The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-20 00:00:00

LICENSI,NG. MAGISTRATES.

Mr. JAMES presented a Petition from an Individual of the
name of Briddle, residing in the neighbourhood of Ilchester,
complaining of his license as a publican being taken away on
the false representation of a personal enemy, made to the Ma-
gistrates of the district. The lion. Member observed that their
conduct would not appear extraordinary when it was known
that they were two of the notorious visiting Magistrates of
Ilchester Jail. The Petitioner stated, that he had been de.-
prived of his license upon an individual stating that the parish
in which he was did not require a public-house, whereas they
suffered great inconvenience for want- of one. He defied any
one to state that he had ever been guilty of any disorderly or
improper conduct, or permitted such in his house, and the
High Constable who had declared that to the Magistrates,
had been the object ,of persecution-since. The Petitioner also
hinted that it was in consequence of his having joined in the re-
joicings which followed the termination 'of the proceedings
against the late Queen, that his license had been taken from him.
Mr. Secretary PEEI. said, that although the House might
decide against rejecting a petition on account of the charges
it contained against private character, yet he was sure they
were not disposed to refuse to hear the answer to charges
against an individual, having listened to those charges.—(llear,
hear !)—This he was sure would be the feeling of the House,
more particularly in• cases where the conduct of official per-
sons in the discharge of their public duty was called in ques-
tion. The lion. Member, in tne present instance, had brought
forward a complaint against tWo Magistrates, one of whom he
(Mr. Secretary Peel) knew to be most highly respectable, and
of the other of whom he had no reason for supposing the
contrary. The names of those two Gentlemen were Woodford
and Phillips, and the presenting of this Petition having been
intimated to them he was prepared with the answer, to which
he entreated the House to listen, and having done so, he would
challenge any ether conclusion from their statement than that
they had acted with perfect integrity, and that the allegations
of the petition were false. The statement of Mr. Woodford,
in the letter which he held in his hand, was, that some time
preceding the last general licensing day he received a com-
plaint from one of the Churchwardens of the parish of the
ir-
regularities of Wm. Briddle, and the disorder and inconve-
nience created in consequence bf his improper conduct in the
regulation of his house. He stated that persons were kept
there in a state of intoxication for several successive days ;
that the paupers were encouraged to spend their parish al-
lowances there in drunkenness and idleness, and that the parish
had been thrown into great confusion and disorder by these
practices. Mr. Woodford's answer was, that although he was
not bound to assign any reason for not renewing a, license, he did
not chuse to deprive a man of his means of livelihood witholit
his being confronted by his accuser, and told the Churchwarden
that he must appear on the licensing. day to prefer his com-
plaint. He also stated that he received a complaint f om a
woman that her husband had -been seduced to remain in this
man's house for three days, which he had never done before, in
a state of drunkennness. He desired her to go and demand him,
upon which she received ill usage and blows from the publican.
'This woman and the Churchwarden did aPpear on the licensing
day, and preferred the charges in the man's presence, and upon
their representation the license had been refused--(Hear !)
Now he must say that it was a most shameful insinuation that
Mr. 'Woodford had been actuated by pOlitical motives in dis-
charging the functions of his office in this case ; and in answer
to that, that gentleman candidly declared, that his opinion
was well known to be adverse to the mode of proceeding
pursued towards the late Queen. How then was it possible
that this insinuation could be otherwise than false ? _ Mr.
Phillips gave the same account, and said, that through the
kindness of his solicitor this man was enabled, a few years
ago, to obtain redress for some injuries he had suffered. It
also appeared thut he had been warned for the last three years
against the course be had been pursuing, and told of the
consequence of it. lie asked then if it was possible that in-
dividual Magistrates could make a better use of their discre-
tionary power than these gentlemen had done ?—(Hear !)-116
asked, too, what feeling of justice the Min. Member himself
could be actuated by in raising an unfair prejudice from a false
inference as regarded this case,,by connecting these Gentlemen

with Ilchester Gaon—(Hear I)—The Petitioner had received I
frequent warnings, and after all was only deprived of his li-
cence upon charges preferred against him when he was present
to answer them.—(Hear !)
Mr. DICKENSON-defended the conduct of the Magistrates,
upon whose conduct he thought there was not the slightest im.
putation. They had refused toad on an es-rio intormation,
and besides warning the Petitioner before, had given him every
chance of exculpating himself on the licensing day.
Mr. BENNET admitted that the statement of the Right
Hon. Secretary (Mr. Secretary Peel) was most satisfactory,
but he could not help observing, that it would be much better
to put in practice the laws against such disorderly conduct, than
;take a course which deprived a man and his family of the means
of livelihood.
Mr.'JAMES, in moving that the Petition be received, ob-
served that he never meant to vouch for the truth of the allega-
tions of the petition, and was not aware of any unworthy con-
duct on his part in presenting the Petition. He was told that
nothing could be said against the conduct of the Petitioner,
and that there was only one day in the year when his•house was'
in a disorderly and tumultuous state, and that was when the
'Clergy held their assembly there.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he had only accused the Hon.
Member of unfair conduct in endeavouring to create a preju-
dice against these Magistrates, upon a subject apart from the
.merits of this particular case, in talking about their being the
notorious visaing Magistrates of Ilchester Jail.—( Hear.)—He
never meant to say.• that he was responsible for the truth of the
allegations of the petition.
The.petition was then laid on the table.
' - NEW WRIT.
_ _

On the motion of the Marquis of Tx T cur IE 7- D, a new writ
was ordered to be issued for the return of a Member in the
room of Lord Walpole now Earl of Orford.
The Marquis of TITCHFIELD presented a Petition•from
the Tradesmen of the town of Worksop, complaining of the
increase of the number of Hawkers and Pedlars.
Mr. HUME-thought that it would be extremely illiberal to
adopt any restrictions against hawking and pedling. It was
competent to these shopkeepers to become hawkers and ped-
lars if they pleased.—The Petition was ordered to be printed.