§ MR. ALLISON (Cumberland, Eskdale)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the 635 licence granted at the last Brewster Sessions to Mr. White by the magistrates at Wolverhampton, in lieu of one which was described as not "old and inoperative," but "actually in existence," was one which has not been exercised for years, in consequence of the house to which it was attached having been pulled down; whether the mere issue of a certificate to the Town Clerk for a public-house is sufficient to entitle the licence to be described as operative, although the house is not in existence; whether the house so extinguished as a public-house was the "Freemasons' Arms"; and, whether the Town Clerk has paid the licence fees during the years it has been abolished, or only the certificate fees of 8s. 6d.?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The clerk to the Justices justifies the statement in his former letter, from which I quoted, to the effect that the licence was still in existence, on the ground that the licence had been regularly renewed at every Brewster Sessions, and paid for by the town clerk. This licence would apply at once if the house were rebuilt, but it is only in that sense that it could possibly be called "operative." The house in question was the "Freemasons' Arms." The town clerk has paid no fee beyond the fee of 8s. 6d.