Folkestone Sessions
Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811
General Sessions 10-12-1792
Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), John Harvey, Thomas Farley,
John Minter, Michael Minter, Robert Harvey and Joseph Sladen.
Ordered that the Town Clerk inform the different victuallers
by notice that if they permit any illegal meetings at their houses that they
will not have any licences granted to them in future.
Folkestone Sessions
Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811
General Sessions 11-4-1806
Before Thomas Baker (Mayor), Edward Andrews, John Minter,
Joseph Sladen, John Castle, William Knight, John Gill, John Bateman and James
Major.
Ordered that the Town Clerk do give notice that no publican
will be permitted to be bound for each other in the recognisance in their ale
licence.
Folkestone Sessions
Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811
General Sessions 18-8-1807
Before John Gill (Mayor), Joseph Sladen, Thomas Baker, and
John Castle.
Ordered that the Town Clerk send the following notice to the
different victuallers.
“Whereas it appears to the Mayor and other Magistrates of
this town that many of the victuallers within the town and liberty thereof have
permitted persons to drink and tipple in their houses on Sundays during divine
service, I am directed by the Mayor and other Magistrates to inform you that in
case you shall be henceforth found guilty of so offending you shall be fined
and the Magistrates will not in future licence your houses”. Dated this 10th
August, 1807.
Kentish Gazette 25-7-1854
The Licensing System
Early in the last session a select committee of the House of
Commons was appointed, “to examine into the system under which public-houses,
hotels, beer-shops, dancing
saloons, coffee houses,
theatres, temperance hotels and places of public entertainment, by whatever
name they may be called, are sanctioned, and are now regulated;" and to report, “whether any alteration or
amendment of the law can be made for the better preservation of the morals, the
protection of the revenue, and the better accommodation of the public.” More important
subjects could not well he made the object of inquiry; nor could greater interests
be involved in it. A vast amount of property is vested in the institutions and
trades which come under the cognizance of the committee; and the public at
large are also deeply interested, as their comforts their conveniences, their amusements - and the best mode of promoting all, and at the same time upholding
a high standard of morality - are mixed up with the inquiry. The committee
continued sitting till the end of the la«t session -it was re-appointed this;
and at thr dose of last week its report appeared. The recommendation contained in that document - if adopted -will effect a total
change in the licensing system ot this country.
The great object of the promoters of the inquiry was, we believe,
to obtain the entire abolition of that system; but the committee are in favour
of it» continuance, with more
stringent regulations, as to
character. and more effective sureties That “no intoxicating drinks
be sold without a license," is their recommendation; and also, “that
the sureties shall give valid bond, that penalties against them shall be
strictly enforced, and that before granting the license, their position and
character, as well as that of the applicant, shall be fully inquired into.”
They are of opinion, that. “under the new system of licensing, the sum to be
paid for a licence shall
not be varied by the amount at which the premises are rated, but shall depend
solely upon population, that bring the more simple, certain, and equitable
test. They propose, that “the lowest amount to he paid for a licence
in rural parishes and small towns, shall be £6; in towns of 4.000 inhabitants
and not exceeding 10.000, £8; and so on, but in no case to exceed £30.” They further recommend, that “coffee houses, temperance hotels and
shell-fish shops,” shall be licensed; 2the license to be issued for £2.”
So much good," the committee remark, “has resulted
from inspection of common lodging-houses. by police selected for that particular duty,” that they “strongly advise
the adoption of the same system with regard to places for the sale of
intoxicating drinks;” also, that “coffee-shops, temperance hotels,
and shell-fish shops,” should be “visited and reported upon in the same
manner." With regard to the time of keeping public-houses open, the
recommendadtion is that they shall be closed on Sundays except from 1 to 2, and
from 6 to 9 p.m.; and on week-days, from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m.
Then comes the question, who are to have licenses? And who are to
issue them? At present the licensing power is. prartically, an arbitrary one,
in the hands of thv magistrates -they can refuse or grant licenses pretty
nearly as they please; ane much of the evidence was condemnatory of the
exercise of the magisterial authority in this respect. The feeling is, “that
licenses are withheld and granted capriciously; and that the influence of
builders and brewers is more potent than either the character of the applicant,
or the requirements of the public.” To remedy this, the committee recommend,
that “there shall be one uniform licence for the sale of intoxicating drinks that shall be open to all;” which licence shall “be issued by magistrates at sessions
held for that purpose." For, “when thv sole duty to bv performed is to
investigate the character of the applicant. and the validity of his sureties,
the magistracy seem the most fitting authority to be entrusted with its
execution." The effect of these recommendations, if carried out, would be,
that any person might open a public-house or hotel, or a gin palace, at any
place, provided he was of good character, and could find responsible sureties
for his observance of the law.
