At the pressing desire of my tenants, and misled into a belief that my extent of houses would entitle my tenant to a licence as a matter of right, between three and four years since I ordered a publichouse to be built midway on this line, to supply the reasonable wants of the neighbourhood. While I was having it built, I was applied to by several persons, the friends or agents of Messrs. Hanbury the brewers, and Mr. Stables and Williams the spirit dealers.

Who are Messrs. Stables and Williams?-They are both near relatives of Sir Daniel Williams; I have heard Sir Daniel speak of Mr. Stables as his nephew.

Is Mr. Williams his relation too?-I have always understood so.

'How long have they set up the spirit trade?— About five or six years since. I was asked to enter into an engagement with Messrs. Stables and Williams, for the supply of the house, intimating, that if I complied, my house would be immediately licenced, but not otherwise. Conceiving that the wants of the neighbourhood, and my own property there, must ensure a licence for the house without such condition, and being desirous that the house should be a free house, I rejected all these applications. But when the licencing day arrived, in 1813, the house was not even noticed. I then shut up the house for a year, until the licencing in 1814. It was again refused. I shut it up another year, and applied again in 1815, but with no better success. My house still remains unlicenced; and from further applications that have been made to me, and from facts that have come within my own knowledge, independent of general notoriety, I am persuaded that the house will not be licenced, unless I comply with the condition, or previously selling it, or letting it for a term, and much under its value, to Messrs. Hanbury, or use other exceptionable means. In illustration of what I have here asserted, I will name two instances, one of either kind, from among many that may be adduced and proved. In 1813, Mr. Humphreys, now a publican near Stepney, applied to me, and offered to introduce me to a Mr. Stables, who had interest to procure a licence, and would do so if the spirit trade of the house were secured to him; I declined the offer. Mr. Stables, I am informed, is a clerk to the Commissioners of Sewers, a very near relative of Sir Daniel Williams, brought up at his expense, who, about three years previous to this application, under the support of Messrs. Hanbury was set up as a dealer in their bottled porter, and in spirits; in which trade he was shortly afterwards joined by a Mr. Williams, another near relative of Sir Daniel's; they have since met with extraordinary success, as I am informed, among the publicans in Sir Daniel Williams's division. In August last, I spoke to Mr. Robson, a leading magistrate in the Tower Hamlets division, and the confidential friend of Sir Daniel Williams, expressing my hope that a difference which had subsisted between me and the magistrates in that neighbourhood would not be the means of preventing the public-house, of which I was the owner, from being licenced.

6*

Mr. Rob

Mr. Robson said, that as a friend, he would advise me to engage the trade to Messrs. Hanbury and Co., for that it was expected the magistrates wished to serve them. Seeing that it was in vain to contend against this issue, I therefore offered to sell the house to Messrs. Hanbury for what it cost me out of pocket, without interest, or to let it to them on a long lease, at a rent yielding me between 51. and 61. per cent. interest on what the house cost building with this they seemed willing to close. I then went to Mr. Robson, at the Whitechapel-office, where he was sitting with Mr. Rice Davies, and told him what I had done, and that I conceived my offer to be accepted. Upon this Mr. Robson expressed his satisfaction, and intimated there would be no difficulty in licencing the house; he freely stated that three of them (whom I understood to be Sir Daniel Williams, Mr. Merceron, and Mr. Robson) met previous to the licencing day, when they predetermined what houses should be licenced and he added, "if necessary, our friend here (Mr. Rice Davies) will attend." He then proceeded to explain to Mr. Davies the necessity of licencing the house; its remoteness from any other public-house; the very great number of new and inhabited houses around it; the large property I had on the spot, and the circumstance that I had taken down an old public-house, the Marquis of Granby, on the same estate in the Mile-end Road, where public-houses were too crowded, while in Whitehorse-lane, the situation of the new house, there was not one: so that the public were greatly benefited by the exchange of place, and obliged to Mr. Beaumont; and he, Mr. Robson, particularly desired that the circumstance of my having pulled the old public-house down should be mentioned in the memorial for licencing the new one. Mr. Davies concurred in all that was said, promised to attend if necessary, and added, it would be a great shame if, holding so much property on the spot, I could not get a house licenced. On the following day, I saw Sir Daniel Williams, and stated to him the terms on which I had offered to part with the house to Messrs. Hanbury, remarking, that I should still löse the interest of my money for three years. Sir Daniel entered with seeming zeal into the argument for licencing the house, and observed that it was no bad thing to get my principal back. few days before the licencing, Messrs. Hanbury declined taking the house on the terms offered, saying, that an inferior house would be more to their interest. On Monday the 18th of September the justices met on the business of licencing; present, Sir Daniel Williams, Mr. Rhode, Mr. Story, Mr. Merceron, Mr. Robson, Mr. Windle, Mr. Flood, Mr. Mashiter. The licencing was opposed by Sir Daniel Williams and Mr. Robson, in which they were followed by Messrs Merceron, Flood, Windle, and Mashiter, who usually vote with them, as I am informed and believe. Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Story appealing strongly against the decision, were shortly answered by Mr. Robson, that it was a better house than necessary, and perhaps never would be licenced. The connection here evinced, between these magistrates and Messrs. Hanbury, is made no secret of by the agents of the latter: I had

