From the Whitstable Times, 4 January, 1902.

PETTY SESSIONS.

Benjamin Parkinson, an umbrella mender of Ashford, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and also with breaking three panes of glass in a window of Mr. Hanson’s in New Street, Ashford. Evidence was given by a policeman to the effect that defendant was drunk but defendant pleaded that he had only had a few glasses of ale and denied that he was intoxicated. He urged in extenuation of the offence that he had been a good citizen to Ashford for many years, having done a great deal of work in the town without any remuneration. He added that no doubt the magistrates present knew of his work in connection with the church. If they would give him a chance he would he only too pleased to ring the old year out and the new year in that night. A fine of 2s. 5d. and 5s. costs was imposed and a week was allowed for payment. With regard to the charge of breaking windows, as Mr. Hanson did not wish this to be proceeded with, the magistrates dismissed it on Mr. Hanson paying the costs.

From the Whitstable Times, 8 February, 1902.

THE LICENSING BILL.

Mr. Ritchie’s Licensing Bill, introduced on Thursday night, contains several important proposals. Among others, it is provided that persons drunk and incapable are to be apprehended and charged instead of summoned. Habitual drunkards committing offences of which drunkenness is a part are to be liable to a penalty if they attempt to purchase drink within three years. All off-licences are to he under the absolute control of the justices, and clubs of rich and poor are to be subject to registration, and the police may enter a club on the sworn information of any irregularity.

From the Whitstable Times, 6 September, 1902.

DRUNK AND DISORDERLY.

George William Hills was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Sanday morning.

P.C. West stated that at 12.20 on Sunday morning he was in Black Griffin Lane, (Canterbury) where he saw prisoner. He was very drunk and had got his coat off wanting to fight. He was also making use of very bad language. Witness requested him to go away but he refused. There was a large crowd and several people complained of not being able to sleep.

Prisoner said he was very sorry. He would like the Magistrates to deal leniently with him. He was going out to South Africa next week. He had already been out there two years and six months.

The Magistrates imposed a fine of 5s. and 6s. 8d. costs or fourteen days'.

The money was paid.

From the Whitstable Times, 8 November, 1902.

ST. AUGUSTINE’S PETTY SESSIONS.

Saturday, November 1st. Befors Lieutenant Colonel Dickenson (in the chair), Captain T. Lambert, Mr. W. A. Lochée, Mr. J. Bowes, Mr. P. H. Wilbee, Mr. C. Hardy, Mr. French, C.B., Dr. E. C. Fenoulbet, and Mr. J. R. Daniels.

THE LICENSING ACTS.

Upon on application being made by Mr. H. M. Briggs for the transfer of a licence of a public-house the Chairman announced then after the 1st January next the outgoing tenant as well as the incoming tenant would be expected to be present when a transfer of a license was granted. It had been a rule that both parties should be present in Court so that they might inform the Licensing Bench as to the circumstances of the case. It was only reasonable that the Justices should be informed for they had to decide every case on its merits and it was impossible to decide a case without knowing the facts. It had, however, not been the custom always to be exceedingly hard when a change had taken place and the outgoing tenant had not attended in many instances. After the 1st January next year both parties would be required to attend and whatever the Bench did that day through indulgence they could not do after that date. By making that statement it would prevent the Bench the disagreeable duty of setting back applicants for transfers.

Mr. Ben Twyman said of course the Justices understood that sometimes it was inconvenient for the outgoing tenant to attend after the first authority had been granted to the incoming tenant. An outgoing tenant might be a long distance away and it was inconvenient for him to attend. He thought the Justices would have the power to dispense with the attendance of the outgoing tenant provided the facts were sufficient to excuse him.

The Chairman agreed that they had power in special cases, but it was not a power to be used in every case. It must not be thought they could excuse the attendance of the outgoing tenant as a rule.

Mr. Ben Twyman asked the Bench to consider whether they could not dispense with the out-going tenant on the second occasion.

From the Whitstable Times, 15 November, 1902.

THE LICENSING ACT.

