licences. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your obedient servant. John Taylor, Superintendent.

The Chairman asked whether, in the opinion of the Superintendent, there had been a decrease or increase of drunkenness.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor replied that the charges of drunkenness had remained about the same figure for the past three or five years, notwithstanding that there had been an increase of the population during that period. As far as drunkenness was concerned, the figures seemed to be almost stationary.

The holders of renewed licences were now called up in succession, each taking his or her licence on depositing the usual fees. This process occupied a considerable time.

A Temperance Manifesto

The Rev. R. Foster Jeffrey, Baptist Minister, then rose to address the Committee, whereupon the Chairman remarked: I don`t suppose that we require to receive any memorial. I suppose it is a Temperance question that you wish to bring forward.

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Bench, I ask the courtesy of being allowed to present a memorial, a copy of which, as I understand, has been already forwarded to the members of the Licensing Bench.

The Chairman: You mean a printed one?

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: Yes; on behalf of a number of clergy and ministers.

The Chairman: A memorial has been received by all the Magistrates, including the members of the Licensing Committee. There is a good deal in it, I may tell you personally, taht I approve of, but at the same time I think that the memorial having been received by us, there is nothing more to be said.

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: I am, of course, in the hands of the Bench. It is usual on such occasions, I submit, to extend permission to gentlemen wishing to present a memorial publicly.

The Chairman: That can be done in a minute.

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: Certainly, and there are only three suggestions I desire to offer in presenting it. The first is that the number of names, though few, will be found to be largely representative of the Christian communities and Temperance organisations of the town and district. The second is that your memorialists feel that in expressing the opinion that we have by far too many licensed houses in the Borough they are expressing what is the prevalent opinion of the members of the community ..........

The Chairman: You are making a speech. Please confine yourself to the presenting of the memorial. We are as much alive to the evils of intemperance as you can be.

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: I had no intention of making a speech. If I may be permitted another observation, we have likewise a strong feeling that the police, in their administration of their very difficult duties in matters connected with the licensing laws, have a strong claim upon the support of the community, and also the active support of the Watch Committee, and also of your Bench. The following is the memorial, and I may say that there are one or two verbal alterations that do not interfere with the sense ........

The Chairman: You need not read it. It has been presented to the Bench. We have each got a copy of it, and it is perfectly useless taking up our time and that of the public reading it.

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: I understood, sir, that I had your consent to presenting it.

The Chairman: I allowed you to go so far, and you have presented it. We thoroughly understand it, and we are quite as alive to the evils of intemperance as you can be, or any of the other signatories, and I personally agree with a great deal of it. Will you now allow us to go on with our business?

Rev. R.F. Jeffrey: Certainly, sir; but I claim, by the courtesy of the Bench, to be allowed to present the memorial.

The Chairman: You have presented it to the Bench. We have all received copies.

For the information of the public we here append the text of the memorial, which was a document emanating from the Folkestone and District Federation of Temperance Societies. It was as follows:

To the Worshipful the Magistrates of Folkestone Licensing Division, in Annual Brewster Sessions assembled, August, 1894. May it please your Worshipful Bench, the memorial of the undersigned ratepayers of the Borough of Folkestone respectfully sheweth;

That, encourages by your Worships` courteous and sympathetic reception of all appeals which have for their object the welfare of the inhabitants of the town, we beg to call your attention to the continued excessive licensing of this town and district, and the consequent abuses connected with the traffic in strong drink in our midst, and earnestly beg your Worships to use the great powers vested in you to lessen the temptation to excessive drinking by refusing to renew superfluous licences, and ordering that the Licensing Laws shall be more thoroughly enforced than they are.

We beg respectfully to remind your Worships that the Act of Edward VI, which formed the basis of our licensing system, was passed to enable Justices “to remove, discharge, and put away the common selling of ale and beer in common tippling houses” where the Magistrates “should think meet and convenient, forasmuch as intolerable hurts and troubles to the Commonwealth of this Realm doth daily grow and increase through such abuses and disorders as are had and used in common ale houses and other houses called tippling houses”.

The present machinery of the law is so simply framed that by a decision of your Worships the remedy, which all parties agree will prove effectual, can be readily applied by the “putting away” of the common sale of intoxicants, or very largely diminishing the facilities for obtaining them.