X 2

A

I had heard it freely avowed by them. At a licencing meeting in 1814, a Mr. Ventom, the broker of Messrs. Hanbury, was introduced to me by Mr. Hubbard, a lieutenant in the Tower Hamlets Militia, saying, "This is the gentleman to get your house licenced;" Ventom said, it would be licenced directly, if I gave Messrs. Hanbury the trade; and in answer to a question, added, "Messrs. Hanbury would not of course be at the expence and trouble of using their influence with the justices, unless the trade were made sure to them."

Does Major Jackson act in that division? - He does.

'Does he take any part with Mr. Williams and others in licencing? Yes, he does; they occasionally differ when there is a collision of interests; but in general he gives way to Sir Daniel Williams; he has a nephew who set up in the spirit trade.

Do you state it distinctly to the Committee as your opinion, that in the case which you have just laid before them, if you had sold your house to Messrs. Hanbury, or engaged to take their spirits and liquors, there would have been no difficulty whatever in obtaining the licence? - I am thoroughly persuaded of that.'

6

any

Sir D. Williams declares that he does not recollect such conversation,' and denies having heard that terms were proposed for the parting with the house; adding that he has very little intercourse with Mr. Beaumont.' (P. 168.) The Rev. Edward Robson acknowleges (p. 235.) the application by Mr. Beaumont, but positively denies that he recommended him to give the trade to Messrs. Hanbury and Co. He also denies that he advocated in the presence of Mr. Davies the licencing of the house, and adds, Indeed I always blamed Messrs. Hanbury's house for having any dealings with him at all.' It seems obvious that a prejudice prevailed against Mr. Beaumont, which is rendered more clear by the Rev. Magistrate's evidence, given in no very elegant strain. The charge, however, made by Mr. Robson against Mr. Beaumont, and so unnecessarily introduced before the Committee, is rebutted in a most satisfactory manner by the latter gentleman; who, in his subsequent evidence, exposes the conduct of these magistrates of the Tower Hamlets division, and accounts for the differences subsisting between him and them: but we have not room to quote the details. If half of the facts here stated be true, and we see no reason for doubting the truth of them, ample room exists for reformation in this district. A few more instances will farther prove the necessity.

William Stocker, who held The Admiral Vernon publichouse in Bethnal Green for five years, under Mr. Merceron, a licencing magistrate, was refused his licence without any complaint being made against his house; because, as he was told by the clerk of the Court, he held the estate over in contempt,' that is to say, because in fact he had refused an appli

cation by Mr. Merceron to give up his house to another man, who at the same time gained a licence for a house that had not been licenced before, on the opposite side of the way, about five doors off. (P. 110.) Stocker also purchased the lease of a house in Bethnal Green, but was told afterward by Mr. Merceron that, unless he paid 100l. to the ground-landlord for his interest for the licence, he could do nothing; and this ground-landlord was no other than Mr. Whitling, the surveyor for Mr. Hanbury's brewhouse. (P. 111.)

