Page Updated:- Sunday, 07 March, 2021.


Deal Notes of 1872


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 20 March, 1872. 1d.


When Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen passed from the Home Office to the Colonial Department, we gave some little offence by congratulating the hon. gentleman upon having found a resting-place in the serene atmosphere of a Downing Street sinecure. But it would really seem as if there were nothing whatever to do at the Colonial Office. Lord Kimberley, Mr. Hugessen's chief at the Secretariat, has this week been called in to do the work of the Home Secretary - of whose existence very few people except reprieved murderers have ever heard. Nevertheless, Lord Kimberley performed his task very well. He admitted that the Government Licensing Bill was by no means an ambitious measure; and as Lord Kimberley himself is a common-place sort of a Minister both the measure and its proposer were well adapted to each other. Lord Kimberley's Licensing Bill has produced a very different impression from that of Mr. Bruce last session. He does not contemplate the confiscation of the publican's property, nor threaten to annihilate their trade. He meddles a good deal with licenses; and we fear it will be found that he has only muddled. Special obstructions are interposed against the granting of licenses. Those granted by county magistrates will have to be confirmed by a special committee appointed at the Court of Quarter Sessions. In boroughs with more than nine magistrates a committee will grant licenses which, however, must be confirmed by the whole body of Justices and the Secretary of State. All the proposed changes seem to us only to render an already cumbersome machinery still more cumbersome; and we cannot admit the advantage of having the decisions of one body reviewed by another body who would have to adjudicate on  precisely the same evidence as that upon which the former decision was given. The distinction made between county magistrates and borough justices will not fail to create many difficulties in the working of the scheme, and it will assuredly raise strong opposition in the House of Commons, should the Bill ever come before hon. members for consideration. The restrictions as to the granting of new licenses are also very heavy. Fetters of this kind are not imposed upon any other class of the trading community. It is not by such measures as these that the evil of drunkenness will be stamped out of this country. Lord Kimberley's Bill, however, includes some provisions which point in the right direction. Intoxicated persons must not be harboured in public-houses. The fine for drunkenness will be doubled. And special inspectors will be appointed to see that the regulations of the Sunday liquor traffic are not infringed - another burden, by the way, to the ratepayers. To our minds, Lord Kimberley's proposal to check the adulterations of beer are the best features of the Government bill. Consumers have no idea of the extent to which adulteration id practised. Lord Kimberley convulsed the House of Lords on Tuesday night by describing how porter was adulterated with "foots." We fear that other and more pernicious stuffs are used by some rapacious publicans as well in porter as in whiskey and other kinds of spirits; and it is therefore satisfactory to find that the necessity of checking this evil is recognised among the essentials of a licensing scheme. As to the prospects of Lord Kimberley's Bill passing this Session, they are very remote. This is owing to the extraordinary course taken by the Government. They refused to adopt a much better Licensing Bill of Sir Selwin-Ibbetson which was discussed in the House of Commons last Wednesday. Determined to deny everyone else the credit of originating a measure on this subject, they hastily pushed forward their own Bill, and by introducing it in the Upper House, got the start of Sir Selwin-Ibbetson. But this manoeuvre will probably only in their own discomfiture, for, should Lord Kimberley's Bill reach the House of Commons, it will assuredly flounder with many other measures owing to the blundering and persistent policy of the Government.


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 20 March, 1872. 1d.


It would be interesting to try a few experiments in the way of punishment with drunkards. It is evident that fines have little or no effect on the intemperate, and that a few hours' imprisonment until they are sober is rather a convenience to them than not. Our ingenuity in discovering pleasant little variations in punishment for the offenders has not yet extended beyond the revival of the cat-o-nine tails, which although it might be laid with advantage on the backs of some drunken ruffians, is almost too decisive in its action for the harmless sot who becomes "incapable" without being violent. There is, however, a punishment which was applied by the ancient law of France and also in Scotland to debtors who obtained the benefit of cessiobonorum (Latin for a surrender of goods) that seems admirably adapted for modern drunkards. It consisted in sentencing the debtor to wear in public a distinctive garment under pain of imprisonment if he were found without it. In France a green bonnet (bonnet vert) was furnished by creditors for the purpose, as explained by Pothier, of warning all citizens to conduct their affairs with prudence, so as to void the risk of exposing themselves to such ignominy. In Scotland every debtor. under similar circumstances, was appointed to wear the "dyvours habit" which was a coat or upper garment, half yellow and half brown, with a cap of the same colours. By a statute William IV. the "dyvours habit" was dispensed with; but if again adopted for drunkards, it might not only promote temperance, but could not fail to give a great impetus to the trade of clothiers about Easter time, and on the occasion of all holy fasts and feasts. The "dyvours habit" would also be a most admirable garment of daily wear for tradesmen convicted of using false weights and measures; and in the case of ladies found guilty of a like offence, the bonnet vert might be worn either for the promenade or behind the counter, and would produce a most pleasing effect.

