HC Deb 10 May 1860 vol 158 cc1015-33

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee of "Ways and Means.

MR. Massey in the Chair.

(In the Committee.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I rise, Sir, to move the Resolution of which I have given notice in regard to the Wine Licences Bill. Of course I shall not move this evening the other Resolutions which are also to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means, and which relate to other subjects. The Resolution to which I now refer separates itself into three parts. The first two stand exactly as they have stood before the country for many weeks. I am not aware that there is any ground for making any alteration in the licences so far as the rates of them are concerned. As respects the first portion of the Resolution, which relates simply to the licences to be taken out for keeping a refreshment house, I do not wish that this vote should pledge any hon. Member as to what kind of refreshment houses are to become liable to the payment of a licence, and under what conditions that payment is to be made. All those hon. Members who think that no refreshment houses ought to be taxed except those which sell wines may with propriety raise a debate upon that Resolution. But those who think, with the Committee of 1854, that it is desirable that refreshment houses of a certain description, in certain places, should be made liable to the obligation of taking out a licence, will only have to consider whether proper rates are proposed to be charged in this Resolution. And the question we shall have to dispose of with respect to the different places, or the precise description of houses, which require a licence, can be much more conveniently disposed of in Committee on the Bill. An hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) has given a notice which touches the whole principle of the Resolution. He objects to imposing the obligation of taking out a licence on any refreshment house. I am not prepared to recede from the proposal. I think the recommendation of the Committee of 1854 was a wise proposal; and that, as regards a certain description of houses, there is really as great a necessity for a licence, which is the ordinary symbol of police superintendence, as there is in any case which can be mentioned. I do not think the difference of strong liquor being avowed as the substance of the trade, or even as a portion of the trade, touches the question vitally. In point of fact, many of the houses where there is no licence to sell strong liquors are the very places where you most of all require the power of entering by the police, in order to ascertain whether strong liquors are not surreptitiously sold there. The hon. Member took two objections, which appeared to me to be contradictory. He first argued against the recommendation as involving the principle of a universal licence, upon all retail shops, and then contended that it was inconsistent because it only imposed a duty upon one class of retail shops. The two things cannot stand together. The Resolution before the House has nothing to do with universal licence. It touches simply the question of the peculiarities of a class of refreshment-houses which are places of public resort, and with respect to which there are peculiar risks, both as regards the preservation of the peace and good order of society, and the surreptitious consumption of strong liquors. "With this explanation I beg to move:— That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, levied, and paid, unto and for the use of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, for and upon the several Licences hereinafter mentioned, the respective Rates and Duties following—that is to say, for every Licence to keep a Refreshment House, if the house and premises in respect of which such Licence shall be granted shall be under the rent and value of £20 a year, 10s. 6d.