The committee also take up another subject not especially referred
to them, viz., the propriety of opening places of recreation and instruction on
Sundays: and they ore entirely in favour of opening them, as the present law is
“preventive only to those who will not stoop to devices for its evasion."
The Act of George IIl., Wwhich
prohibits money from being taken for admission to any place whatever on the
Sunday, is evaded at several music saloons, tea gardens, &c., by the sale of refreshment tickets being made to cover a nominally
free admission.” The committee think “the inconsistency that suffers
the singing saloons of Manchester and Liverpool, and Cremorne, and the Eagle
Tavern Gardens, to be open on the Sunday, and shuts in the face of all but the
proprietors. and those who have free admission, the garden of the Zoological
Society, and the vast and varied school of secular instruction provided with the grounds and building of
the Crystal Palare, is too glaring for continuance.” They consider the closing
of such places as the National Gallery, the British and Geological Museums,
Marlborough and Gore House», &c., as even “less excusable" than that
of the Crystal Palace; and they recommend that.
“It is expedient that places of
national recreation and instruction, now closed, should be opened to the public on Sunday afternoon, at
the hour of two o’clock; and that so far any such places are now closed by the
operation of the law, such laws should be so far amended as to enable the Lord
Chamberlain, or other competent authority, to determine what places should be
permitted to be so opened and for wliat length of time.” And “that the
several laws relating to the regulation of keeping beer-shops and public
houses and places of entertainment, and the several provisions of the Police
and Excise Acts, applying thereto, should be consolidated, and made in
accordance with these resolutions.”
The above are the principal recommendations of a long report: and
there will be a great difference of opinion as to their propriety,- and, if
attempted to be carried out, they will all meet with a strong opposition, except
those with respect to closing public-houses on Sundays. A bill is now before
Parliament on that subject; and it appears to meet with the approbation of the public and the trade; many of the
latter, indeed, are in favour of shutting up their houses entirely on the
Lord’s day. Much may be said in favour of licensing, and submitting to inspection, coffee-shops, &c., in London, Liverpool, Manchester, and a few other large
and populous towns; for there is no doubt that strange scenes of immorality and
vice take place in many of them. But in the country, where they exist, they are
generally as quiet and respectable as private houses. We suspect that great
evils would result from depriving magistrates of the power they now possess of
preventing public-houses from being opened in localities where there is no want
of them. The power may be abused but we are persuaded the good resulting from
it overbalances the evil. As to opening places of “rational recreation and
instruction” on Sundays, whilst we admit, that it is inconsistent to shut the Crystal
Palace and open Cremorne, we see great evils to society likely to result from the
adoption of the recommendations of the committee. Leaving out of view the
religious part of the question -though it is the most important -we will only
look at it in its probable effects upon the worldly position of the working
man. At present the Sabbath is his day of rest. But once sanction, by law, the
opening of such places as the Crystal Palace, where money payments are
received, and what is to prevent the opening or theatres, concert-rooms, and other places of
amusement; to be followed, as a matter of course, by that of factories and workshops; and then
what would become of the working-man's Sunday? Instead of being a day of rest
and repose, he would ultimately he obliged to encounter thr turmoil and labour
of the other six; whilst the numerous persons employed in the establishments to
be opened, would, from the first, be compelled to work for the gratification of
others, on the day they can now appropriate for their own recreation, and we
should hope, to the performance of their religious duties. Looking at this
question merely in a social point of view, we fear that the alteration the
committee propose would be
injurious: and viewing it as a religious
question, we must say that we should be sorry to see the order and
decorum of an English Sabbath, replaced by the licentiousness and Saturnalian
observance» which characterise that day on the continent.