Pall Mall Gazette.


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 20 March, 1872. 1d.


In laying upon the table of the House of Lords the Ministerial bill for the reform of the licensing system, Lord Kimberley admitted that it had no pretensions to be regarded in the light of an ambitious measure, the question with which it dealt not being one that could be settled on any general theory. It would not disturb existing rights, but would interfere with licenses to be granted, and by stringent police regulations prevent the abuses connected with public-houses. The most important principle related to the manner in which it was proposed to deal with the present licensing bodies. In regard to the granting of new licences, it adopted the following system:- First, licences granted by the county magistrates would not be valid unless confirmed by a special committee to be appointed yearly by the Court of the Quarter Sessions; next, in boroughs, where there were not more than nine justices, the jurisdiction would remain with them as a body, and where there were more than nine they would appoint a committee who would grant all new licences. Those licences, however, would not be valid until confirmed by the whole body of the justices, and the Secretary of State. Further, the stipendiary magistrates would have power to act, which they had not now; but no change would be made in the renewal of licences. The right of appeal to the magistrates in Quarter Sessions would be extended, and any person who objected to a licence might carry his objection to the general body of magistrates and to the higher court of appeal as at present, security being given for the costs, and where the objection was grievous or vexations compensation would be awarded to the publican. The bill provided for closing public-houses in the metropolis from twelve at night until seven in the morning, in towns under 10,000 inhabitants from ten to seven, and in towns over that population from eleven to seven. On Sundays the houses would not open until one, and the hours of closing on that day would in the three cases mentioned, be seven, nine, and ten o'clock respectively. The second reading was fixed for the 2nd of May.


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 31 August, 1872. 1d.


The Magistrates have appointed the 12th September next as the annual licensing day, and at that meeting they will take into consideration and discuss as to altering the closing hours, in conformity with the new Act.


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 14 September, 1872. 1d.


Thursday was annual licensing day for this borough, and the Magistrates present at the Petty Sessions were G. Hughes, E. Brown, W. M. Cavell, J. Iggulden, T. F. Hulke, and G. Fry Esqrs. The business occupied between four and five hours, and only one license was witheld - that of the "Brickmakers' Arms," beer-shop, against the landlady of which there were three complaints, which will be investigated at the adjourned meeting. Mr. Ricketts, of the "Park Tavern," applied for a six day's license only, so that he might close the house entirely on Sundays, and he also wanted permission to keep open till half-past twelve or one o'clock on Tuesdays. The first application was granted, but the other was left open for settlement at an adjourned meeting, as were also several claims for extension of time from landlords of houses adjacent to the beach. The applicants were admitted into the Magistrates' room one at a time and each one was asked what hour of closing would suit them best, and was at the same time informed that the hours would be fixed afterwards and due notice given. As far as we could judge, the majority were in favour of closing at eleven or half-past. Owing to the new Act requiring that a register should be kept of all the houses, with the names of the landlords and the amount of rent, the cost of all licenses was increased by a small fee, and several of the publicans were curious enough to enquire the cause of the increase, and were generally satisfied with the answer; but one sceptical old gentleman at the South-end was even bold enough to ask to see the Act, and the Magistrates humoured him by reading the clause in question. Mr. Linscott, grocer, applied for a certificate for a license to retail "wines, sweets, spirits, and beer in bottles or wood, not to be consumed on the premises," and the same was ordered to stand over till Thursday week. We understand that after fully considering the requirements of the town, the Magistrates have decided that the hours of closing for public-houses shall be half-past eleven on weekday nights and ten o'clock on Sundays. Beer-shops to close half an hour earlier. The opening hours to be five o'clock in every case.


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 28 September, 1872. 1d.