MR. AYRTON

said, if the consideration of the question was embarrassing before, it was rendered ten fold more embarrassed by the statement just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had before endeavoured to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a precise and clear expression of opinion as to the policy which regulated his conduct in proposing these new taxes. He had asked him whether he proposed them as a measure of finance, or as a measure of police, with a view to preserve order and morality in the country. If it were put forward as a measure of finance, they must then be prepared to examine it on financial grounds, as part of an important system by which the Government proposed to license the retail shopkeepers of every trade and profession throughout the country. There was much to be said for and against that view of the subject. When it was first brought forward, it was coupled with the general financial scheme of the country—it was, in fact, a part of the Budget; and Parliament was called to support it as a part of the financial scheme. But now it seemed that it was no part of finance; that it was proposed as a mere measure of police, to preserve the good order and morality of the country. He was certainly surprised to find that a measure of this kind should be brought forward, not by the Home Secretary, who was responsible for the peace and good order of the country, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a part of his new financial scheme. He would briefly state why he thought the proposition should not be agreed to. It was ostensibly founded on the recommendations of the Committee which sat to inquire into the condition of public-houses, and other places for the sale of beer; but lie thought they had heard enough from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley), to show that the scheme was directly opposite to that which was recommended by the Committee which the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted in support of his proposition. If it was to be considered as a mere question of police, he was compelled to ask the Committee upon what ground they could decide to levy a tax on a particular class of houses, in aid of the local police—for the police in this country were purely local—to be paid into the National Exchequer. If it were imposed in order that inspectors might be appointed, who, it was clear, must be appointed by the local authorities, the tax ought to be no more than was necessary for that purpose. If it were for the purpose of registration, to give the police facilities for entering the houses, then it ought just to cover the mere cost of registration. But these were no grounds for levying a tax to be paid into the general exchequer for the national expenditure of the country. The Committee were asked to vote an indefinite tax upon houses of some sort; but had received no explanation as to the kind of houses on which it was to be imposed. If there was any one man in the House who ought not to have made such a proposition, it was that light hon. Member, who, when asked to go into Committee upon a house tax, said that that question was embarrassed with so many difficulties, that he never would consent to consider the proposal, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give a precise explanation of all the incidences of the tax. So sensitive was the conscience of the right hon. Gentleman then, that he preferred to overturn a Government, rather than take a course of which his conscience disapproved; but now he invited the House to go into a discussion upon a tax, and he could not give the least explanation of the character of the houses upon which the tax was to be levied. He (Mr. Ayrton) would not say the right hon. Gentleman could not give any explanation, but he would not do so; and he would tell the House why. The right hon. Gentleman had twice attempted to give an explanation. In the first attempt he signally failed, and on the second occasion he not only failed, but his proposition was preposterously absurd. He (Mr. Ayrton) thought he was justified in using that phrase, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was in the habit of using phrases quite as strong when he desired to express his opinions upon the views of other hon. Members. He would also ask the Committee to consider what was the original proposition which the right hon. Gentleman made, and then to view it in its amended form. It was first proposed to levy this tax on any house, room, shop, or building used for the purpose of selling therein victuals or refreshments to be consumed on the premises. The question had naturally been asked, what was excluded under this provision describing anything that a man could eat or drink. One Gentleman said that to buy and eat an orange in an unlicensed house would be against the law; at which the right hon. Gentleman shook his head, as if that were a thing out of the question. When he was inviting the support of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches to his proposal, he told them that in villages, and even small towns in the country, there were houses where articles that might be called refreshments were sold—such as ginger-beer and oranges—but that as these places were not the resort of persons for whom it was necessary to have the visitation of the police, they were not included in his proposition. The effect of his illustration was, that in houses in small towns oranges might be sold without a licence, but that the sale of oranges was not to be permitted in unlicensed houses in large towns. Indeed, the language of the proposal was so indefinite, that it might include a stick of barley sugar, or the best dinner that a Lord Mayor could provide. The proposal was considered so extravagant, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was urged to withdraw it, and how did he withdraw from this proposal? The amended provision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was— Provided always that no licence to keep a refreshment house shall be required to be kept under this Act for the sale of goods or commodities in the front, or on the basement, or on the ground floor, although refreshment may be consumed in such shops; such refreshment, however, not being consumed in any other room, and not being wine, or any other excisable liquor. The amended proposal, therefore, amounted to this, that a person would be permitted to take a cap of coffee in the kitchen or ground floor of a house, but not in the drawing-room. Upstairs it was to be subject to taxation in the shape of a licence; but downstairs there was to be no tax. In the shop it would be untaxed, but in the floor above the tax would have to be paid. Was ever such a proposal as this made for purposes of police; that two stories of a house should be free from the visitations of the police, but that the rest of the house should be placed under their control? On what ground did this distinction proceed? He could