§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home 1766 Department, Whether the consent of the Government to the passage through this House of "The Beer Dealers' Retail Licences Act, 1882," was or was not given in the belief that the provisions of that Act would apply to renewals as well as to original grants of licence; whether he is aware that, since the decision of the Queen's Bench Division in "Regina v. Kay" cases have occurred in which magistrates have refused, without giving any reasons, to renew licences granted recently before the passing of the Act by their own Bench; and, whether the Government intend to propose any alteration of the state of the Law which admits of such an exercise of magisterial discretion?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not aware that the Government ever expressed any belief as to whether the provisions of the Act would apply to renewals as well as to original grants of licences. The Queen's Bench Division of the High Court has decided in the case of "Regina v. Kay" that the Act does apply to renewals. But since that decision it has been settled by the Queen's Bench in "Regina v. Schneider" that the discretion of the Justices is a judicial one, and must not be arbitrarily exercised. It is open to Quarter Sessions to overrule Justices who may have acted harshly towards applicants for renewals.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYI do not want the opinion the Government would express. I want the opinion they entertained. They must have had some opinion upon the matter when they consented to pass the Act.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he did not think the Government could be held responsible for an opinion which they did not express.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYThen am I to understand that the Government left the matter entirely to chance?
§ [No reply.]