The Home Secretary on Saturday, issued circulars to the Clarks to the Licensing Justices, Clerks to the Magistrates, and Chief Constables throughout the country, drawing attention to the provisions of the Licensing Act which comes into operation on January 1st next. Explanation is given as to the offences dealt with under the Statute, and it is pointed out that Section 6 is intended to afford the Court an alternative or additional means of dealing with habitual drunkards. Where the Court is satisfied that an order of detention could he made under the Inebriates Act, 1898, but it is not thought desirable or is found impracticable to send the drunkard to an Inebriates Reformatory, the Court will be able to take steps to prevent him from obtaining drink on licensed premises, or at a registered club. Where a drunkard is committed to an Inebriate Reformatory, the Justices, the circular remark, will no doubt generally think it desirable at the same time to use the powers given under this Section, in order to remove as far as possible, the temptations which best the drunkard on release from a Reformatory. The provisions of the Section will probably be less effective and more difficult to work in populous places then in country districts; but even in towns the drunkard usually frequents certain houses, which can be specially warned by the police. The third part of the Act provides for the registration of clubs occupying premises which are habitually used for the purposes of a club, and in which liquor is supplied to members or their guests. Section 25 directs that the Clerk to the Justices shall keep the register of all such clubs within his division. The object of this portion of the Act, it is pointed out, is to assure the inclusion in the register of all clubs within the scope of the act, whether good or bad, in order that their existence, their membership, their rules, etc, may come under the cognisance of the public authorities and others interested. It is the intention of the Act that the information, applied by the secretary of a club in his return should he entered at once and as a matter of course in the Register, even if the rules, etc., set out in these particulars are defective or of questionable legality. If the information afforded by the Return is inadequate or unsatisfactory, the Chief Constable it informed, there may arise a suspicion that the club is a bogus dub or otherwise of an unsatisfactory nature, and it will be the duty of the police to consider whether they are called upon to take steps under section 28 or section 29. By Sections 26 and 27 it is made an offence to supply or keep intoxicating liquor in an unregistered club, or to supply liquor in a registered club for consumption off the premises, except to a member on the premises. The recent decision in “Davies v. Burnett” will be particularly superseded when Section 27 is in force.

From the Whitstable Times, 20 December, 1902.

LICENSED HOUSES IN CANTERBURY.

IMPORTANT MEMORIAL TO THE MAGISTRATES.

At the sitting of the Canterbury Magistrates on Friday, the Chairman (Mr. D. Amos) said the Justice had received a letter from the clergy of the City, and it would be considered by the whole Bench of Magistrates at their next meeting.

The following is a copy of the letter

“To the Justices of the City of Canterbury.

“Gentlemen,— We are informed that the question of a reduction in the number of licensed houses in the City is now under your consideration.

“As clergy in charge of various parishes we are ever being saddened by the fresh stories we hear of the crime, misery, and ill-health resulting in great part from the yielding on part of both men and women to the excessive temptation to drink which are offered in Canterbury by the enormous number of public-houses.

“That the number is greatly in excess of the requirement of the public, we submit, is beyond dispute, the result being that some do not bring their tenants a livelihood, as is shown by the constant change in the tenancy. Indeed, in not a few cases the houses are so little required that the owners are unable to obtain legitimate tenants, and put in so-called managers, simple to keep the licenses alive.

“We, therefore, approach you—not as members of any Temperance Society, but as parish clergy, who, being constantly among our people, and overseeing their lives day by day are, as we hope yon will admit, well qualified to present our opinion upon this important question—to beg you to exercise the powers which are conferred upon you by law so as to lessen considerably the evil.

“We are, gentlemen,

“Yours obediently,

(Signed),

“H. D. FRENCH. Rural Dean of Canterbury.

“FRANCIS T VINE, Rector of t. Georges the Martyr.

“ALFRED BUTLER, Rector of St. Alphege’s.

“EDWARD B HARDCASTLE, Rector of St. Martin’s and St. Paul’s.