imagine a ground where the greatest privacy was desired; but he was afraid that if he were to suggest it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find himself compelled to repudiate it, because it could not for one moment be maintained that any one would take out a licence in order that those upper rooms should be open to the visitation of the police. It was said that there were certain houses in the town and country where people secretly sold illicit spirits, and that these cases would be met by this provision. But it would not answer that purpose, for they could not expect that such persons would take out a licence in order to inform the police of their intention to violate the law. The evidence given before the Select Committee sufficiently disposed of this theory. When a witness was asked how the police repressed the illicit sale of beer and spirits, he said there was no method of doing so, except by using the police as spies, and sending them in plain clothes. Being asked why the police did not do that, the answer was that an unfortunate transaction in which the police had acted as spies had excited such attention, that it was thought inexpedient to pursue the spy system in this country. The police were therefore unable to carry on the process of detection. Was this to be a Bill for encouraging that spy system from which even the police shrunk as being at variance with the opinions and feelings of the people of this country? The police had just as much power now to go into houses in disguise and make search as they would have under this Bill, and if parties were selling spirits without a licence they were already subject to penalties and forfeitures. Then, was it supposed that another class of houses, which were known as disorderly houses, would take out licences which would give the police an opportunity of entering every bedroom in those houses? If the occupation of such houses was unlawful, and if the bedrooms were to be used for purposes not to be mentioned, the occupiers would, of course, take care not to render themselves liable to be visited by the police by taking out a licence. What, then, did the Bill rest upon? They had a proposal to tax the sale of coffee, or something else, in an upstairs room. He submitted that until the House had before it a definite explanation of the precise character of the shops to be taxed, they could not proceed to vote for this tax. He wished to say one word upon the injustice of any system of taxation which took a margin of £20 rental as the limit of increase. He had said that if it be for police purposes, it was essential that it should be a single uniform tax; but to take a margin of £20 as the ground of increase, would be to commit an act of great injustice to the constituency which he represented, and to the Metropolis generally. Of the entire house tax of £690,000 a year levied in England, nearly one-half, or £330,000, was levied upon the Metropolis alone, while all Scotland only paid £45,000. Could that be said to be a just tax? This attempt to make a distinction between one town and another was founded upon a monstrous fallacy. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would visit some of the smaller streets in Westminster, he would see shops for the sale of cakes and oranges quite as small as those in country towns. What right, then, had the hon. Gentleman to make this distinction? He opposed the Resolution—first, because in the absence of any explanation, it was perfectly unintelligible; and secondly, because in the mode in which it was proposed it was most unjust, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been the last person to propose such a Resolution, for when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in expectancy, he could not tolerate the mention of such a proposition as that which, as Chancellor of the Exchequer in possession, he then proposed for the adoption of the House.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would not follow the hon. Member through a speech that was more discursive than dispassionate, but would content himself with replying to that part of it which bore upon the question. The hon. Gentleman had embraced the house tax and a number of other points which would best be discussed when the clauses came before the House. In his opinion, the hon. Gentleman had misconstrued (he provisions and grammatical effect of the Resolution, according to its sense and certainly according to its intention. There was no distinction in the Resolution between upstairs and downstairs, cellars and ground floors; and that argument might, therefore, stand over. These was one point which the hon. Gentleman missed, and which appeared to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to be relevant to the case, and it was this. He said it was unjust to draw a distinction between houses under and those above £20, and he complained of the severe incidence of the present house tax upon the Metropolis. The house tax might or might not be just to the Metropolis, and they ought not to do anything which would have the effect of aggravating it; but he could not admit to the hon. Gentleman that in that instance they were going to inflict any injustice by imposing, not a minute and complicated scale of charges, but a simple difference of doubling-tins charge, in itself a simple one, upon houses above £20. The hon. Gentleman said this was in no degree a fiscal question, and what he then set up for a supposition for himself, in the next moment lie put into his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) mouth. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had never said this was not a fiscal question, but that it was mainly and chiefly to be decided upon other than fiscal; grounds. He did not admit, therefore, that they were not to take into consideration the ability of parties to bear this charge, which looked to the extent of the premises as the index to the extent of the trade. As regards the question of the amount of occupation they might give to the police, it was presumable that very largo establishments would give more occupation to the police than very small establishments with very limited business below £20 a year. There was another point which was not noticed by the hon. Gentleman, and it was this. As he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) understood the effect of the law, the imposition of this licence duty would, under the existing law, have the effect of making into shops, in the eye of the law, those coffee-houses which were not now shops. The effect of that would be that, although they will pay a licence duty—that is, a sum of 10s. 6d. on houses above £20—yet they would obtain relief, in some degree, from the house-tax, because, in becoming shops, they would be taxed at the lower rather than at the higher rate. He did not think it necessary to say more, because there were a variety of considerations which would be more conveniently discussed on the clauses.

