§ MR. D. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the decision of Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Stephen in the case of "Kay versus The Justices of Darwen," by which the judges named held that "The Beer Dealers' Retail Licences (Amendment) Act, 1882," gives the licensing justices power to refuse the renewal of existing off licences without there being any grounds for such refusal; whether he is aware that in consequence of the Act, and the decision referred to, several respectable holders of off licences applying for renewals to the licensing justices at the recent annual licensing meeting, were deprived of their licences, and have suffered considerable loss as a result; and, whether the Government recognise the hardship the Act in question is inflicting upon a respectable body of tradesmen without any fault of their own; and, if so, whether they are prepared to take such steps as will secure such persons being properly compensated?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that the question of compensation was not raised at all by the cases decided by Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Stephen, who had held that the Beer Dealers' Retail Licences (Amendment) Act, 1882, gave the licensing Justices power to refuse the renewal of existing off-licences for the sale of beer at their discretion, for other reasons than those mentioned in the Wine and Beerhouse Act of 1869. There had, however, been a more recent decision—March 15—of the Supreme Court, which showed that the magistrates were 1278 bound to exercise a judicial discretion, and were not free to refuse arbitrarily. Probably the hon. Gentleman had not seen this decision; but in no case could the question of compensation arise.