“ARTHUR W PAYNE, Assistant Curate. St. Martin's and St. Paul’s.

“FRANCIS R. MERCER, Vicar, St. Gregory the Great.

“THOMAS GIBSON HILL, Rector of St. Peters.

“J HAYWORTH, Chaplain of H.M. Prison, Canterbury.

“W. E. EVILL, Vicar of St. Dunstan’s.

“J. J. BAMBRIDGE. Vicar of St. Mary Bredin.

“ARTHUR STEVENS, Rector of St. Mildred’s.

“J. H. WILLIAMS, Assistant Curate of St. Mildred's.

“ALBAN S. HOPE, Assistant Curate, St. Gregory’s.”

From the Whitstable Times, 20 December, 1902.

THE MAGISTRATES AND REDUCTION OF LICENCES.

The question of licence reduction is ably dealt with from a trade standpoint by a special correspondent of the Kent Messenger. He points out that at Farnham the houses shut up were held by tenants. These people were not deprived of their livelihood because they had improperly conducted their houses, but because the local Justices, after half a century’s knowledge of all the facts, suddenly came to the conclusion that the public could be accommodated with fewer licences. They thereupon refused to renew nine public-house licences, the loss, after appeal, being reduced to seven. Is it fair play when the Justices, in order to benefit the community of Farnham, strain the law and use their wide powers to deprive a widow—who, with her husband before her, had held one of the licences without the slightest complaint for nearly twenty-eight years—of her sole means of livelihood? Yet that is what they have done and left her in advanced years to struggle for existence as best she may or go into the workhouse.

The Royal Commission on Licensing, in their report (page 51), said, “To suppress a proportion of the licences without compensation, or for a fractional compensation, is to inflict very material loss on one set of licences, arbitrarily selected, and to benefit the remainder by the elimination of their rivals. It is difficult to believe that any such measure would receive the assent of Parliament, or, if it did, that a licensing authority could be found willingly to undertake the invidious duty of selection.

His Majesty’s Ministers have adopted this view, and Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Ritchie especially have expressed the strongest possible opinions.

Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham, on October 14th, 1901, said: “Lord Peel’s report says there is no right and even no justice in compensation. Well, I do not agree with him—the majority of the people do not agree with him.” Mr. Chamberlain has also said that “he had no sympathy at all with these who desired to carry out a public advantage at the cost of a private injustice, and who would he perfectly willing to be desperately virtuous provided that it was at the expense of other people.”

The views of the Government have also been shown this year. They brought in a measure strengthening the law as regards drunkenness, dealing with various points in the licensing law, and providing for the control of clubs. They deliberately omitted any reference to reduction, and the question was never raised even in the many pages of amendments which were put down by the temperance party. One amendment, however, was proposed having for its object the confiscation of the vested interest in the ante-1869 beerhouses. This amendment was opposed on behalf of the Government by the Home Secretary who, in his speech in the House of Commons on April 7th, said:- “I absolutely decline to be a party to any Bill which proposes to confiscate the property of people who have invested their money in a perfectly legitimate business, with a title, if not created by Parliament, at least created by use and wont.” Therefore, while the Government of the day takes this line, it is hardly surprising that the magistrates adopt a similar view. They recognise apparently that it is impossible to carry reduction through without incurring public odium and committing injustice. Accordingly they ask the board to make proposals of surrender. The brewing trade is very largely in the hands of limited liability companies and does not, seemingly, find it possible to give away property which, in most cases, constitutes the security held by trustees for debenture holders. Nor can it ignore the reasonable claim of the tenants to continue their business without interference in the absence of misconduct.

