Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-15 00:00:00

THE PUBLIC HOUSE QUESTION.

It is with the utmost satisfaction that we see
Mr. Hardy's Beer Bill, putting all house's of enter-
tainment alike under the capricious power of the
justices, disposed of, though by no very telling
majority. The truth is, that the corrupt interest
which taxes'the drink of the people at large is very
strong. The brewers coerce the publicans, who,
with ,a few exceptions, are thoroughly at their
.mercy. The publiCans have no small influence at -
elections, and the members are afraid of turning
a narrow majority into a minority by offending
them. Whether with their will, or against
it, the publicans are forced to uphold the
monopoly of their creditors and landlords, and to
serve in keeping up the system which mainly in-
terferes with their own independence and respect-
ability. If all parties understood their own interests,
and were brave enough to act upon the conviction,
it would be easy enough to break up this conspiracy,
but just now the licensed victuallers are to the
brewers what the farmers were to the landlords
during the corn-law agitation=—their victims and
their tools. However, it will not do for the public
to rest at the mercy of any class, deceived, coerced,
or selfish; it must take up the cudgels for itself,
and bid all- parties. interested in plundering it
stand out of the way. It is not so long ago since
a compact- was made by the 'monopolists -in the
public-house trade, and the Saints, to give' up the
Sunday question to the Pharisees if these would
help the brewers and their stewards to keep up
the monopoly. The arrangement suited those
concerned very well, but the effect was the abridg-
ment of the public's convenience and the taxing
of the public's beer. .We must sweep aside all
this fraudulent combination. And if the publicans
themselves are disposed to ask for justice where
indeed they have the fullest need of it, the people
at large gvvill be equally disposed to assist them.
Why, for instance, should a man, because he keeps
an inn and must employ many servants, they being
as, needful to his trade as the very viands he sells,
be taxed for every one of them, cook, waiter,
porter, unless because there is a compact
that he is to fleece and be fleeced, very little
of the gain being left for his own benefit. The
committee of 1854, in their recommendation, made
root and branch work of the business. They took the
only true ground—free trade in drink. They felt,
indeed, that the houses in which people assemble

_to enjoy themselves, after a fashion that does not
necessarily sharpen their faculties or increase their
prudence, should be conducted by men of good
character, and watched by the care of the police.
But they took the right way to insure respectability
of conduct. They did not conceive that this re-
spectability could reside in the bricks and mortar,
or that it could be deputed from the owner of the
premises to the tenant. They would not, there-
fore, license the house, but the man himself
who is to conduct the house. They would exact-bond
for his good behaviour from two sureties, They saw,
the very clearest evidence, that while the house
itself was licensed as:a property, though it might
belong to' great and so-called highly respectable
firms, as soon as' one' scoundrel was driven from

his post by too notorious offences, another was
put in his place to pay the rent, and that by pur-
suing the very same tine of conduct.- Of course
the licensing magistrates would be naturally
looked to for the -repression of
_such practices by

refusing the licences No such thing`;` they,thouglit
more of the ".vested interests," as the chairman of
one, bench deplared, than of anything else,
of the property which the landlord hold,
who thus knowingly transferred the lease from
one ruffian to another, and thus they continuda the
evil their power was expressly given them to correct.
And what is the " property" which they thus prefer
to all other considerations ? A monopoly in the
people's drink. A right to charge so much more,
or to sell an article so much the worse beea.use_the
next door neighbour or the man over the way must
not compete in the supply. A right conferred not
for the sake of the publican, but that he may be
thus screwed to some purpose for treble the natural
rental of his house. If it were a question of the
rich man's wine ; if it were proposed that
the trade of the wine merchant should be licensed
arbitrarily by any body of men, and that the
right to supply it should be limited to those whom
the licensers might select for the purpose of giving
them a fortune, or at least a property in the
monopoly, we should soon have the imposition
denounced in parliament as the most imprudent
fraud and tyranny ever attempted. It is because
the poor man has no private stock, because,
if he is to enjoy himself in society, he must
find it where all alike pay for the entertain-
ment, because the pretence of regulating his
enjoyments can therefore be set up, that a plunder
is made of his money and an adulteration of
his drink for the profit of giant establishments.
True regulation there is none. A man need only
open his eyes as he passes through the London
streets and the metropolitan suburbs to be sure
that the houses especially licensed for his accom-
modation are, in the main, just contrived
for him to swallow liquor in, and nothing else.
The supervision of the magistrates, which, if good
for anything, would be good for the purpose of see-
ing that an inn or tavern is comfortably arranged
for a place of social resort, is frankly belied
by every staring gin-shop. The men do not do
their duty , they know it, they never intended to
do it. They oblige Mr. So-and-so, who married the
cousin of one of them and who owns the gin-shop.
Mr. Barrow in the debate on the Beer Bill says :
" For myself, I believe the conduct of the magis-
trates to be above suspicion." Well, perhaps so—
there is no need to suspect those who are
proved guilty. We say, on our part, that,
though there may be many who only carry
their justice so far as to wink at the practice of
their fellows, there is not one magistrate on the
bench who does not know that licensing is a mat-
ter of favour and arrangement, a thing bought by
friendship and
,connexion, if by no more direct
bribe. Some men desire but want the nerve to
put this down, and their dishonesty is, therefore,
only of a negative class. But to attempt to set up
licensing magistrates as specimens of moral purity
and gentlemanly honour, would only set the thumb
of any attorney's clerk to his nose that may be
concerned in such business before them.— Weekly
Dispatch.

MAYO ELECTION PETITION—THE SPEAKER'S WRIT—
B ALLINROBE PETTY SESSIONS. —Pat Ward was charged
with wilfully assaulting James Moran on Monday, the Ist
instant, and taking from his pocket the writ of the
Speaker of the Elouse of CommUns, summoning him to
give testimony in the case of the Mayo petition. Mr. John
Griffin appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Blake for
the defence. The indictment set forth that complainant
was proceeding to his home from the town of Ballinrobe on
Monday the Ist instant, and was stopped at the bridge 1
leading out of the town by defendant and some other
person unknown ; defendant asked him if he was the man
who was going to swear against Father Conway ? Com-
plainant answered—No. -Defendant again asked him if
be had the summons in his pocket, and on his replying in
the negative he was knocked down, and from his pocket
was forcibly abstracted the writ of the Speaker of the
House of Commons, which he saw in the defendant's hand
for the last time, and which he has not recovered since the
occasion. The bench unanimously decided that as the case
was one of the greatest importance, no means should be
spared to have it properly investigated, and the guilty
parties severely punished. It had been clearly proved that
Ward was present and had possession of the paper of which
he was deprived. On the whole,
they
p lconsideredaintiff dcleiatread
case demanding the attention of the
law officers of the Crown, and they would send it to the
assizes. Defendant's attorney applied to have it sent to the
quarter sessions, which would take place before the assizes,
but the beach unanimously refused to comply. The de-
fendant was then required.to procure bail to the amount
of £lOO, himself in .£3O, and two sureties of £25 each.
Mr. Blake- complained of the e%cessive amount of bail
required ; but the magistrates ,-refused to lessen the
amount, and intimated that they would commit the defen-
nant in &fault thereof. Great interest was taken in the
case in consequence of its bearing on the Mayo petition;

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE FIRST
PRACTICAL STEP IN AIONELIRY REFORM.