HC Deb 04 June 1888 vol 326 c1011
MR. SUMMERS (Huddersfield)

asked the President of the Local Government Board, What powers he proposes to confer on the County Councils, with respect to the refusal to renew a publican's licence, that are not already possessed by the Justices under the existing law, as recently declared by the Judgments of Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Wills; also, whether the recent decision in the Queen's Bench Division with respect to the discretion of Justices in refusing renewals of publicans' licences must be accepted as conclusive, unless and until it is reversed upon appeal; and, whether he will consent to the publication of the ease of "Sharpe v. Wakefield and others" as an unopposed Return, according to the precedent set in the case of "Clarke v. Bradlaugh" (4th April, 1881); also, whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to amend the Compensation Clauses of the Local Government Bill, in the sense of the Solicitor General's declaration at Southampton, that they would "impose no new burdens on the people?"

THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

The hon. Gentleman asks me Questions on several very controversial points in connection with the Licensing Clauses of the Local Government Bill, which it is quite impossible for me to adequately deal with in answer to Questions. I must, therefore, ask the House to allow me to reserve what I have to say on the subject until we get into Committee on the Bill. With reference to the presentation of the Judgment in the case of "Sharpe v. Wakefield," I have nothing to add to my previous answer. The case of "Clarke v. Bradlaugh" was altogether different, dealing, as it did, with the proceedings of Parliament.