MR. HARDY

said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he had himself proposed one of a similar description in 1857. He wished, however, to guard himself against being committed on the question of the particular incidence of the tax, which they would have to consider hereafter. The view he took was that the tax should be imposed on places of public resort and entertainment, because they brought numbers of people together, and would be less likely to require the interference of the police if conducted under the responsibility of a licence. The evidence which was taken before the Committee of 1853–01 showed that the great evil arose from those houses which were kept open all night, and he recommended that those only should be taxed which were open after a certain hour at night, and before a certain hour in the morning. Such a provision would, he thought, cover all the worst class of eating-houses. Those which were open during the day and shut in the evening were harmless places of resort, and did not call for any inspection on the part of the police. But it was clearly proved before the Committee that when the public-houses and beershops were closed, the worst characters in a town resorted to the coffee-houses, temperance tels, shell-fish shops, and so on, which were kept open till four or live o'clock in the morning; and there could be little doubt that in those places beer and spirits were sold illicitly, because the police had no access to them. It appeared to him that those places only should be taxed which were kept open between ten o'clock at night and four o'clock in the morning.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, he would suggest that they should alter the sum of £20 to £25. It appeared rather bard that a man having a house rated at £19 a year should only pay 10s. 6d., while a man having a house rated at £1 more, should have to pay one guinea.

MR. TALK

remarked, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer had omitted to answer a very important question which had been raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets; that was, what constituted a refreshment-house? Would a shop in a country town, which sold biscuits, apples, and confectionery—for confectionery was particularly mentioned in the Bill—come under the designation of a house of refreshment? Nothing could be more vague than the terms in which it was at present described; and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the last person to allow the House to come to a decision on this subject without having a definition of a refreshment-house.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could assure the hon. Member he had not overlooked the question at all. He had stated generally, in his explanations to the House, and had likewise specified in the Bill, what was clearly understood to be the meaning of the term "refreshment-house." Various proposals had been made to modify or restrain that meaning, and the question was, when could they most conveniently consider these proposals? In his opinion, it was not convenient to do so at the present stage, when they could not introduce Amendments to limit the meaning of the term. The proper time for such a discussion would be when they were going through the clauses of the Bill, which defined and fixed the application of the principle. The only question now before the House was whether to any refreshment-house other than those which sold strong drink this obligation to take out a licence should apply. It appeared to him that the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Salomons) was inadmissible. If he was rightly advised of the indirect operation of the licences, the alteration proposed would have the effect of establishing very peculiar and anomalous relations with regard to the class of persons subject to the charge. For there would then be three classes. There would be a class of persons with houses up to £20 rental, paying 10s. 6d. for the licence, and not receiving any indirect relief through taking out a licence because they were not subject to house tax; and there would be a second class of persons with houses between £20 and £25, likewise paying only 10s. 6d. duty, but receiving indirect relief through having their houses rated as shops under the house tax. The third class would, of course, be those above £25. It was plain that such an arrangement would be very inconvenient, and that it would be better that the distinction should be drawn at £20 where the incidence of the house tax began.

MR. HENLEY

said, he would not oppose the Resolution. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that, in agreeing to this Resolution, no one would be pledged as to any description of refreshment-house. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Hear, hear!] On that understanding he thought there was great force in the observations of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy). He would be glad to see the duty confined to that class of houses indicated by the Committee, which were kept open at irregular hours, when there could be no doubt that great mischief had arisen from their not being under the supervision of the police. One effect of the duty, it appeared, would be to transmogrify, if he might use the word, a certain class of houses into shops, and consequently to exempt them from the proportion of the house tax which they paid at present. That would not certainly simplify the discussion of this question, as they did not all possess the same knowledge of the effect of the different revenue Acts as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had truly stated that this was not only a police, but a fiscal question. It was to these licences that the right hon. Gentleman, he understood, looked to supply the deficiency caused by the repeal of certain Customs' duties which he had induced the House to sanction. He wished, therefore, to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any data upon which he could calculate what the licence duties, if agreed to by the Committee, would probably yield.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that various questions yet remained unsettled which would, of course, affect the amount derived from the licences. He was bound to say, on the part of those who were best acquainted with the subject—the officers of the revenue—that it was really impossible to form any trustworthy estimate when entering on ground which was entirely new. The decision to which the House might come as to the class of houses subject to licences, and as to the extension of the system to Ireland and Scotland, would, of course, materially affect the financial results of the measure. But as far as a conjecture, rather than an estimate, could he formed, the whole of the licences, both for wine and refreshment-houses, in England, Scotland, and Ireland would yield to the revenue between £60,000 and £70,000 a year. It was anticipated that the wine licences would supply by far the greatest sum.

MR. T. S. DUNCOMBE

said, he wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to the proposal of the hon. Member for Leominster.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not in the least degree desire to put a negative on the proposal of the hon Gentleman; but, as there were various particulars in which it was proposed to limit the application of the licence, he thought that they had better all be discussed at the time when they could insert in the Bill any Intendments they agreed upon.