Your Worships have probably observed from the public press that the Middlesex Magistrates, having recently become alarmed at the increase of drunkenness in their County, appealed to the Home Sectretary asking him to impress upon the Commissioner of Police the desirability of keeping a strict watch upon publicans.

The Home Secretary, in reply, promised increased watchfulness on the part of the police, at the same time pointing out that the Magistrates were, to no inconsiderable extent, responsible for the state of things of which they complained, because they “have not infrequently felt compelled to dismiss charges against publicans on technical grounds or side issues”, and that in dealing with drunkenness “the Justices had abstained from using to the full power possessed by them for the punishment of offenders.

The Home Secretary intimated to their Worshipful Bench that arrangements have now been made by which the Commissioner of Police will in future in any case, where he considers it advisable, direct the prosecution of a publican for “permitting” drunkenness, to be conducted by the solicitors of the Police Force.

There is a general consensus of opinion that the number of drink shops is very largely in excess of any legitimate requirements of the population, and constitutes in itself a very considerable stimulant to the evils which your Worships, no less than ourseves, deplore.

In the course of a recent discussion of this point in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor expressed his firm conviction, derived from extensive experience in the Law Courts, that there were too many public houses, and that the reduction of the number would reduce drunkenness. Further, His Lordship said “He did not think it would be any interference with personal liberty or individual rights if a considerable step were taken in the direction of reduction. But to his mind it was absolutely essential that if anything of the kind were to be done that it should be done in accordance with the wishes and desires of the people in a particular locality.

Mr. Chamberlain has also said in the House of Commons, with respect to Drink Licences “I am perfectly certain that any community that might be entrusted with the control of this traffic would, as a matter of course, reduce the number by one half”.

It is satisfactory to note that the Parliamentary statistics go to show that Magistrates all over the country are becoming more an more alive to the necessity of refusing the renewal of old licences, and it is a very rare thing to find a new one granted. The number of licences refused a renewal as not being required during the last year, according to the Parliamentary Return, was 333 against 244 for the former year.

It will be interesting to your Worships to know that during 1892, the latest statistics we have, over 14,000 licence holders were convicted for offences against the Licensing Act of 1872.

We know there are powerful interests opposed to the course which we believe to be the right one for your Worships to adopt. We recognise the grave responsibility which rests upon you, but The Times says: “These profits in which liquor sellers now claim a vested interest are realised, to a vast extent, at the cost of popular degradation, vice, and misery; and the question is whether the Legislature of a country is not justified in placing, with due consideration, the welfare of the people above the gains of a trade”.

Lord Wolesley has recently said: “There are yet some great battles to be fought, some great enemies to be encountered by the United Kingdom, but the most pressing enemy at present is drink. It kills more than all our newest weapons of warfare, and not only destroys the body, but the mind and soul also.

It is to be regretted that there has been no appreciable diminution of the grave evils resulting from the excessive number of Public Houses within your Worships` jurisdiction, as shown by the large number of cases brought before the Bench, most of which are directly traceable to drink.

With the greatest respect we beg to submit that the licensing business of this town has in the past been administered too largely in the interests of the trade, and without due regard to the requirements and well-being of the inhabitants.

In all cases where your Worships have convicted persons for drunkenness, punishment has fallen upon the poor dipsomaniacs, whom the law is framed to protect, recognising as it does that they are quite irresponsible when they become the victims of the disease of an inordinate love for strong drink, while the persons who sold them the drink, and practically made them drunk, so far have gone entirely free, though they were certainly the persons who ought to have been punished.

It is not necessary to remind your Worships that while the law fixes the merely nominal fine of not exceeding 10s. for the first, and not exceeding 20s. for the second offence for “being” drunk, the penalty for “permitting” drunkenness is not exceeding £10 for the first, and not exceeding £20 for the second offence, with the conviction recorded on the licence in every case unless the convicting Bench shall direct otherwise.

