Star.
London, England, 1819-03-31 00:00:00

with,- and did not possess the means of defraying—
(hear, hear.)—The Honourable Baronet said, that he
should not now enlarge upon the shameful and arbi-
trary power exercised by Licensing Marittrates: all
he should at present move was, that this Petition be
brought up, and that the evidence of the Brewere
Committee, which sat on a former occasion, and'
which he believed had not hitherto been printed, be
now printed, and laid before the House, in order to
give it an opportunity of ascertaining the state a the
law, and of facts connected with this subject.
The Petition was then brought up and read ; it
was from a person of the name of Hooper, who stat-
ed himself to have formerly kept the public-house
called the Rising Sun, Castle-street, Plymouth; that
the transaction took place in 1813, and that the debt
which was incurred by the other individual was so
incurred during his absence in Cork. It concluded
by stating, that the Petitioner had not the money to
enable him to undertake a suit against a Bench of
Justices, and praying that his case, and the grievances
occasioned by the licensing system, might be taken
into consideration.
On the question that it lie on the table,
Mr. WYNN said, that he really thought the pro.
per place to have applied to, in this business, was a
Court of Law—(Hear, hear!) If the facts stated in
the Petition were proved, a Court of Law could not
hesitate for one moment to grant an information
against the Magistrate. At the same time that he
perfectly agreed, that such a circumstance having
taken place, it might be a fair subject for application
to Parliament, as a case of oppression and grievance,
yet the idea of examining into, with a view of visit-
ing the Magistracy, was, on the part of that House,
quite out of the question. The remedy was with a
Court of Law.
Mr. HUME was very anxious that that Petition
should lie upon the table, in order that the House
might know a few of the abuses that tock place un-
der the licensing system—abuses of which he himself
was well aware. Ile should call upon the House
some time or other, he hoped very soon, to prevent
various shameful occurrences, which, however, daily
took place under that system—(Wear, hear!) The
power of granting licenses was at present quite in the
breast of the Magistrate, on whose consideration of
the applications their fate depended. They could
give or withhold licenses, merely because they might
think so or so. The Honourable Member then al-
luded to the case of a former Petition, of a similar
nature, which was from Bristol ; and contended that
they both went to prove the mischiefs and grievances
of the present licensing system.
Sir JOHN OSBORN thought the Petitioner should
have applied to a Court of Law.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY begged to remind the Ho-
nourable Member, that the Petitioner had expressly
stated, that he was not in possession of money suffi-
cient to enable him to commence legal proceedings.
Such was his allegation.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, that the two peti-
tions on this subject were of a very different charac-
ter. The one which had been lately alluded to, was
of a private mature; but the other (the one before
them) related to a great public grievance, of which
the facts detailed in that petition were a sample. The
object for the House's consideration was the chain of
circumstances connected with that grievance, arising
from a power which the House, as he thought, had
very unwisely confided to the Magistrates: and surely
this involved an object of the greatest importance to
the happiness and comfort of the great body of the
people. A tax of lid. was levied upon every pot of
beer that was consumed by them, arising entirely
from this arbitrary system of licensing—(hear). Ile
hoped, therefore, there would be no objection to re-
ceiving th it petition. He was informed that the
amount of the tax so levied upon the community was
no less th in £850,000, without any benefit to that
community, but that it went into the pockets of the
great monopolizing brewers. It was calculated that
the total value of the consumption of that article
(beer) was 04,000,000 annually. The tax was felt,
therefore, among all classes of people, but affected
one class above all others, whom it was manifestly
desirable it should least operate upon—(hear).
Mr. WYNN wished to ask, whether the former pe-
tition, which had been mentioned. was rejected ?
Sir JOHN OSBORN replied that it was. It was
from Bristol.
Mr. BROUGHAM moved, that the further consi-
deration on this subject be adjourned till to-morrow.
The SPEAKER re-stated the original question,
since which it had been moved that the debate be
adjourned until to-morrow.
Mr. HUME hoped that the Petition would heal-
lowed to lie on the table.
The Hon. GEORGE LAMB considered that a
question arose upon the prayer of the Petition. Was
it or was it not the same as the former one ? If it
was in effect a similar one, then, indeed, Gentlemen
on the other side might meet the Petitioner by telling
him that his remedy was with a Court of Law : but
if it was of another description, not merely praying
for his own remedy, but for a general remedy of
grievances, it was decidedly different, and was to be
viewed in another way—(Hear).—He submitted that
the Petition was for a general remedy of grievances,
and ought therefore to lie upon the table; that it was
to be considered on its own merits and on its own
grounds; that being for a general remedy of the
Law, it was a fit Petition for the consideration of
the House—(Hear, hear).
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
the Petitioner ought unquestionably. to go to a Court
of Law.
Mr.BR.OUGHAM wished to observe, that the prayer
of the Petition was for relief. Now, in answer to what
had fallen from an Honourable Gentleman (Mr.
Wynn), that relief the Petitioner could not obtain
from a Court of Law. He might move for a crimi-
nal information to be filed against the party, but then
his circumstances were such, as had been stated.—
What relief could he obtain by applying to the Court
of King's Bench? None : it could not give it him.
He ha therefore applied for relief to that House.—
He was not, for one, disposed to go the length of '
saying, that the House should never receive a Pe.,
tition from the Subject, where he might' have his re-
medy in a Court of Law. That would be too strict,
a course of proceeding ; and there were many cases
in which the deficiency of the law might render an
application to that House necessary.
Mr. WYNN acknowledged that particular circum-
moos might warrant a different course; bqt be