§ MR. ECROYD
asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is true that at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 19th June, Mr. Henri Bourguignon, agent of Mr. Albert Keyl, a well known and highly respectable wine merchant of Bordeaux, was arrested at his rooms, No. 28, Langham Street, Portland Place, and in custody of two officers taken to Bow Street, where he was charged with dealing in Foreign wines without a licence, and lecked up in a common cell; that at 12 o'clock he was brought up in the Police Court, where an official from Somerset House stated, in support of the charge, that no licence had been granted in any part of the Kingdom to Mr. Albert Keyl during the past two years; that, upon Mr. Bourguignon asking for time to obtain the licence from Mr. Keyl's shipping agent in Liverpool, in whose keeping it was, the Magistrate adjourned the case for a week, and agreed to liberate Mr. Bourguignon on his obtaining two sureties in £100 each, which he succeeded in doing after remaining in custody until 2.30 p.m.; whether it is the fact that a licence to deal in wines and spirits was duly granted at Liverpool on the 6th July 1882 to Mr. Albert Keyl, and is still in force; whether a licence has not been regularly taken out by Mr. Keyl every year since 1860; and, whether such licence taken out by a principal does not cover the action of his traveller moving from town to town in this Country to transact business?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)
I have carefully looked into this case, and I find that although, undoubtedly, a mistake was made in the statement that Mr. 1706 Keyl, of Bordeaux, did not hold a licence, the licence which he actually held was not a foreign one, but merely described him as of York Buildings at Liverpool; and in searching the list of licensees, which contains several thousand names, his was overlooked. The case was heard by the magistrate at Bow Street; and Mr. Vaughan stated that the action of the Inland Revenue Department, in instituting proceedings against M. Bourguignon, had been fully justified. I can only express my own regret, and that of the Board, that Mr. Keyl's representative should have been the subject of these proceedings.
§ MR. ECROYD
said, in consequence of the unsatisfactory character of the answer he had received he would bring the subject before the House on the consideration of the Estimates.