Kentish Gazette 15-8-1854
We would call the especial attention
of the Licensed Victuallers to the "Act for regulating the sale of Beer
and other Liquors on the Lord's Day," which came into operation last Sunday. By the
law us it now stands, public-houses, beer-shops, taverns, and hotels must close
at 12 o'clock on Saturday night, and continue closed until one o'clock on
Sunday afternoon. In the afternoon they may open at one o'clock and continue open until
half-past two o'clock. They must close at half past two precisely, and continue
closed until six o’clock in the evening. At six o`clock they may again open
their houses and keep them open until ten o'clock, when they must close and
continue closed until four o'clock on Monday morning. It is important for the
trade to observe the hours, and all persons should be very particular in not
opening before the time, and in closing five minutes before half-past two, and
five minutes before ten, that they may avoid any
infringement of the law. The parish church clock is the usual regulator of the
time. There is the usual exception in the act, allowing Licensed Victuallers during the prohibited
hours to serve bona fide travellers and actual lodgers dwelling in the house,
but there is no definition of what constitutes a traveller. In all respects the law is the same as before the act
passed.
An act for further regulating the sale
of Beer and other Liquors on the Lord`s Day
Whereas the provisions in force
against the sale of fermented and distilled liquors on the morning of the
Lord’s Day have been found to be attended with great benefits, and it is important
to extend such provisions; be it enacted by the Queen’s most excellent Majesty,
by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same,
as follows: I - That it shall not be lawful for any Licensed Victualler or
persons licensed to sell beer by retail to be drunk on the premises, or not lo
be drunk on the premises, or any person licensed or authorised to sell any
fermented or distilled liquors, or any person by reason of the mystery or craft of vintners of the city of London,
or of any right or privilege, shall claim to be entitled to sell wine by retail
to be drunk or consumed on the premises, in any part of England or Wales, to
open or to keep open his house for the sale of or to sell beer,
wine, spirits or any other fermented or distilled liquor between half-post two
o'clock and six o’clock or after ten o’clock in the forenoon, on Sunday, or on
Christmas Day, or Good Friday, or any day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving, or before four
o'clock in the morning of the day following such Sunday. Christmas Day, or Good
Friday, or such days of public fast and thanksgiving, except as refreshments to
a bona fide traveller or a lodger therein. II That no person shall open any
house or place of public resort for the sale of fermented or distilled liquors,
in any part of England or Wales between half-past two o'clock and six o'clock
or after ten in the afternoon, on Sunday, nor on Christmas Day, or Good Friday,
or any day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving, or before four o’clock
in the morning of the day following such Sunday, Christmas Day, or Good Friday
or such day of public fast and thanksgiving, except as refreshment for
travellers. III That it shall be lawful for any constable at any time, to
enter into any house or place of public resort for the sale of beer, wine,
spirits, or other fermented or distilled liquor or liquors; and every person
who shall refuse to admit, or shall not admit such constable into such house or
place, shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this Act. IV. That every
person who shall offend against this Act shall be liable, upon
a summary conviction for the same before any Justice of the Peace for the county
riding, division, liberty, city, borough, or place where the offence shall be
committed, to a penalty not exceeding £5 for every such offence, and every
separate sale shall be deemed a separate offence
Kentish Gazette
7-8-1855
The new Sale of Beer Bill
The bill brought in to repeal the unpopular Beer Act of last
session, tbe 17th and 18th of Victoria, chap. 79. declares that “the laws now
in force against the sale of fermented and distilled liquors on the Lord’s day
have been found to be attended with inconvenience to the people,” and the 1st
clause absolutely repeals the Beer Act now in force, and lately reported
against by the select committee. Clause 2 prohibits licensed victuallers from
selling wine, beer, or spirits, or any fermented or distilled liquors, between
the hours of three and five p.m., or after eleven p.m., on Sunday, Christmas
day, or Good Friday, or before four a.m., of the following day. Clause 3
prohibits the opening of “places of public resort” for the sale of liquor
between the hours or after or before the hours already mentioned. The public
will thus gain two and a half hours on Sundays, as the act about to be repealed
closes public-houses from half past two till six p.m., ami after ten p.m.
Power is given to constables to enter public-houses, &c, at any time. The penalty tor selling liquors within the prohihited
intervals is £5 for every separate sale. An appeal will lie to the quarter
sessions. From the second report of the select committee on the Beer act of
1854, it appears that, when the adoption of the report was moved, Sir J.
Pilkington, the member for Droitwich, moved an amendment, that “The committee
liad not yet received sufficient evidence as to the effect produced by the act
of 1854 to justify a report to the house in the present session,” but Sir John
was left in a minority of one, there being eleven votes against his amendment.
The report was thereupon agreed to, and the bill whereof we have just given an
abstract, is founded on its recommendations.