MR. T. S. DUNCOMBE

said, he hoped the House would put a negative on the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no man was to sell anything like victuals or refreshments without paying a 10s. 6d. duty, and that no man was to consume those victuals or refreshments, undefined as they were, without having a policeman to wait on him. The object of the Bill was to introduce the police into every man's house. It was a common boast that an Englishman's house was his castle; but it would cease to be his castle if he was not to be allowed to sell refreshments, or to receive any one within doors to consume them without the attendance and supervision of the police. There was some sense in placing restrictions on the sale of spirits or wine. If they wished to prevent drunkenness in those houses at night, let them be licensed and placed under the operation of a heavy duty. But they might depend on it that if this House was prepared to submit to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that all refreshment-houses were to pay a licence duty, and that every man who entered them was to be subject to the attendance of the police, at all events, the public would not submit to it. It was worthy of the Six Acts, and of Lord Castlereagh's days. It was said to be with the view of promoting the morality and improvement of the working classes that this system was to be introduced. One day they were told that the working classes were so much improved that the franchise might be lowered to £6, and the next that the working classes must neither eat nor drink without having the police to watch them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not regard it as a police question, and would not give up the fiscal portion of the proposition. But, if so, the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell them how much he expected this tax would produce. If the sum were large, it would show how obnoxious and oppressive was the burden; and if it were a good tax, it ought to be extended to Scotland. He hoped the Committee would accede to the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

MR. LIDDELL

observed, that it might be necessary to give the police control over coffee-shops and temperance-houses which were the resorts of disorderly characters; but that it should be limited to those houses which were open at certain hours.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he conceived that they were proceeding in a very irregular manner, as they were called upon to agree that refreshment-houses should be licensed before they had really determined what refreshment-houses were. As to those refreshment-houses in which no tippling or the sale of spirits took place, he could not see why any licence should be put upon them. He, for one, wished to see the sale of light wines extended, but he agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that it would be most objectionable to have the intrusion of policemen where a small trade in refreshments was carried on. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the question was as to the capability of the house, but looking to the Metropolis, the distinction would not hold water, because there a smaller house might be rated higher than a house elsewhere. The police could see everything which took place in a baker's shop from the outside, and, if they had a right of inspection, no baker would be able to let lodgings, because people would not live where they would be subject to such an annoyance.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he thought it was not a very convenient course of proceeding to discuss police regulations in a Committee of Ways and Means. The hon. Member for Finsbury was mistaken if he supposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given any information of the amount of revenue which would be raised by these licences. The right hon. Gentleman told them that if England, Ireland, and Scotland, were all included, the sum upon which he calculated from wine and refreshment licences, was £60,000 or £70,000 a year. As the principal part was expected to be produced by licences for the sale of wine, he was correct in describing the amount estimated from refreshment licences as infinitesimally small, and he thought the Committee should look with great jealousy and suspicion on these small means of meeting a great deficiency which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself created. There was every probability that by modifications in the Bill the small amount which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated would be still further diminished, and the result would be to inflict great inconvenience and annoyance on the very classes which it was the alleged intention of the Government to benefit, without obtaining any revenue worth considering. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) with respect to the class of houses that ought to be taxed; and if the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would go to a division he should support him.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

said, it seemed to him to be a most extraordinary proposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask them to vote for the Resolution, on the understanding that he would modify it in Committee. What was the proposition before the Committee? It was, That, towards the supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, levied, and paid to and for the use of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, for and upon the several licences hereafter mentioned, the respective rates and duties the following licences—that is to say, for every refreshment-house. Now, they were asked to vote for that without knowing what was really to be considered as a refreshment-house or the character of the house to be licensed. If there were a large number of refreshment-houses in London kept in a disorderly manner, why did not the Government bring-in a Bill, as in the ease of gaming-houses, giving the police a power of inspection? Suppose the right hon. Gentleman had had a Budget in hand at the time the gambling-houses were put down, would he have proposed to put a tax on them for the purpose of making them liable to police regulations instead of bringing in a straightforward Bill for the purpose? Take another class of houses—where promiscuous assignations were supposed to be made—would he have recourse to a sys- tem of licensing those mansions if he wanted to bring them under police regulations? The right hon. Gentleman's argument was simply this:—"I tax all refreshment-houses, good as well as bad, and I tax the bad in order to give the police power over them." The Resolution was drawn up in a most unqualified form, and he hoped the House would not trust to what might be done in Committee on the Bill, but insist on its being considerably modified before giving its assent to the present stage.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the hon. and learned Member had totally misrepresented what had fallen from him. The Resolution did not make a declaration that every refreshment-house should be bound to take out a licence, but simply stated the price at which refreshment licences should be issued. It was quite a different thing to fix the price of a licence and to define the class of houses to which it was applicable. The only question was, did they think that there was some description of refreshment-houses to which the licence ought not to be applicable?