We would earnestly represent to your Worships that the time has fully come when the law should not be administered in this one-sided fashion. The fining and imprisoning drunkards is of absolutely no avail in curing them of their vicious habits; whereas if the Trade understood that “permitting” drunkenness would certainly be visited by the rigours of the law, the end that we, and your Worships alike, have in view, viz., the reducing to a minimum the abuse of strong drink, would immediately result.

Will your Worships not therefore order the police to use their best endeavours to bring before you, not only the drunkards, but all such licence holders who “permit” drunkenness by selling the drink to the men until they are drunk?

We think the police might well be reminded that it is no defence for licensed persons, or their servants, or both, to say they did not know that a person was drunk when they served him. It has been held that if the person really was drunk the responsibility for discovering the fact rests with the licence holder.

Again, as your Worships are probably aware, it was long ago decided that “permitting” drunkenness does not necessarily involve finding a person drunk on licensed premises. Where the only evidence is that a person has been drinking in a licensed house, and three quarters of an hour later is found drunk a hundred yards distant, there is evidence upon which your Worships may convict the keeper of the licensed house.

In view of these two points we think there should be no difficulty in discovering where the abuses complained of take place, and in bringing the offenders to justice.

Finally, your Memorialists wish your Worships to feel that in the discharge of your delicate and difficult duties in the matter of Licence Law administration, and in your endeavours to act righteously in view of the claims and the welfare of the whole community, you have the sympathy and support of all good citizens. 

Folkestone Visitors` List 5-9-1894

Kaleidoscope

On the whole the public is well satisfied with the result of the Brewster Sessions, but there are some, and we count ourselves in the number, who would have been still more pleased if it had been made a condition of any fresh licence being granted that an old licence should have been bought up. There are a great deal too many licensed houses in the east end of the town, and we hope that the new bench will set to work and devise some plan by which, without inflicting any hardship on the individual owners, this number may be reduced. The Temperance party did wisely in not opposing on Wednesday last, but they can do good work in this direction and in seeing that the licensing laws are not violated in the less orderly parts of the town.

Folkestone Chronicle 30-8-1895

Local News

Annual Brewster Sessions

These sessions were held on Wednesday. All the licences were granted.

Folkestone Herald 31-8-1895

Folkestone Brewster Sessions

The annual licensing meeting for the Borough of Folkestone was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday last, the sitting Justices at the opening of the Court having been Captain Carter, Mr. Wightwick, Mr. Fitness, Alderman Pledge, and County Alderman Herbert. The business was very light, the existing licences being renewed in the absence of any complaint or objection.

Folkestone Herald 17-4-1897

Police Court

On Wednesday morning – before Mr. Fitness, Mr. Wightwick, Alderman Pledge, and Mr. Herbert – an application was made on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers` Association for an extension of one hour on the nights of Thursday, Saturday, and Monday, in connection with the Easter manoeuvres of the Volunteers.

Mr. John Minter, solicitor, who appeared in support of the application, pointed out that a similar application made at Dover had been granted. He knew that Folkestone never took an example from Dover, but at the same time he thought that, on the present occasion, the requirements of the visitors would be consulted for by granting an extension of one hour on each of the evenings specified.

Mr. Superintendent Taylor opposed the application on the ground that it was not necessary, and further that it was not made so much in the interests of the Volunteers, but of the publicans. The Volunteers would have their own canteens, and would be in bed long before the public houses would have to close. He mentioned also that year by year the discipline of the Volunteers is becoming more strict, and under all the circumstances he felt it his duty to oppose the application.

The Justices retired for private consultation, and when they returned into Court it was announced by the Chairman that the Bench were unanimous in refusing the application.

There was quite a considerable number of licence-holders in the Court during the proceedings, which only lasted a short time.