Southeastern Gazette 2-9-1873
The annual licensing meeting was held on Wednesday, when the magistrates present were J. Hoad, Esq. (Mayor), J. Gambrill, J. Tolputt, and J. Clark, Esqrs.
During the granting of the licenses to beerhouses, the magistrates had the assistance of one of the overseers, Mr. James Harrison, as to the rateable value, the Act providing that licenses should only be granted to houses which they were satisfied were of the annual value of £15 and upwards.
The licence was refused of a beerhouse in Dover Street on this ground, and the Bench reserved their decision respecting a house in Belle Vue Fields.
Southeastern
Gazette 12-10-1874
Local News
Under the
New Licensing Act, which came into operation on Saturday, the public houses in
Folkestone close at eleven o’clock on weekdays instead of twelve as under the
previous Act.
Editorial
The Licensing Question
We are compelled to hold over until next week a leader which
had been prepared on this subject, criticising the extraordinary action taken by the Mayor, and a small section of the Corporation on Wednesday last, in the
resolution passed in the council meeting, and subsequently presented to the
Bench of magistrates.
Town Council Meeting Extract
Mr. Holden, in accordance with a notice given, preferred the
following resolution, “That in the opinion of this Council, it is not for the
benefit of the Borough that any further new licenses for the sale of spirits,
wine, beer, porter, cider, perry and other intoxicating liquors to be consumed either on or off the premises, should be
granted for this year, within the Township and Borough of Folkestone, and that
a representation to this effect be made to the Justices of the Borough at their
annual licensing meeting, to be held this day. That a copy of this resolution
be forwarded by the Town Clerk to the magistrates through their Clerk.”. He
reminded the meeting that great complaints came from outside about the number
and state of licensed houses in Folkestone, and it behoved them to take the
matter up. Mr. Holden contended that the large number of houses in existence
accounted for the irregularities and unseemly conduct of some of the
inhabitants, the many police cases &c., and that every new public house
depreciated the value of property. He contended that it was their question,
because as representatives of the ratepayers they were called upon to pay the
police, and it would not require so many police if there were no public houses
in Folkestone.
Ald. Hanks contended that they were trying to ruin a
respectable body of men, the publicans. They were as good a class of men as
other tradesmen. The Council had not been memorialised to take this matter up,
and no-one had complained to them that there were too many public houses. There
were not so many as there were twenty five years ago in proportion to the
number of inhabitants in the town.
Mr. Willis and Ald. Sherwood strongly supported the motion,
and after Mr. Holden had replied the motion was put, when there voted in it`s
favour, the Mayor, Ald. Sherwood, and Councillors Pledge, Holden, Willis,
Robinson, and against, Ald. Banks, Councillors Hills, Stock, Petts, and
Harrison. Carried by one majority.
Folkestone Express
24-8-1878
Council Meeting Extract
The next business was “to consider the expediency of
memorialising the justices not to grant any new licenses for public houses,
hotels, taverns &c. in the borough, and as to opposing the grant of new
licenses, and also the transfer and renewal of several of the existing licenses
and to make orders”.
Councillor Holden said he put the notice on the paper, and
he did so in consequence of the gravity of the question involved. He was
prepared with a resolution, and it was not his intention to enter into any
arguments, unless he was drawn into a discussion, but he would just state the two
principles on which he moved the resolution and commend it to the careful
consideration of the members of the Council. His resolution was that in the
opinion of this Council it was not for the benefit of the borough that any
further new licenses for the sale of spirits, wine, &c., &c. should be
granted for this year within the township and borough of Folkestone, and that
an intimation to this effect be made to the Magistrates at their annual meeting
to be held that day, and that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the
justices through their clerk. Mr. Holden said he was induced to take action
from the very loud complaints about the condition of Folkestone as touching the
licensing question, and it behoved them as men and as citizens to look the question
full in the face, and to see whether something could not be done to put a stop
to the riotous conduct in the streets. They could not go at any time in the
evening down the High Street without seeing enough to appal any right-thinking
man. His second motive was this, that every time they allowed a public house to
be erected in a neighbourhood they depreciated the value of the surrounding
property. If they attempted to remedy the existing state of things, they were
told they were interfering with the rights of property and vested interests,
but he was trying, not to interfere with anybody, but to prevent persons
interfering with them. Whatever value was put upon a public house, he contended
it was taken off the adjoining property. There was just one other question, and
that was, how many policemen would they require in Folkestone if they had got
only one fourth of the public houses? And he alluded to the action of the Watch
Committee on the previous Monday in causing a constable to be stationed at the
bottom of the town in the interests of order. He contended that this was a
ratepayers` question. They could not come there and advocate their claim, but
they could tell them to do their best, and they must do it. The justices were
men of honour and men of reason, who would listen to anything they represented
to them on this matter.
