§ MR. HOWORTH (Salford, S.)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the remission of the Licence Duty paid by hawkers, which is contemplated by the Budget, includes the Police Licence of 5s. a-year paid by pedlars?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)No, Sir; the duty which I propose to remit is the Revenue Licence Duty of £4 now paid by hawkers, and not the Police Licence Duty of 5s. payable by pedlars. I have received several communications on the subject of hawkers' Licences which show that a good deal of misapprehension exists as to the extent of my proposals, arising probably from the writers forgetting the legal distinction between a hawker and a pedlar. Under the existing law a hawker, from a Revenue point of view, is a travelling trader who uses "a horse or other beast bearing or drawing burthen," and he pays £4 a-year for a licence. It is this Licence Duty which my Budget proposals would abolish, leaving the hawker liable to the Wheel Tax or the Heavy Van Tax, as the case may be. The pedlar, or foot hawker, is not at the present time liable to any Revenue Duty. He formerly paid £2, but this duty was abolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) in 1870. In the following year, however, the Pedlars' Act made him subject to police supervision, and he pays 5s. a-year for his police certificate. It is clearly desirable that the hawker who uses a horse should, equally with the foot hawker or pedlar, be under supervision and compelled to obtain a certificate; and I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as to the best way of bringing hawkers within the scope of the Pedlars' Act of 1871.