HC Deb 08 May 1874 vol 218 cc2022-4

SIR WILFRID LAWSON moved for— A Copy of the Justices' Certificate upon which the Inland Revenue Department has issued a Licence to the Directors of the Crystal Palace for the sale of spirituous liquors, contrary to the express provisions of the 13th section of the Crystal Palace Company's Act. The hon. Baronet explained that the Directors of the Crystal Palace Company had applied for a spirit licence in addition to a wine and beer licence, but the magistrates declined to accede to their request, and only granted a certificate for wine and beer. Nevertheless, the Inland Revenue Department—contrary, he believed, to law—had granted a spirit licence in addition to one for wine and beer. The Motion which he now made was for the production of the certificate. He wanted to have the matter put right, and to ascertain whether the proceeding was without the authority of the Company's Act of Parliament. He had had to fight for the same sort of thing before in his own county. He told the Revenue officers at the time that they were, acting contrary to the law, and he had to contend against the magistrates, the magistrates' clerk, the police, and the excise, Ultimately he beat them all, and succeeded in getting the man fined because he had obtained a licence contrary to law. In this case he believed that the Crystal Palace Company had obtained a licence contrary to law, and he did not see why they should be allowed to retain it simply because they were a great company. He thought that no one should be allowed to break the law with impunity.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Justices' Certificate upon which the Inland Revenue Department has issued a Licence to the Directors of the Crystal Palace for the sale of spirituous liquors, contrary to the ex-press provision of the 18th section of the Crystal Palace Company's Act."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was afraid he was unable to comply with the Motion of the hon. Baronet in the precise terms in which it stood upon the Paper. Yet he did not rise altogether for the purpose of opposing the Motion of the hon. Baronet. His only reason for raising an objection was this—that as the Motion stood upon the Paper it assumed that of which the House knew nothing, and of which it could know nothing—namely, that the Justices had acted contrary to the express provisions of an Act of Parliament. That was an argumentative statement contained in the Motion which it was hardly right to call upon the House to adopt. It assumed that which he thought the House had no right to assume, that the Justices, acting in their official capacity, had acted in direct contravention of the provisions of an Act of Parliament. The hon. Baronet said in his Motion, as it appeared on the Paper, that the Justices had granted a certificate contrary to the express provisions of the 13th section of the Crystal Palace Company's Act.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

apologized for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but thought it might perhaps facilitate matters if he were to say that the officers of Excise were the persons who had broken the law, and not the Justices.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that was not the effect of the Motion which the hon. Baronet had placed upon the Paper. As to the 13th section of the Crystal Palace Company's Act, he was instructed that it was simply this:—"The expenses of this Act incidental thereto shall be borne by the Company." He evidently could not see what that had to do with the question which the hon. Baronet had raised. Therefore, he did object to the last words of the Motion, "contrary to the express provision of the 13th section of the Crystal Palace Company's Act;" but he had not the slightest objection to lay upon the Table a copy of the Justices' certificate.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "liquors," to the end of the Question."—(Mr. Secretary Crom.)

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing him to have the Return he had moved for. He was quite willing to omit from the Motion the words to which the right hon. Gentleman had objected. His main object was simply to obtain a copy of the certificate. He did not blame the magistrates; but he certainly did object to the course which the officers of the Inland Revenue Department had taken. What the magistrates did was this: They gave the licence, and they said, "You can have your licence for beer and wine, but you are not to have it for spirits or anything contrary to the Act of Parliament." Yet, in spite of that, the officers of the Inland Revenue Department gave them a licence for spirits; therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would see that he did not blame the magistrates in the slightest degree. He had no objection, however, to leave out of the Motion the words to which the right hon. Gentleman objected.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Ordered, That there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Justices' Certificate upon which the Inland Revenue Department has issued a Licence to the Directors of the Crystal Palace for the sale of spirituous liquors.