Councillor Robinson seconded the resolution.
Alderman Banks contended that by following out this
principle they would be destroying the interests of the brewers, the
distillers, and all connected with the wine and spirit trade, and very many
people in the town would be ruined. There were men as good and as honourable in
the ranks of publicans as there were in other trades. He denied what Mr. Holden
said – that they had been compelled to take the matter up. No-one ever
complained to them that there were too many public houses. There were no more,
nor so many, relatively to the population, than there were 25 or 30 years ago.
It was not a fact that the publicans were intent only on selling their beer and
spirits, because he himself had seen persons go into public houses and call for
a glass of water, and be served with pleasure. Neither did he believe there was
any harm in beer and spirits, so long as it was taken in moderation. But, he contended,
it was no more the fault of the publican that men drank to excess than it was
the fault of a baker that persons would eat new bread when they knew it would
disagree with them, yet who would ever think of blaming the baker? He did not
think the Council had any right to memorialise the justices as to how they
should conduct their business, nor did he think the property of the brewers
should be confiscated because they thought proper to interfere.
The Mayor reminded Alderman Banks that Mr. Holden distinctly
stated in his resolution that it was for this year.
Alderman Banks continued that there was no place in the town
more dilapidated than the spot at the bottom of the High Street, and he
understood some gentleman was willing to erect a fine hotel there if the
Magistrates would grant him a license. He had seen the plan, and it would be a
great ornament to the town. And why, he asked, should they not have another
hotel? Did they think that there would be more drunkenness because there were
more houses? He believed the time would come when they had free trade in public
houses. He believed God sent man for a good purpose, and everything for his
use, if he only used it properly.
Councillor Holden: That is the best thing you have said this
morning.
Councillor Willis supported the motion. He remarked that
there seemed to him to be times when they were glad to be strengthened by
support from outside in performing their duties, when they felt a little
hesitation as to what course they should pursue, and implied that this would be
the case with the Magistrates. He was somewhat astonished at what fell from
Alderman Banks with regard to the ruin of the brewers and publicans, and all
that kind of thing. It was only on the previous morning that two gentlemen called
on him with a memorial against granting a license, and there he saw the name of
one of the largest brewers in town.
Alderman Banks said this was wrong.
Councillor Willis said they would find his name beneath that
of the gentleman. There was another matter. The Corporation had offered to
exchange a piece of ground for another smaller piece, on the condition that a
house should be put up within a year. If the owner did not succeed in getting a
license that day, there was no reason why it should stand any longer.
Councillor Page also spoke in favour of the resolution.
Alderman Sherwood followed on the same side. With regard to
the piece of ground referred to by Alderman Banks, it was known that if it had
not been taken for a public house, it would have been utilised for the building
of a temperance hotel. He would consistently support the resolution, seeing
that it was only for the present year.
Councillor Holden having replied, the motion was carried,
six voting for it and four against.
Alderman Banks asked that the names should be taken down,
but the Mayor said it was a most unusual thing, and Alderman Banks did not
persist.
Southeastern Gazette
24-8-1878
Corporation Meeting
A meeting of the
corporation was held on Wednesday morning, the Mayor (J. Fitness, Esq.),
presiding. In reference to granting licences to public houses Mr. Holden moved
a resolution to the effect that the magistrates be requested to grant no more
licences this year. He pointed out the large number of licensed houses in the East
end of the town, and added that an application which would be made to the Bench
that day to grant a licence to a house in the west of Folkestone would be
opposed by the principal inhabitants in this neighbourhood who would present to
the magistrates one of the most influentially signed memorials on the subject
ever submitted to their notice. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. Alderman Banks
strongly opposed the Council having anything to do with the matter, and said
they were taking upon themselves responsibilities with which the ratepayers had
not entrusted them; they were trying to influence the magistrates, and
interfering with the rights of vested interests, and he was strongly opposed to
the Council thus acting. On being put to the vote the resolution was carried,
five members voting against it.