Joseph Huxen built a public-house, The Lord Hood, and strained every nerve for six years and upwards' to get it licenced, without effect. He was then recommended to apply to Messrs. Trueman and Hanbury, who at last said that, if he would enter into an agreement to give them a lease of the premises, they had no objection to try what they could do. He then consented to give them a lease for 21 years, they covenanting to grant him an under-lease, with a condition to deal with them.' The house was not even then licenced, and the poor fellow was obliged to mortgage it to them for 250l. Still it was not licenced. Some time afterward, they told him that they must have the mortgage-money within two months, or they must sell the house to pay themselves. He then pro

ceeds thus:

Accordingly I advised with a person, who turned out to be their attorney, Mr. Thomson, the licencing clerk, and he persuaded me to leave it to their generosity to do as they pleased; accordingly I did, so they agreed to give me 700l. for it, and in two months after that it was licenced, and they said if it was licenced they would give me something more. When I went to apply, Mr. Aveling said, Why you have soon found out it is licenced now; I said, Yes, I had; I said you promised a something more, I hope you will be as good as your word now; he said, That is another consideration; the fact is, you sold us the house, and we have sold the house again to liquor-merchants, in the city, Messrs. Stables and Williams. I had a house joining, a little house I had built, as I had leisure time to do it, and they wished for this house; this was not a freehold house, but a lease I had taken (having bought this lot of ground, and then thinking there was not sufficient ground) from a friend of mine, who had bought the other ground; they would not give me any thing, unless I would sell them that house alongside of it.

'Did you do that?—I did.

What did you get for the whole?—They gave me 250l. for that.

6

Did Mr. Hanbury's clerk ever call upon you and solicit your orders for spirits, for Messrs. Stables and Williams?—Yes, Mr. Hanbury's clerk called, and left a card of Messrs. Stables and Williams; I believe he is a relation, and that he is in the distilhouse now.'

From William Simpson's equivocating and unwilling testimony, we collect that he built a public-house, and was constantly refused for three or four years in his applications for a licence; that he was at last successful; and that he then put the house in Messrs. Hanbury's trade. (P. 130.) Mr. Gifford elucidates this fact by proving that a clause was inserted in the tenant's lease, compelling him to buy his beer of that house for 14 years. (P. 329.)

6

A public-house called The Globe was rebuilt at an expence of 2000l. by Mr. Thomas Harrison, who was refused a licence: but it was granted in the next year, on his entering into an engagement that Messrs. Hanbury and Co. should serve the house seven years.' (P. 149.)

William Crush applied during five years for a licence for a house which he was induced to buy by the encouragement of the Rev. Mr. Robinson, (is this a mis-print for Robson?) whom he solicited before he purchased the house in the shell: but he was disappointed in a manner that shews so clearly the connection between the magistrates and the brewers, that we shall extract a part of his evidence:

When I got it finished, I made application for a licence. I tried in September, I forget the date, and it was not obtained. I then took another public-house, and that was shut up for fifteen months. I then tried again on the following September; the licence was not obtained then, the reason was, because I did not live in it: I went and I lived in it, and tried again the following September, and made sure of it from the encouragement that I had met with from the magistrates, for I attended them all; I had a list of their names, they all gave me good encouragement, and as I was living in the house I fully expected the licence; however it was not obtained: I tried again on the following September, and I then made personal application to more of the magistrates of the Tower Hamlets, and they all encouraged me very much; I waited upon Mr. Jackson in particular; he was a gentleman that pretended to be my friend, and recommended me; I told him I was reducing my circumstances by living there, and that I must be obliged to sell it; he recommended me not to sell it, and asked me who was my brewer; I told him, from being out of business I had no brewer in particular; I told him I had made application to Mr. Calvert's house for their assistance; he told me I had done wrong, and that I should have gone to Mr. Hanbury. "Sir," said I, "I have been to Mr. Hanbury, and likewise to Mr. Aveling, and Mr. Hanbury seemed not to wish to have any thing to do with it, unless the house was his in toto.” He said, "You must go to him again, and give my compliments to him, and tell him he must interfere, and the house must be licenced." I accordingly went to Mr. Hanbury again, and I delivered the message from Mr. Jackson to Mr. Aveling, who said, he had no disposition to have any thing to do with it. I then went to another magistrate, whose name I do not recollect, who said he had nothing to do with it.

"The