Star.
London, England, 1822-04-18 00:00:00

PUBLIC-HOUSE LICENSES.

!i4

Mr. TIERNEY held in his hand a Petition from
the Landholders of Maidenhead, in Berkshire, and its
vicinity, con:plaining of Agricultural Distress. This
they traced, in their particular case, to the absence of a
free trade in beer. The Petitioners were barley
growers, and had formerly an adequate demand for
their produce. This had now failed them, in conse-
quen-e of all the public-houscs in their neighbour-
hood having been bought up by certain great
brewers. The Petitioners, ascribing the falling off
in the demand for barley to the cause he had men-
tioned, seemed to have taken up the idea that malt
had but little to do with the making of the beer fur-
nished by the !newels of %, horn they complained.—
The beer, they contended, was very bad in quality,
but the publicans could not help themselves, as from
the license being granted not to the seder of the beer,
but to the boils,. in which it was sold, they could not
go to brewers who were not their landlords. The Pe-
titioners were of opinion that much good would re-
sult from granticg the iicen-e to the publican instead
of giving it to the house he inhabited, so that, if fur-
nished with a bad commodity, he might shift his
house and carry his license with him. The subject,
the Right Hon. Gentleman said, appeared to him well
entitled to the attention of the House.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said some inconvenience would
be occasioned by making licenses merely personal, as
it was the duty of the Magistrates to regulate the
number of public-houses according to the wants of
the neighbourhood. If a public-house were wanted
in one place, it by no means followed that one was
wanted in another part of the same district ; but by
making the license personal, the publican if he pleased
could remove it from the place where he was wanted,
and establish himself where there was one public-
house already, and where two was not necessary.
Mr. GRENFELL remarked, the Petitioners did
not wish t, interfere with the authority of the Magis-
trates. What they desired was, that the license should
be granted in the name of the publican, rather than
to the house in which he lived. They wished for this,
that if the brewer sent him bad beer, he might right
himself by carrying his license to another house.
Mr. C. W W YNN explained, and repeated in sub-
stance what lie had before stated, but added, that per-
haps the difficulty might be met by enabling the Ma-
Fistrates :o grant a license to an individual, restrict-
ing the use of it to certain limits.
Sir R. WILSON suggested that it might be well
to grant no licenses to houses that were in the occu-
pation of brewers.
Mr. BENNET earnestly begged that Gentlemen
would not run away with an idea that this subject
was one which could easily be disposed of. There
was great difficulty in it. He proposed shortly to
bring in, with some alterations, a Bill which had for-
merly been before Parliament,' but which had been
lost in another place, to re-cast the whole of the exist-
ing laws with respect to licenses and public-houses.
Mr. BROUGHAM could not but rejoice to learn
that it was the intention of his Hon. Friend to bring
forward that Bill which he had stated to have been
formerly lost in another place. lie did not recollect
the provisions contained in the Bill to which allusion
had been made, but he was sure the law with respect
to licenses required revision. The objections urged
against the present system, were not confined to per-
sons who were not Magistrates. He knew that many
of that most respectable body were anxious that the
system should be changed. Some mention had been
made of the great discretionary power granted to
the licensing Justices. That power was not only liable
to abuse, and was abused, but it was further to be
complained of on account of the mistakes—of the
errors in. judgment which accompanied its exercise.
The wilful abuse of the discretionary power might
be rare, but the mi ,takes were frequent. He believed
the Magistrates, with a view of preventing disorder,
were too pone to restrict the number of licenses
granted in one neighbourhood. By confining them
to a few, they produced the evils usually occasioned
by monopoly, which were in many instances worse
than those against which it was their object to guard.
The brewer sent bad beer to the Publican, and in con-
sequence of this, the labourer, from the badness of
the beer, was led to the use of pernicious spirits.—
The princii le to which he had alluded was too much
acted upon by the Magistrates, and the tendency of
it was that which he had described.
in was ordered to be printed.
CA THOLIC PEERS.

presented a Petition from the Synod of
Ayr, against the propo,ition for admit-
Peer) to sit in Pad iieunent, involved in
which his Right lion. Ft iend (Mr. Can-

-

Pnin4) had given notice, for admitting. Catholic Peers
to sot in the House of Lord& While on his legs, he
'thought it right to state that the sense of the House
-*mold certainly be taken on the first proposition, in
connection with that subject, when it came before them.
Mr. TIERNEY thought it premature in the Peti-
tiotters to come forward on the present occasion to
lecture that House on the course which they ought to
Pursue on a question that was not yet before them.
No measure like that intended to be introduced could
be passed without being a considerable time before
the House, and it was rather too much that these Glas-
gow Gentlemen should thus step forward to oppose
such a measure merely on notice of a motion.
Mr. PEEL could not help remarking, that when a
Petition came before the Howe which was not pre-
sented from the other side of it, a vast deal of acute-
ness was manifesed by the Gentlemen opposite in dis-
covering objectionable points. The present Petitioners
had addressed the House in very respectful terms.—
They had forwarded it to him with a wish that he
should present it, and as it was notorious that a motion
of the nature described in it was to be submitted to
the House, he could not think it was at all imperti-
nent in them to exercise the right of petitioning Par-
liansent,
,as they had done on this occasion.
Mr. HUME denied that those who sat on the Op-
position benches were in the habit of objecting to
Petitions introduced on the other side of the House,
and challenged the Right Hon. Gentleman to state
in what instances this had been done. He regretted
that such a Petition should have been forwarded from
Scotland—that those who enjoyed so much religious
freedom themselves should oppose the extension of
this blessing to others.. Re could not but think that
a Petition like this, dictated by gross bigotry, and
evincing as much bad taste as bad feeling and intole-
rance, was disgraceful to those who had framed it.
Sir T. LETHBIUDGE was only surprised that
more Petitions had not been presented against that
measure, which was shortly to be submitted to their
consideration. He thought it was desirable that the
most serious attention should be paid to it. He would
venture to say, that if the motion of which notice
had been given were carried, and in consequence
Catholic Peers admitted to sit in the other House of'
Parliament, the result would be, the whole of that
question would be carried by a side wind, and in that
case he, for one, was of opinion that the whole Bri-
tish Constitution would be changed.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

The retina
.11 •
Glasr. goPwEaEntiL,
ting Catholic
the motion of