Folkestone Chronicle
31-8-1878
Editorial
THE TOWN COUNCIL AND THE LICENSING QUESTION
The action taken by a majority at a small meeting of the Council held on Wednesday last week is open to
the gravest objections. They have gone out of their way to express an opinion
on a subject with which as Councillors they have nothing whatever to do. When
Mr. Holden and Mr. Willis were elected, the question was not put to them “What
action will you take regarding the licensing of public houses?”, therefore they
have no moral right in this matter to
step outside the sphere of their legitimate duties.
The arguments of the Councillors alluded to are easily dealt
with, because they entertain one particular idea on the subject; they are
waging war with a class against whom they display a fierce and implacable
hatred. Mr. Holden, for instance, complains of the loitering of people in High
Street and it`s purlieus, and it is the poor publican that is made responsible
for this offence. The fact is, the police do not complain of houses fostering
this nuisance, for they know that in that particular rendezvous in the town,
youths and others would still loiter about were no such places open, as Sunday
afternoons clearly prove. If his argument be that the houses are so full that
the said loiterers cannot obtain admission, the creation of other houses of
accommodation would perhaps remove the evil which so annoys him. If the houses
are not properly conducted the remedy is easy. The Police should complain to
the Bench, and the Magistrates can refuse to renew the license. The remark of Mr. Holden that extra police
are required to watch public houses is a reflection on the publicans, but when
we find that on Wednesday last no complaints were made by the police, it is at
once apparent how unjust and unfair it was of Mr. Holden to make a serious
charge against a body of men that he could not substantiate.
Ald. Banks clearly proved that the increase of public houses
had not kept pace with the ratio of population. There have not been six fresh
public houses licensed since the last census, 1871, and during that time the
population has rapidly increased in every direction in Folkestone. What then
becomes of the fallacious and misleading statements of Messrs. Holden and
Willis, that public houses and drinking are on the increase? Neither of these gentlemen appear to have
given a thought about vested interests. If anyone attempted to interfere with
their rights we should hear something about the privileges of Englishmen.
Messrs. Nalder and Collyer gave an enhanced price for land in consideration of
a provisional license already granted on the house to be built. To be just,
those who presented what was substantially a memorial to the Council against
the license should have carried, in one hand, an offer of compensation to the
persons whose vested interest they
stepped out of their way to interfere with. The fact is that if all the
public houses in Folkestone were closed tomorrow there would not be less
drunkenness. People would drink at home, and drunkenness inside the house (take
Scotland on a Sunday, for example) is worse than drunkenness outside of it.
For the sake of the independence of our Bench, we resent
this outside effort to influence it`s opinion. We have been informed that had
certain Magistrates been present, they would have declined to have heard this
resolution from the Council read. The fact that the Mayor sat on the Bench,
after presiding at the Council meeting, has excited considerable comment. In
his magisterial capacity he pronounced an opinion from the Bench to which he
had practically committed himself before the Court was opened, and it would
certainly at least have been a graceful act if he had abstained from sitting on
the Bench, or of voting in the Council.
Folkestone Chronicle
27-8-1881
Editorial
Wednesday last was the annual gathering of the publicans
before the magistrates for the renewal of licenses. One fresh license was
granted and the proceedings otherwise were of the usual uninteresting
character. The great number of publicans assembled made one naturally reflect
on the enormous sum of money spent on King Beer. The publicans themselves are a
fine, jovial race of men, who seem to be sufficiently aware of the qualities of
the liquors they sell not to partake too freely in them. There can be no doubt
that there are too many small public houses in the east of Folkestone, and any
way of reducing the number without injury to the owners of property would be a
public benefit.
Folkestone Chronicle
26-8-1882
Editorial Comment
We think Mr. Mowll`s objection to gentlemen, prominent
members of the Blue Army, adjudicating on licensing cases, only reasonable. The
fountain of justice should be above even a suspicion of bias. Magistrates can
appear on the Bench when they choose, but when a gentleman holds a strong opinion,
and the parties who come before him fancy that that opinion might guide his
decision, delicacy for the feelings of others – we can give it no better name –
keeps him away. For instance, supposing an assault case was to take place at an
election time where the Liberal was the defendant, we believe that strong and
notorious partisans on the Conservative side would abstain from sitting on the
Bench. Rightly or wrongly, applicants for licences – and we are of opinion that
no more should be granted unless under exceptional circumstances – are under
the impression that they cannot get fair play from gentlemen sporting the Blue
Ribbon, and it would not only be a graceful, but a judicious act, for Messrs.
