The Argus at KellyGang 30/8/1882
THE POLICE COMMISSION
The Commission having of late received a number of anonymous letters which stated that borrowing money from publicans was a common practice with some police officers, determined to inquire into the matter. Accordingly, at their sitting yesterday, they examined a large number of publicans on the subject. Mr Dixon occupied the chair, and Messrs Fincham and Hall were also present.
The witnesses examined included Mr H Edwards, of the White Hart Hotel, Messrs Young and Jackson, of the hotel in Flinders street which bears their name, Mr Joseph Billin of Cleal's hotel, Swanston street, Mr James Tierney, of the Glasgow Arms, Elizabeth street; Mr Edward Hynes, of the Devon and Cornwall Hotel, Little Latrobe street; and Mr Stephen Stapleton, of the Harp of Erin, Queen street. The chairman cleverly led each witness on to the subject the commission wanted evidence about by putting questions in the first instance, as to the Licensing Act and the Sunday trading question, then gradually introducing the question of the financial relations which existed between police officers and publicans.
The witnesses were cautioned against giving their statements to the press, and in addition they are as a rule afraid to state publicly what they said in private lest the police officers concerned should prosecute them for Sunday trading. We are, however, in a position to give the effect of their evidence. They were all agreed that it was impossible to stop Sunday trading. The public, they said, insisted on being served on Sundays, and if one publican closed his doors on that day his customers would go to another house, and he would ultimately lose them. They suggested that they should be allowed to open their bars at stated hours on Sundays-say, two hours in the forenoon, two in the afternoon, and two in the evening. One deposed that in his opinion, the Licensing Act was not a publicans act at all. He called it a landlords act, because it licensed the house and not the tenant.
The landlord had in consequence power to ask a bonus from the tenant every time the lease expired. This was the reason that leases generally were only from three to five years. The tenant had therefore to put forth an effort to gain £50 or £100 in addition to his ordinary receipts, so that he might be able to pay the landlord's bonus at the expiry of the lease. If he did not pay the bonus the landlord would turn him out, and go in himself, letting the house afterwards to whoever gave him the most money. The landlord did not care how his house was kept afterwards, because if his new tenant proved to be a very bad character the police would step in and compel him to sell out, whereupon the house was open for another tenant, and, as a consequence, the landlord received another bonus. The publican had, in consequence of the high rent, bonuses, and uncertain tenure, to allow in many cases conduct in his house which he would prohibit were he licensed instead of the house. He had then to come to terms with the police, and if he could possibly bring them under an obligation he did so. The members of the Licensed Victuallers' Association were the best judges as to whom licences should be transferred, and that body could best manage the liquor trade.
At present the publicans were altogether in the hands of the land- lords and the police. Each witness was asked if he had ever bribed the police officers, and the answer was invariably in the negative. They were then asked if they had ever lent money, franked bottles of liquor, or given free dinners to police officers. At least three of them admitted that they had lent money to certain officers, and one said he had given an officer bottles of liquor on credit, but that they were generally paid for. One said that about 12 months ago he lent Sub inspector Lamer £13 on a promissory note. The understanding was that he was to present the promissory note at a bank two months afterwards, and he did so, but the note was dishonoured. The bank officials stated that there were no funds to meet it. As the publican could not get the money back in the ordinary way, he handed the bill to a friend for collection, and all he ever received out of it was £2. Another witness deposed that two years ago he lent Sub inspector Larner £5, which was to have been repaid in three days, but he had not seen either the money or the borrower since. He also lent £1 to a constable who had left the force. A third witness said that Sub inspector Larner borrowed small sums from him until they amounted to £1 and then wrote him about a dozen letters on the subject, but did not refund the money until a few weeks ago. He had also obliged Superintendent Winch with small sums amounting in all to about £5, but in this case he was always duly repaid, although his books might not show that such had been the case.
The commission sit again today, when further evidence of the same nature will be sought for.
| ! | The text has been retyped from a microfiche copy of the original. We have taken care to reproduce this document but areas of the original text may been damaged. |