This being the adjourned licensing day, the various matters postponed were now produced with, the Mayor withdrawing for the time. The license of the "Duke of York" public-house, Cemetery Road, was transferred from Mr. W. Croft, to Mr. Patrick Harris, who has been conducting business for a long time.

A renewal of license was granted to Mr. Beer, of 61, Beach Street, and also to several of the grocers, and a hotel license to Mr. Childs, for a house on the Prince of Wales's Terrace, the business being separate from her husband's under a settlement.

Mr. Linscott, grocer, Lower Street, applied for a certificate to sell beer in bottles, to be consumed off the premises. A memorial had been received, signed by a large number of the publicans, praying the Bench not to grant the application, on the grounds that it was quite unnecessary that Mr. Linscott should have a retail license, and that if one were granted him it would be very unjust to the memorialists and injurious to their trade. Mr. D. Almond, of the "Rose Inn," was present to support the memorial, and, in answer to the Bench, said injury would be occasioned to himself and the other memorialists from the fact that if Mr. Linscott's application was granted he would be able (his being a free house) to get a barrel of beer much cheaper than many of the publicans, and drew it off into bottles and sell it out. Mr. Linscott said there appeared to be some misapprehension as to his application. He did not want to have a cask of beer in and sell it out in draught, but he merely asked to be put on the same footing as Mr. Fitch, grocer, in Beach Street, and Mr. Methold, grocer, at the corner of Queen Street, who were bottled beer merchants. His prices would always be higher than the publicans', because he would sell Allsopp's and such like beers. He had no desire to turn the house into a public-house, and it was not his intention to retail beer in open vessels. Mr. Almond said Mr. Fitch and others had done great injury to the publicans round that part of the town. Mr. Linscott said he would not press the application if he thought it would do harm to the publicans, but he could assure the Bench that several times last summer ladies and gentlemen came into his shop and asked to be served with beer and ale, and when he told them he did not keep either, but would take their order and send it across to his neighbour Mr. Almond, they refused to have it from there when they found out it was a public-house, and went and got it from one of the other grocers. With all due respect to the Bench, moreover, he did not think they had the power to refuse him the license. If he were applying for a license to sell beer in open vessels they would have the power of refusing, but he submitted they could not refuse in the present case. Mr. Mercer (the Clerk) said that under the Wine and Beer Act the Magistrates could only refuse a license to a person of bad character. The Magistrates, accordingly granted the application, Mr. Almond remarking that it was very hard on publicans, and that he supposed they would soon have the drapers applying for licenses.


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 2 November, 1872. 1d.


A large number of the Deal publicans, with Mr. T. Kidner, landlord of the "New Inn," Lower Street, at their head, applied as a deputation from the licensed victuallers of the Borough of Deal, to ask the Magistrates to give the memorial they begged to present, applying for an extension to the hours of closing on Sunday evening, their favourable decision. Mr. Kidner said they found that at Folkestone a similar request had been acceded to and the hours extended from ten till eleven, and the deputation hoped the Magistrates would favourably consider and grant the earnest request of their humble petitioners.

Mr. Mercer then read the memorial, which he said was very influentially signed and contained 65 signatures, after which Mr. Kidner observed that the publicans were a very hardly taxed portion of the community, and they thought it very hard that they should have to close at ten on Sunday evenings, before the arrival of the last train, and that it would be particularly inconvenient during the summer time.

The Magistrates said they would summon the whole of their members together, and give the memorial their very best consideration, and announce their decision on Thursday next.


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 19 November, 1872. 1d.


Mr Kidner and one or two other licensed victuallers were present to hear the Magistrates' decision with respect to the application made to them on Thursday last, for the extension of the hours of closing on Sunday nights.

Mr. Hughes said the Magistrates had given the application their most careful consideration, and they did not think they would be justified in making any general alteration in the hours of closing. Having fixed the hours, they considered they were shut out by the terms of the Act from making any alteration within the current year; but there would be every disposition on their part to reconsider the application in a renewed form on the next annual licensing day, when proper notice of such application would have to be given.

Mr. Kidner inquired how it was that the hour had been altered at Folkestone.

Mr. Hughes said the Magistrates could not answer that question. They could not tell how the question came before the Folkestone Magistrates, or how they got over the difficulty. The alteration might have been made at the adjourned Licensing meeting.

Mr. Kidner then thanked the Magistrates and withdrew.