Clearly, therefore, but two methods of carrying out reduction are practicable: the first, with compensation, under some powers to he given by Parliament and administered by the magistrates; and the second, with injustice, by straining the law, the magistrates acting in advance of public opinion, as reflected in the House of Commons. It is not, perhaps, generally known that over 450 out of 670 members of that House are absolutely pledged to compensation in the event of licences being taken away in the public interest without fault on the part of the licensee. When the elected representatives of the nation take up this attitude, how can the magistrates imagine that public opinion expects them, to use Mr. Chamberlain's words, to carry out a public advantage at the cost of a private injustice? It is a generally accepted principle that the end, however laudable, never justifies means which entail hardship and injustice upon individuals. The question is, Does reduction constitute an end to secure which the principle referred to may he overridden? If the Justices are convinced that reduction is desirable why do they not strengthen the hands of the Government by passing resolutions urging them to deal with the matter in a short Act?

Finally is it certain that a smaller number of licences will bring about all the good results anticipated? The Chairman of the Licensing Bench at Birmingham, who regards himself as the father of the scheme of redaction there, speaking on the subject on October 1st last, said, evidently with sorrow, that he “had compared the record of the city (after licences had been diminished to a very considerable extent) with that of eight other large cities, and had been shocked to find that Birmingham alone had been going back in the matter of drunkenness and disorderliness.”

From the Whitstable Times, 27 December, 1902.

CANTERBURY AND DISTRICT LICENSED VICTUALLERS AND BEER RETAILERS PROTECTION ASSOCIATION.

IMPORTANT MEETING. THE QUESTION OF LICENCE REDUCTION.

It having come to the knowledge of the above Association that steps are being taken by the Licensing Justices with a view to the reduction of the number of Licences to he granted at the next Brewster Sessions throughout various parts of the County a largely attended meeting of licence holders was held at the “Foresters’ Hall,” Canterbury, on Tuesday afternoon, as the Association felt that the licensees were being overlooked and neglected in this matter, and their interests thus liable to be jeopardised, unless some steps were taken to protect them. Mr. E. Beer (Chairman of the Canterbury Association) presided, and was supported on the platform by Mr. H. George Robinson (Secretary and Manager of the Licensed Victuallers’ National Defence League), Mr. W. L. Sands (Littebourne), Mr. O. Robinson, Mr. W. Manwaring, Mr. Ben Twyman, Mr. W. H. Riach (National Trade Defence Association), Mr. Meades (Chairman Maidstone Licensed Victuallers' Association) Mr. Appleton (Chairman of Dover Licensed Victuallers’ Association), Mr. Tunbridge and Mr. Ovenden (Chairman and Secretary Folkestone Licensed Victuallers’ Association), Mr. H. Millstead and Mr. G. A. Hinks (Faversham), Mr. Clark Child (Whitstable), Mr. F. T. Gantry, Mr. W. H. Scripps, Mr. E. D. Harris, Mr. B. L. Gardener, Mr. Fryer (Messrs. Morton and Co.). Mr. Everist (Folkestone), and Mr. J. W. Kennett (secretary).

The Chairman, baring explained the object of the meeting, called upon Mr. Ben Twyman to address these present.