Clarke and Holden, and others holding the views they do, to leave the
management of the licensing business in other hands.
Folkestone Express
26-8-1882
Editorial
The objection taken by Mr. Mowll on Wednesday to magistrates
who are members of the Blue Ribbon Army, and who sit on the Bench displaying the
distinctive badge of that organisation, adjudicating upon applications for new
licenses, is, we venture to think, a perfectly reasonable one.
The weight of the objection is very considerably increased
by the fact that the gentleman who urged it is, if not a member of the “army”,
by his own admission very favourably disposed towards it; but in justice and
fairness to his client, he asked those gentlemen who, if they are faithful
disciples of the leaders of the movement, condemn public houses in toto, as unmitigated evils, should
not legislate in licensing matters.
The legislature, as Mr. Mowll pointed out, prohibits brewers
and publicans from taking any part in the business of licensing committees, on
the ground that they cannot reasonably be expected to bring a perfectly
unbiased mind to bear; but with how much more force will such an argument weigh
in the case of magistrates who have pledged themselves in their private
capacities to use every means in their power to diminish the number of public
houses, and thereby, they hope, diminish drunkenness. It is impossible that
they can do other than prejudge every case. It would be more satisfactory to
the general public, as well as to the applicants, if those who hold such
pronounced opinions upon this very important question would leave the
consideration of applications for licenses in the hands of perfectly impartial
gentlemen, or, what would be better still, that those who have the selection of
licensing committees should take care that only those to whom not a suspicion
of prejudice could attach should be appointed.
We think Mr. Mowll`s objection to gentlemen, prominent
members of the Blue Army, adjudicating on licensing cases, only reasonable. The
fountain of justice should be above even a suspicion of bias. Magistrates can
appear on the Bench when they choose, but when a gentleman holds a strong
opinion, and the parties who come before him fancy that that opinion might
guide his decision, delicacy for the feelings of others – we can give it no
better name – keeps him away. For instance, supposing an assault case was to
take place at an election time where the Liberal was the defendant, we believe
that strong and notorious partisans on the Conservative side would abstain from
sitting on the Bench. Rightly or wrongly, applicants for licences – and we are of
opinion that no more should be granted unless under exceptional circumstances –
are under the impression that they cannot get fair play from gentlemen sporting
the Blue Ribbon, and it would not only be a graceful, but a judicious act, for
Messrs. Clarke and Holden, and others holding the views they do, to leave the
management of the licensing business in other hands.
Folkestone Express
30-9-1882
Editorial
No-one who is anxious for the moral welfare of the working
classes would care to see more public houses opened in Folkestone. Licences
have been thoughtlessly granted to houses in the East of Folkestone, until they
have become a snare and an evil to the labouring population amongst whom they
are situated. If some of them could be shut up it would be a blessing to the
neighbourhood.
Having said so much it cannot be urged that we are pleading
the cause of the liquor traffic in the severe comments in the interest of
justice we feel compelled to make on the re-appearance of Messrs. Holden and
Clark on the Bench at the adjourned licensing day to hear three applications
for licences. At the outset we may say their presence made no practical
difference, for we are sure none of the Magistrates would have granted licences
for which not the slightest plea of necessity could be made. But Mr. Mowll, the
solicitor for one of the applicants, objected on a previous occasion to Messrs.
Holden and Clark, who are members of the Blue Ribbon Army, sitting to decide on
the matter, as they would naturally be prejudiced against the applicant, and he
got the case adjourned in the hope that on the next occasion the aforesaid
gentlemen would have the tact to keep away. Not so. They appeared on their seat
of justice wearing the badge of their party, and the applicant, no doubt,
considered that the decision was a foregone conclusion. We cannot dispute the
right of these gentlemen to sit on this occasion, but we want to show them
that, according to the professions they make, they have acted with much
inconsistency. Both profess to be ardent Liberals. We always thought one of the
chief cries of the Liberal Party was “Justice”, “Justice to Ireland”, Justice
to the labourer”, “A tribunal above suspicion”. Such are some of the war cries
we have heard from a Liberal platform in Folkestone. But when a man comes
before the Folkestone Bench, and practically says to these gentlemen “I cannot
believe that, with your preconceived ideas, that you will give fair attention
to my application”, would it not seem in keeping with the professions of the
platform, to remain away in order to allow the applicant not the shadow of an
excuse for alleging that he was not justly dealt with?
