The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-08-30 00:00:00

he proceedings excited

ioia of_ Liverpool,

bservations
nenced. It had been
he Licensed Victuallers'

the town

igistrates would

not grant any additional licences. Now, on the present
occasion theLicensedVictuallers'Associadon did not intend
to take this course ; and their reasons for this step were of
a two-fold character. The first was, that a select committee

of the House of Commons had been appointed during the
last session, on the motion of one of that honourable bench,
to inquire into the whole of the laws relating to public-
houses and beer-houses ; and although a great mass of
evidence had been adduced before such committ(

port had yet been presented ; and, pending the presents•
tion of the committee's report, the Licensed Victuallers
Association of Liverpool did not now in*

part in a subject which it must be
come a vexatio questio ; nor did they

dmitted was be-

on the other hand

intend to take a-step by which it 1

lit appear that they

selfishly desired to oppose the

Indeed, this latter
on the ground of
why the association

masse, or to individuals in particular.
course they had never pursued, except
public morality. The second re

aid not intend to do either the one or ti

other was this

that the witness who was deputed by the association to
give evidence before the select committee offered it as the
grave and deliberate opinion of the society that the juris-
diction for the granting of licenses was wisely vested in
the magistrates ' • that the modus operandi could not be
' improved • and that, in fact, a tribunal more free from
objection had never even been suggested by any one.
Of that evidence he would only say, that, while it
elicited the admiration of those with
in accordance, it extorted an express
some members of the committee who
view which the witness took of the
therefore, deliberately recorded in parliament their opi.
nions the association, on this occasson, was perfectly willing
to leave the entire matter in the hands of the magistrates
feeling sure that they would exercise a wise and im-
partial discretion, and that justice to the public on the
one hand, and the interests of individuals on the other,
would be consulted by the bench in the decisions at which
they might arrive.

views it was

spect fror

.e opposed to the
estion. Having,

The applications were then proceeded wit'
td Kirkdale ward, in which there were 29 a
!big taken first.
Amongst other applications,

Everton

Mr. SNOWBALL appeared in support of one by a widow
namdd Sarah Connolly, for a licence to a house at the
bottom of St. George's-hill, Netherfield-road, Everton.
Mr. Snowball stated that Mrs. Connolly had kept a pub-
lic house in Crooked-lane for a period of 35 years, and
that the house having been burnt down, she had
taken another house in Netherfield-road, Everton. The
application was rather for a removal than for a new
licence, and he hoped the bench would not refuse the
application.

- Mr. SNownALL supported an application by Mr. Jesse
Ming for a license to a house in Roscommon-street. Mr.
Ming was at present manager at the Merehnuts' Dining-
rooms, Tithebarn-street. •

In answer to a question from Mr. ADAM HODGSON, the
applicant admitted that it was not his present intention to
give up his situation as manager of the Merchants' Dining-

rooms,

Mr. SNOWBALL said he might explain, with reference to
the question which had just been put by the magistrate,
that Mr. Ming was, happily, a married man, and had a
wife who was a capital manager. (Laughter.) Mr. Ming's
duties at the Merchants' Dining-rooms would terminate
between five and six o'clock in the afternoon, and he
would therefore be at liberty to manage the house in Ros-
common-street during the whole of the evening, when his
services would be the most required.
Mr. ROBERTSON GLADSTONE, as one who was in favour
of the trade being thrown open to the public, wished to
explain that he was opposed to any person having a licence
who was not prepared to manage the house in person. He
would not sanction the duties being performed by either
father, wife, son, or any other deputy.
Mr. SNOWBALL, in supporting an application by Joseph
Holliday, for a licence to a house in Derby-road, Kirkdale,
referred at some length to the observations made by Mr.
Bremner at the commencement of the proceedings, and de-
nounced them as improper. The learned gentleman was
proceeding to complain of what he called the improper in-
terference of the body styling itself the Licensed Victual-
lers' Association, when

The MAYOR stated that each case must stand upon its
own merits, and independently of the Licensed Victual-
lers' Association

Mr. SNOWBALL, in continuation, said that althoug
association said that they did not come forward to oppose
the granting of licences, yet no one could say, from the
speech of Mr. Bremner, that that was not the case. The
truth was that their object was a monopoly, and he was in
a position to prove that they had raised the value of
a licence from 5.:200 to £430.

Mr. BREMNE denied the construction which Mr.
Snowball had put upon the observations which he (Mr. B.)
had addressed to the bench.

Mr. SNOWBALL insisted that Mr. Bremner's speech was
an endeavour to prevail upon the magistrates not to grant
any more licenses. Now, the licensed victuallers' body,
as they called themselves, were not, in fact, licensed vic-
tuallers in the proper sense of that term. One half of
them were persons who merely sold a glass of gin over
the counter. Such people as these were not licensed
victuallers, for a licensed victualler was a person who was
in the habit of selling to the public something to eat. Mr.
Snowball repeated that this association did not appear in
that court for the benefit of the public and society, but
their object in coming forward was to raise the value of
licenses, and thus sustain their own monopoly. Mr. Snow-
ball was proceeding in his animadversions on the Licensed
Victuallers' Association, when

The MAYOR desired him to confine himself to the
application.
Mr. SNOWBALL then supported Mr. Holliday's applica-
tion, on the ground that he had built a really substantial
house, and now he wished to have a license granted to it.
Mr. BREMNER supported an application made by Mr.
James Molloy for a license to a house in Rake-lane, Kirk-
dale. In the course of his remarks he denied Mr. Snow-
ball's statements, that he was present with a view of
opposing new licenses; on the contrary, he was present
for the purpose of supporting several applications.
The MAYOR here remarked that the time of the court
could not be wasted with such a discussion. _ _

Mr. BREMNER said he hoped the court would not
accuse him of having provoked it. Mr. Bremner having
stated the grounds on which Molloy made the application,
Mr. BRETHERTON opposed the application, alleging that
the applicant was a trafficer in licenses.
The whole of the applications in Everton and Kirkdale
Ward having been gone through, the magistrates retired
for the purpose of considering their decision. On return-
ing into court, _

The MAvoti said he had to announce that a licence was
granted to William Dunbar, of Breck-road, and to Sarah
Connolly.of St. George's-hill, Everton. The rest were re-