The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-19 00:00:00

THE RIGHTS OF THE ARMY AND NAVY

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SIR,—I have observed in various newspapers
that discussions have taken place in refe-
rence to an application made by me to the
Dudley magistrates, on behalf o Mr. Timothy
Solomon, that he should be allowed to exercise the
trade of a victualler without a licence, on the
ground that he is the son of a soldier who served
in the army for five years between the years 1802
and 1816. The act of Parliament under which I
made the application is the 56 Geo. 111., c. 67, the
preamble to which act is as follows :
" Whereas there have been and are divers officers,
mariners, soldiers, and marines, who have served his
Majesty in the late wars by sea and land, some of
whom are men that used trades, others that were
apprentices to trades who have not served out their
times, and others who by their own industry have
made themselves apt and fit for trades, many of
whom, the wars being now ended, would willingly
employ themselves in those trades which they were
formerly accustomed to, or which they are apt or
able to follow, and make use of for getting their
living by their own labour, but are or may be hin-
dered from exercising those trades in certain cities
and corporations and other places within this king-
dom, because of certain by-laws and customs of
those places ;" for remedy whereof " be it enacted
by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, and with the
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal and Commons in this present Parlia-
ment assembled, and by the authority of the
same, that all such officers, mariners, soldiers, and
marines, as have been at any time employed in
the service of his Majesty since the 22d day of
June, 1802, and have not since deserted the said
service, and also the wives and children of such
officers, mariners, solders, and marines, may set up
and exercise such trades as they are apt and able
for in any city, town, or place within this kingdom
without any let, suit, or molestation of any person
or persons whatsoever for or by reason of the using

of such trade."
The words " because of certain by-laws and cus-
toms in those places" appear to be the stumbling
block upon which such diversity of opinion arises,
but when it is remembered that the statute gives a
right to the children of soldiers to carry on trade,
the question presents itself as to what local hin-
drances existed to prevent such children from
carrying. on any trade which any other person
might do ? If the hindrance meant merely the
want of citizenship, the statute would have been
explicit on that point, and yet it is per-
fectly silent on the subject ; and I know of
no other local hindrances to any trades not requir-
ing licenses, except those where the freedom of a
city is necessary to be held by an individual trad-
ing within such city boundary. Is it reasonable to
suppose that an Act of Parliament would have
been passed to enable soldiers and others men-
tioned therein to commence trading without being
citizens ? Surely such could never have been
the intention of any Government, especially
when pressed by the numbers of soldiers
and others dependent for support upon it, and
thrown out of employ immediately the war of 1815
had terminated. In the first section of the 56th
Geerge 111., 67, are these significant words—
" shall not be sued, impleaded, or indicted in any
court whatsoever within this kingdom for using or
exercising any such trades as aforesaid." Whatin-
dictment could lay for any infringement for want of
citizenship ? None. But an indictment could have
been prosecuted for carrying on any prohibited
trade requiring a license, or for non-payment of
governmental rights. If the question rested here, I
do not think any common sense view of the meaning
of Government (bearing in mind its liability and
difficulty to provide for soldiers, &c.) could be so
confined and limited as to narrow the meaning of

the words " by-laws and customs" to mere focal
hindrances ; yet, had this been the intention of the
framers of the statute, it has signally failed, for the
4th section of the 56th Geo. 111., c. 67, enacts—

" See. 4. Provided always that this act shall not
be in anywise prejudicial to the privileges of the
Universities of Cambridge or Oxford, or either of
them, or extend to give liberty to any person to
set up the trade of a vintner, or to sell any wine or
other liquors within the universities, without
license first had and obtained from the Vice-Chan-
cellor of the same respectively."
The exception in this section proves the rule, for
what necessity was there to prescribe the right to
set up the sale " of wine and other liquors" within
the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge without
a license, unless every other place was excluded
from the prohibited " local hindrances ?" Take the
converse of the 4th clause of the statue with a view
to test the correctness of the interpretation put
upon the entire act by several learned magistrates.
Suppose the statute had said any person might
sell "wine and other liquors" within the juris-
diction of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge
could any reasonable mind doubt that it was in-
tended to exclude all other places ? If not, every
fair construction of law and common sense must
mean that " wines and other liquors" may be sold
elsewhere than within the prohibited places. It
may at the present time be highly inconvenient to
grapple with the difficulty, but the privilege does
exist, and 'must be got rid of legally and not by
any strained and straw-splitting construction
which may be forced upon the public.
Why will not those interested in the subject (and
there are thousands) join together and try the ques-
tion? The General Licensing Act, 9th Geo. IV.,
repeals, eo nomine, all other acts of Parliament in
reference to vintners and victuallers, except the
56th Geo. 111., c. 67 ; and as no other statute re-
peals it, as a consequence it is still in force. Apolo-
gising for intruding on your valuable space.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Birmingham, Nov. 16. JOHN SMITH.