Folkestone Up To Date 17-4-1897

Hall Of Justice

Wednesday, April 14^th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, J. Fitness, T.J. Vaughan, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. Minter said he was instructed by the licensed victuallers of the borough, or a great number of them, to make an application to the Magistrates to grant an extra hour for Thursday, Saturday, and Monday, it being a special occasion. As the Bench were aware, a great number of Volunteers were visiting the town on the occasion of the Easter Holidays, and it was felt by those for whom he was applying that an extra hour would be a great advantage. Eleven o`clock soon came along, and it was very difficult to get the houses clear by that time, and under the circumstances the owners of houses had consulted together, and came to the conclusion to make an application to the Magistrates, which he hoped would receive their favourable consideration, the special case being, as the Bench were perfectly aware, the assemblage here of a great number of Volunteers, who would naturally like an extra hour, up to twelve o`clock. In a town of this size the legislature said the hour of closing should be eleven o`clock, though why they should not be allowed the same advantage as they had in London of keeping open till twelve it was difficult to understand. But the Bench had the power, and Mr. Bradley would so advise them, on certain occasions to say that they were special occasions. At Hanley there had been such an application, and the Magistrates had allowed the houses to be kept open from eleven till twelve on Christmas Eve and News Tear`s Eve. The Bench considered those special occasions which gave them the power. The opponents contended that a special occasion meant a ball or an entertainment to be held in the house or on the premises. The Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Denman held that it was in the discretion of the justices to determine what was a special occasion, and they considered that Christmas Eve and New Year`s Eve were special occasions. Folkestone did not like the idea of taking example from Dover, although he could not understand why they should not. But the Bench there granted an extension of time to all the licensed victuallers who made application. He asked the Magistrates, therefore, to say that that was a special occasion on which an extension of time would be a very great advantage to all the houses, and a convenience and a comfort to the public and to the visitors. It was not to be supposed that because there was an extension there was going to be any noise or disturbance. It was simply to enable friends to meet and remain an hour longer. He remarked that from the annual report of the Superintendent the holders of licenses in Folkestone were a highly respectable body, of whom the town ought to be proud, and he therefore urged that their application should be granted.

Superintendent Taylor said he must oppose the application, which did not come from the Volunteers. It was simply for the convenience of the publicans, about whom he did not wish to say one word which was disagreeable. But the Volunteers who came here were under military discipline, which became more strict every year. The men of all the corps were bound to be in half an hour before the public house closing time, and, further, they had their own canteens, where they could get what drink they liked. Therefore he did not think it was necessary in that respect. So far as Monday night was concerned, the last train left for London at half past five in the afternoon.

Mr. Minter: Superintendent Taylor thinks there will be no visitors besides volunteers.

Superintendent Taylor said on that ground they might be asked to give an extension from about June till the end of September.

The Bench retired, and on their return, Mr. Fitness said they unanimously decided not to grant the extension asked for.

Mr. Minter: I am sorry to hear it, sir. I hoped you were more advanced.

