In 18th century urban Middlesex (i.e. London outside the City walls)
licenses were often transferred during the year. (I think but haven't the
reference handy that the Brewster sessions were in September). The
willingness of justices to grant such transfers was constantly cited as
evidence of corruption and was probably illegal. I have evidence suggestive
of the practice of constantly adjourning the Brewster sessions so as to make
granting new licences legal, but this in itself was alleged to be corrupt.
The sort of justices who get accused of corruption of this sort were usually
in other sorts of trouble/feuds anyway.
Speculative builders of course wanted to grant licences to premises on/near
their developments since this made renting the new houses out much easier.
Some of them had close ties with justices and some were justices themselves.
I suspect therefore that in practice licences could be transferred at will
and that the only problem would be if the local power structure was diffuse
(as in London) or the local justices were of relatively lowly social status
(as in some small corporate towns) and offered realistic possibilities of
challenge. Such challenges might be associated with licences granted in
connection with an upcoming election.
Regards
Ruth
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/200 - Release Date: 14/12/2005
|