§ MR. PICKERSGILLI beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a Revenue prosecution for exercising the business of a compounder of cordials without a licence, heard at the Marylebone Police Court on Thursday last, when it was proved that the cordials had been manufactured for years with the knowledge of the Revenue officers, and the magistrate, in dismissing the summons with costs, observed that in the circumstances the defendant should have been warned before proceedings were taken; whether he is aware that, in many other instances, the Revenue authorities have acted in the same way in instituting prosecutions; 112 and whether he will direct them to exercise a little more care and consideration for the future?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMy attention has been called to the case mentioned by the hon Member. I understand that the facts reported to the Board of Inland Revenue as to the operations carried on by the defendant were such as to convince them that it was a proper case for a prosecution. Had they been aware that the defendant had been carrying on the same business for some years with the knowledge of any of their officers, they would certainly have dealt with the case in a different way. But, until evidence to that effect was given in Court by one of their officers, they had no ground for thinking that this was so, and an inquiry is now being made into the matter. I am not aware of any other cases in which this has occurred, and I quite agree with the hon. Member that care should be taken to prevent its recurrence.