Folkestone Herald 28-8-1897

Editorial

The net result of the proceedings at the annual licensing meeting for this borough, held on Wednesday last, is that no existing licence was refused a renewal and that no application for a new licence was favourably entertained. So far as the number of licensed houses is concerned we stand, therefore, precisely where we have been during the past year. This would seem to indicate that, in the opinion of the justices, the facilities available at the present time are ample for the requirements of the population. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that within a few years there has been a marvellous development in the building of houses. In several parts of the town these have sprung up as if by magic, but although there has been a very large increase of population the magistrates have hesitated to extend the facilities available for the sale of intoxicants. How long this attitude of non possumus is likely to prevail it would be impossible to forecast. Of course the whole question of licensing is beset with practical difficulties, and not the least serious of these is the element of the fair and reasonable distribution of licensed houses throughout the licensing authority. In vey many towns, including the oldest part of our own, the number of licensed houses in particular localities is immensely in excess of the requirements of those sections of the community among whom they are planted. How to deal with such a state of things in a spirit of equity, without doing injustice to those who may be said to have a vested interest, is one of the most difficult problems of domestic legislation. It meets us everywhere, and the day will assuredly come when a solution of the question must be forthcoming. On the other hand, it is not a rare experience to find, on the outskirts of the towns, that long and straggling suburban streets are supplied by only one or two houses, so that those people who cannot afford to keep their own supplies are compelled to endure great inconvenience before they can obtain what they need. Numerous cases in point will occur to our readers emphasising the difficulties that beset every attempt to regulate the number of houses in accordance with the grouping of the resident population. One of the new applications before the court on Wednesday shows very forcibly the necessity there is for discretionary care on the part of the licensing authority. A great extension of building operations has taken place in the vicinity of the Shorncliffe railway station, on the high road between Folkestone and Cheriton. In a few years more a little town will have sprung up in that neighbourhood, and, with the exception of the break caused by the Folkestone Cemetery, there is likely to be a succession of houses between Radnor Park and the Village Hall, at Cheriton. At all events a new colony will be gathered together very soon to the north of the Shorncliffe Station, and it is perfectly clear that they will require the accommodation supplied by a respectable inn or hotel. That colony will be of an urban and not a mere rural character, and it is idle to contend that because there is a licensed refreshment room at Shorncliffe Station, and a fully licensed house near, but to the south of the station, the people of the new colony abutting on Ashley Park should be compelled to frequent either or both of these places for the supplies of which they stand in need. We mention this case only as an illustration of the practical difficulties inherent in the general question. The circumstances indicate that the policy of adopting a hard and fast line cannot always be relied upon. It is bound to work hardship, and by doing so it must alienate the public ind from active sympathy with the temperance cause, and thus add fuel to a controversy which has hitherto been fed with many combustible elements. All who take a serious view of our social system must deeply appreciate the responsibility that is thrown upon the licensing justices. No tribunal in the whole of our administrative machinery is charged with duties having a more direct bearing upon the welfare of the community, and no body of public men, to their credit be it said, have shown a more earnest disposition to hold the scales evenly between opposing interests. We are convinced that the licensing justices of this borough are animated by a strong desire to consult for the convenience as well as the legitimate wants of the public, and that their judicial decisions are the outcome of serious thought and consideration. The law gives them a discretionary power, and we believe that they act up to the spirit of that law, giving due regard to the changing circumstances of the times. Having regard, however, to the constant growth of the population, and to the rapidity with which houses are springing up all around us, we think the time will shortly have arrived when the creation of new licences will become a necessity. One feature of the case to which we have been adverting remains to be noticed. The applicant formally offered to extinguish a licence that is now in force in a congested district in exchange for the grant of a new licence in respect of the house proposed to be erected in the midst of a new population. The offer was not accepted, but all the same it is highly suggestive. Does it not point to a way in which the congestion prevalent in some districts may be got rid of without doing injustice to licence holders or to the owners of licensed premises? Hitherto, transfers of houses have taken place from tenant to tenant; but the method here suggested would effect a transfer of licence from house to house. In other words, a house not required in one locality might be of great utility in another, and in this way a very useful reform might be effected without doing violence to the national sense of equity and fair dealing. Surely this might be the basis of an effective temperance effort, if the brewers and the temperance zealots could meet in conference and establish a modus vivendi. No doubt some commercial principles would be at the bottom of any such transfer, but the difficulties that might arise from this source could be settled by the justices, sitting in the capacity of arbitrators.

Folkestone Chronicle 26-8-1899

Brewster Sessions

The Session for renewing old licences and granting new ones for the sale of intoxicating liquors in Folkestone was held on Wednesday last at the Town Hall. Captain Willoughby Carter presided, and the other members of the Bench were Messrs. Pursey, Fitness, and Herbert.

Mr. Harry Reeve, the Chief Constable, presented the following report: I have the honour to report that there are at present within the borough 138 persons licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating drink, viz.: 58 full licence holders, 14 beerhouse keepers for consumption on the premises, 4 chemists for wine off the premises, 6 beer-sellers for consumption off the premises, 3 confectioners for wine on the premises, and 26 others holding various licences to sell beer, spirits, etc., off the premises. There are 12 places licensed for public music and dancing, 10 of which are premises also licensed for the sale of intoxicating drink. There is also one place licensed for public billiard playing. During the past year five of the licence holders have been proceeded against for offences against the Licensing Acts, but only four of them were convicted. 89 persons (72 males and 17 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 84 were convicted and five discharged. Six persons were convicted for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours, and one for refusing to quit licensed premises when requested. I have received notices of nine applications for new licences for the sale of drink to be made to the Bench today, and one for a music licence to one of the present licensed houses.

The whole of the existing licences were renewed, with the exception of the licence of the Swan Tavern, Dover Road. In that case the renewal was held over for an adjourned sitting, the house being in course of re-construction, and the Chief Constable not being prepared to make a report upon it until the work had been proceeded with further.