Mr. Twyman proposed the following resolution, “that this meeting of licensed holders representing largely the retail trade of the Division of East Kent views with much concern the rumours of contemplated refusal to renew grants of licences by the Licensing Justices and committees in various districts of the Division at the coming Brewster Sessions and, that as such a course of procedure would inflict loss of home, capital, and business upon the trader through no fault of his own, Licensing Justices and Committees in these districts are, therefore, respectfully naked to receive a deputation of licence holders before adopting such rumoured course of action.” Mr. Twymau said ha had had over thirty years close and practical experience of the licensed victualler and his manners, his customers, his friends, and his enemies. His business had brought him into contact not only with the licensed victualler himself, but all those more or less connected with the gigantic trade and liquid element of life, and he was there that day speaking as one who had gathered some little knowledge in the drink trade; not as the representative of a large firm of Kentish brewers he had the honour to be connected with, not as one attempting to defend the brewer, but as one having the welfare of those at heart amongst whom he moved so largely, namely, the licensed victuallers, and whom he could say from long personal observation endeavoured to conduct their business in an honest, straight, and proper manner, although frequently abused, misunderstood, and at times wilfully misinterpreted, and whose interest (if rumour was to be only partly believed) was to be ruthlessly cast aside by the refusal to renew certain licences at the for becoming Brewster Sessions. For why? It was stated that there were too many licences in existence, and that the public houses was a snare and an inducement to drink, and further that drink was the root of all evil and crime—which was about as true as when the old women said short black pipes were the root of all evil. (Laughter.) Now he believed none of them who were engaged in the liquor trade would raise objection to the reduction of licences if it were deemed desirable—provided such reduction were conducted upon equitable and just bases, and that such course of action would do away with drunkenness—for drunkenness was as great an abomination in the eyes of a publican as any teetotaller as other sins, and he was sure there was not one of them but would as soon see old Nick himself walk into their bars as a drunken person. Taking away a licence would take away a home, capital, and a livelihood from a respectable class of the community—from a class of the community who followed an industry providing over one-third of the revenue of the country, from a class of the community whose position for various purposes was taxed and recognised as one that was entitled to consideration. If from no fault of their own that home, capital, and livelihood should he taken away—that was what would be the effect should the rumours as to the contemplated action of licensing justices and committees prove to be well founded. He was not prepared to say blame attached in that matter to the authorities nor to the officials of any affected district, but he did say that great blame attached to the legislature. In 1851 the population of the City of Canterbury was 18,398, to-day it was 24,868. He was taking that city as an example, for the same remarks would nearly apply elsewhere. During the past ten years neither crime, drunkenness, nor disorder had increased. That was due to education. Do not let the Temperance Party lay unction to his soul and say that was by his effort. It was not, for the cost of education was largely provided by the Drink Trade. The closing of a public house would not prevent a person who had set his or her mind upon a wicked act, obtaining drink. Excuse had been put forward, so rumour stated, that there were too many houses according to the population. How was that arrived at? Who had discovered the correct drinking capacity of the people? Mr. Twyman then quoted figures showing the comparison in the number of licences in Canterbury with other Kentish towns. Houses had been given up in that City for various reasons, but the rates had not been decreased nor the police force reduced. Yet during the past twenty-five to thirty years no fewer then 32 licensed houses had been, so to speak, given up. It was not the new Licensing Act they feared. No, to some extent it helped them rather more then they were helped before and it was all fudge to talk about justices now finding the extent of their powers, that at their will they could refuse to renew this or that licence. He said it was fudge. The power had always existed to the knowledge also of all and any having knowledge of licensing work, but it had never been supposed that Englishmen would he guilty of confiscation nor of repudiation. The legislature should be urged to provide satisfactory schemes to compensate where from no fault of the licensee his licence was withheld—that they were prepared themselves to provide that compensation had been made manifest, for they had paid a duty which was imposed some few years ago for that very purpose, and they were still paying it, but it had been diverted—misappropriated he might say to the providing of technical education. That fund they might recollect was created some four or five years ago when the Government imposed a tax upon liquor in furtherance of their Licensing Bill producing near upon three quarters of a million of money. Their Bill was at the last moment withdrawn for reasons best known to themselves, but the money had been collected—they could not return it—so appropriated it to Technical Education, and year by year it had been so collected and appropriated, whereby it was they who provided to a large extent for the Technical Education of the country with the Money which they were asked to provide and did provide in the event of the extinction of a licence.

Mr. Appleton, of the Dover Licensed Victuallers’ Association, seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously.

Mr. W. H. Riach, agent of the National Trade Defence Association, then proposed “that Government he asked to give their earliest attention to, and legislate for, some measure dealing with compensation to all cases where licenses are withheld through no fault of the licensee so that such licensees may not suffer.”

Mr. Scripps seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously.

The following proposition was moved by Mr. H. G. Robinson, seconded by Mr, Meades, and carried “That a report of this meeting, together with a copy of the resolutions passed, be sent to the Licensing Justices of the city, and to all the Licensing Justices and Committees, and to Members of Parliament for the Division, and to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.”

The meeting concluded with a vote of thanks being passed to Mr. Beer for presiding, on the proposition of Mr. Ben Twyman.