Star.
London, England, 1816-09-19 00:00:00

.

•
the other parishi4ners Ilia Written SM IA this '
sure wail presented to the Magistrates do.
What was your answer to Sir Daniel Williams,
when hoz told you the Magistrates had determined to
grant Basses to those Ir•usest—l said, " Sir Daniel,
may we not be permitted to attend you personally at
the Court-house ?' At that moment Mr. Thurwell
came up, and he immediately exclaimed, " Mr.
Fletcher, you are acting a most indecent, improper,
and unbecoming part what right have you to inter-
fere with the Magistrates You are not a Magi-
strate!" I immediately said to Sir Daniel, without
at all replying to Mr. Thurwell, " Sir Daniel, have
I acted an indecent, improper, or unbecoming pant I"
He replica. "Certainly not to me, Sir, certainly not."
He appeared very much agitated, and crossed the
street, and put his hand against the door of the Duke
of York, as if*he was going to open it. Mr. Merce-
Ison took him by the hand, and said. " Come along.
we have determined the case." This passed in the
public street, where we were surrounded by prosti-
tutes and the pesiple wham we were endeavouring to
check. The landlord of the Duke of York came out,
and said to one 4.f our Overseers, " We have settled
the business very pleasantly, hope." The Magi-
strates walked on.
On the 19th of Septemb-r, did the Parish Officers
attend the Magistrates I—They did.
Who were present on that day of the Magistrates?
7-Many more than I knew; but Sir DanieliVilliams
was in the chair ; Mr. Merceron was there, Luke
Flood, Mr. Markland, Mr. Storey, and I think Mr.
Raynsford was present, and a number of others,
about 18 or 20 in the whole.
Did you tequest to be sworn as to the facts you
were going to state did.
Were you sworn ?--Sit Daniel Williams said," we
do not choose to swear you."
Was any thing said about your memorial ?—Yes.
Did they acknowledge the receipt of that menus
tial I—They did : when Sir D.4niel Wiliimns had
said that the Magistrates did not see fit to swear me,
and desired me to state what I had to allege against

the boosts in question.
What houses were those ?—The King's Arms, the
Black Horse, the Angel, and the Ship. * •
Did you memorial against ti,ose houses for their
bad conduct ?—We did, and we were desirous of
connecting their conduct (which was quite as bad)
with the houses which had been shut up, which were
the same pasties truing under different names.
How do you ktiow that -- By the communication
that was made to the Churchwardens And the Com•
mittee ; the detail would be long. or else it would
clearly elucidate the connexion.
Were you and the otner parish officers satisfied in
your own minds, that they were in p 'inc of fact the
same parties as kept the twiner houses ?—As kept
the former house. the Duke of York. certainly ; and
we told the Magistrates we had evidence to substan-
tiate our charge.
Did you offer that evidence to the Magistrates ?
We did.—Did they take it ? They refused U.
Did they assign any reason for so refusing it, and
what reason ?--Sir 1) laid Willi.ams said 1 could
be heard. unless I confileJ mvscif strictly to the me-
morial diets before them, that the other business had
been disposed of.
Did you understand theM to say by that, that the
Duke of York having been already licensed, no evi-
dence could then be received against the conduct of
the keeper of that house ?—I understood they would
Trot suffer us to connect the Duke of York with the
King's Arms, which Was the subject we bad to bring
before the Magistrates, sad they seemed desirous to

prevent it.
Are the Duke of Yr).lc and Paviours' Arms now
kept by the same persons against whom the original
complaint was made, and for whose misconduct they
were shut up ?--They are, and have been from the
time of their being opened.
Those houses, then, in ISIS were ihnt up for mis.
conduct ?—They were.
They were opened again, and kept by the same
parties, in the year 1814 ?—They were.
What has been their conduct since ?—As bad or
worse than before. The Duke of York has been
changed in appearance ; the dancing•rooin has been
shut up, and changed into a gin•shop, and the prosti-
tutes are going in by shoals all day long.
Are scenes of drunkenness, riot, and debauchery,
constantly practised ?—I cannot speak to what has
been done in the house, because on the former occa-
sion we received insults and ill usage, and have been
thus deterred by menaces and threats from going
there again.
Did you make any complaint on the Sth of Sep.
ten*: 18 la, against those houses ?—We did not.
Why did you refrain, knowing that the same
scenes against which you had before complained, at
that time existed ?..-Knowing it externally, and hav-
ing every evidence of it, the true reason why we did
not complain was, that our former complaint sad
ourselves had been treated with so much contempt,
that we considered any further application useless
and unavailing.
Can you state to the Committee any reason for
this conduct on the part of the licensing Magistrates?
....No further than as matter of opinion that there is
that which perhaps I am hardly justified in saying, a
conviction which cannot be proved, that it appears
to me there was some connexion between some of the
Magistrates and the Brewers who were connected
with those houses.
Can you state to the Committee what brewers and
distillers either served or were proprietors of those
houses ?—Meux and Co. served the Duke of York,
and Calvert's house the White Hart, I think; I
really do not know who served thrPaviour's Arms,
but we had a variety of communications with the
representatives of Messrs. Meuz and Co.
To what effect ?—They came down to request that
we would sanction the re-opening of the Duke of
York ; first, that we would sanction the re-opening
of the King's Arms. The persons who presented
themselves before us were the bar-maid of the Dike
of York, and an uncertificated bankrupt.
Can you state whether the principal officers of the
parish, and all or most of the principal inhabitants,
consider those' houses neither more nor less than
public nuisances 3—l de ; and a great number of the
most respectable inhabitants were attending the Ma.
gistrafes on each of the days above mentioned ; and
*re is likewise, which could be laid before the
Committee, the paper which was printed and circa-
fated by the ditection of thelfestti.—(To is coitinasi)