§ SIR DANIEL GODDARD (Ipswich)To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a case of selling beer in Ipswich without a licence in November; why the malting company, who, it is stated in evidence, sold the beer in cask to their employees, 801 was not prosecuted on behalf of the Inland Revenue; and what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such illegal sale.
(Answered by Mr. Asquith.) My hon. friend presumably refers to a case in which certain employees of the Ipswich Malting Company were prosecuted by the police for selling beer without licence. The Board of Inland Revenue had no evidence of sale by the company to their employees sufficient to justify the institution of proceedings against the company. They warned them, however, that such sales were illegal, and would entail proceedings for a penalty. I have no doubt that the steps taken by the Board are sufficient, in conjunction with the police proceedings, to prevent the occurrence of such malpractices in future. I may, however, point out that the initiation of proceedings does not necessarily rest with a public authority, it being open to any member of the public who has evidence of such unlicensed trading to prosecute the offender himself, under Section 3 of the Licensing Act, 1872.