MR. AYRTON

said, he had no objection to place under the supervision of the police, all houses which in any way promoted public immorality; but that was a question which ought to be considered by the Home Secretary, and brought under the consideration of the House distinctly as a question affecting public morals. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman was tacking an important question of morality to a Money Bill, and thereby excluding the House of Lords from all power of taking cognizance of it. At one moment the question was treated as one of police, at another entirely of finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to define the class of houses which were to pay this tax exactly, and not in terms which would enable him to tax all refreshment-houses. He hoped the House would decide this question, not by mere voting power, but on considerations of justice. One-half of the whole shop tax of the country was at the present time paid by the Metropolis, a result which arose from the standard being fixed at £20. If this Bill passed, every lodging-house keeper in London who served his lodger with bread and butter and coffee for breakfast in his attic—and this was a very general practice in the Metropolis—would have to pay the tax. To go on voting taxes merely according to voting power, and not on the principle of justice, would be teaching the people a lesson—which if a Reform Bill were passed—though he was by no means anxious for such a Bill as that now before the House—and the power were placed in their hands, they might not be disinclined to act upon it.

Motion made, and Question put, That towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, There shall be charged, levied, and paid, unto and for the use of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, for and upon the several Licences hereinafter mentioned, the respective Rates and Duties following; that is to say:—

For every Licence to keep a

Refreshment House,— £ s. d.
If the house and premises in respect of which such Licence shall be granted shall be under the rent and value of £20 a year 0 10 6"

The Committee divided:—Ayes 173, Noes 103: Majority 70.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the words—

"And if the same shall be of the rent or value of £20 a year or upwards 1 1 0
"—stand part of the proposed Resolution.

MR. AYRTON

said, he should then submit to the Committee that if refreshment-houses were to be subjected to taxation, there ought to be one uniform tax upon all of them, and not the graduated tax proposed. Hitherto the taxes on particular trades were uniform, and had no reference to the value of the houses in which the trades were carried on. If that uniformity were to be set aside, then the proper way of imposing a trade tax would be to graduate it according to the income of the tradesman, and not the rent of the place in which he carried on his business. All teadealers, whatever the amount of their business or the rent of their shops, paid a uniform licence of half-a-guinea for the purpose of enabling the customs to secure the revenue. He would therefore move as an Amendment that the proposed tax should be reduced to 10s. 6d.

Amendment proposed to leave out £1 1s., and insert 10s. 6d.

MR. HARDY

said, there seemed to him to be no reasonable argument for having two different scales. As the Bill stood it gave power to the police to inspect refreshment-houses, but, unless the keepers of such houses were licensed to sell wine they could not be punished as persons keeping houses of a disorderly character. His object would be to make them amen- able to punishment in such cases, but when the object was effected he did not see the advantage of maintaining an increased rate as regarded the higher class of houses.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, there might be a uniformity of licence in the case of other trades, but it was not a good precedent from which to argue. There was no part of our system of taxation which it would be more desirable to revise than this system of licences. The little village teadealer felt it an extreme hardship that he should be called upon to pay as much as was paid by Fortnum and Mason for a licence. A complicated scale in this instance he did not recommend; but that there should he some distinction between the rate paid by large and small refreshment-houses was, he thought, a reasonable proposal. He was not inclined to depart from the terms of the Resolution.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he thought that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was not strictly applicable to the case before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the whole system of licences needed revisal that was no reason for imposing the tax proposed by the clause. If the system of taxation on trades were shortly to be revised, it would be better to impose only one uniform tax on refreshment-houses, because the imposition of different taxes on different classes of refreshment-houses would make more difficult the adjustment of trade licences hereafter. He should support the proposal of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

declared that he did not hint, or promise, or say anything on the subject of revising the system. He merely had said that the system was bad which imposed an uniform rate on the exceedingly small dealer and on the man who did a very large business. He thought the making of some distinction was advisable.

ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, this tax would fall very heavily upon traders in the Metropolis. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give way, and that a uniform tax would be imposed.

Question put, "That £1 1s. stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 88: Majority 71

Original Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the words— And for every Licence to be granted as here- inafter mentioned to any licensed keeper of a refreshment house to sell therein by retail Foreign and British Wine to be consumed in such house or on the premises thereto—

£ s. d.
If such house and premises shall he under the rent or value of £50 a year 3 3 0
And if the same shall be of the rent or value of £50 a year or upwards 5 5 0"
—stand part of the proposed Resolution.

Upon the next Section— And for every Licence to be taken out by any person for the selling by retail in any shop of Foreign Wine not to be consumed in the house or shop or on the premises where sold, if the house and premises shall be under the rent or value of £50 a year, £2 2s.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

inquired whether colonial wines would come under the class of British or foreign wines.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, they would be classed as foreign wines.

On the Section that— If the same shall be of the rent or value of £50 a year or upwards, £3 3s.

MR. AYRTON

wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to keep up the difference between the licences granted to wholesale and retail traders. The licence at present, he believed, was £10 10s. for persons who dealt wholesale, and £2 2s. or £3 3s. for persons who dealt retail. Preserving that difference would not promote the consumption of unadulterated wine. The difference between the taxes ought to be abolished, and a uniform rate should be established. At present the law was evaded by selling sample bottles. Without they had a uniform licence of seven or eight guineas, the wines sold by the retailer not to be consumed upon the premises would be of that charming character which M. Chevalier described as partaking more of the water of the Seine than the juice of the grape, just as our London porter was said to have an affinity for the water of the Thames. He therefore proposed that the charge for the licence should be uniformly between five to ten guineas.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. Member had certainly raised a very fair question for discussion; but he did not see that any material convenience was likely to result from the change proposed. The wholesale dealer was a man who usually dealt in large quantities of wine, or wished to have the power of doing so, and he therefore paid ten guineas for his licence. But it would be scarcely fair to charge the retail dealer, whose shop was open for the sale of other articles, so large a sum, and he could not see that any practical inconvenience would arise from maintaining a distinction, and he thought he had given a sufficient definition to secure the line between the two classes. A five or seven guinea licence would press so heavily upon the retail dealer that he would be required to dispose of wine some hundreds of pounds in value before he could realise any profit. If on the other hand they were to reduce the ten guineas wine licence to five or six guineas he was afraid the next step they would be called upon to take would be to reduce the ten guinea spirit licence.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITHS

said, he was not disposed to take a puritanical view of the question, but he should like to know the description of shops likely to be engaged in the retail of wine. If wine was to be sold at every shop at which tea, sugar, and the like were now purchased, the result would be a great social change. He had hardly expected that it was intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give facilities for the dissemination of wine in so profuse a manner. He was, therefore, in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) being adopted, for he thought without it the Bill would not contain a sufficient check to the evils to which it would give rise.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, undoubtedly he had proceeded on the principle that there was no objection to the extension of the facilities for the sale of wine not to be consumed on the premises, but precautions would be taken to prevent the abuse of that power.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That the words—

"And for every Licence to be taken out by any person for the selling by retail in any shop of Foreign Wine not to be consumed in the house or shop or on the premises where sold— £ s. d.
If the house and premises shall be under the rent or value of £50 a year 2 2 0
And if the same shall be of the rent or value of 50 a year or upwards 3 3 0"
—stand part of the proposed Resolution.

Resolution to be reported forthwith.

House resumed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would then move that the Resolutions just passed should be reported forthwith, in order that they might be inserted in the Bill in Committee. They would then form part of the Bill, and the Committee would then have an opportunity of voting on the whole of the clauses of the Bill. He would then reprint the Bill, and it would go forth at once as a whole for further consideration. He would not make the Motion if it was against the general wish of the House.

Resolution reported, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,

There shall be charged, levied, and paid unto and for the use of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, for and upon the several Licences hereinafter mentioned, the respective Rates and Duties following; that is to say:—

For every Licence to keep a Refreshment House— £ s. d.
If the house and premises in respect of which such Licence shall be granted shall be under the rent and value of £20 a year. 0 10 0
And if the same shall be of the rent or value of £20 a year or upwards 1 1 0

And for every Licence to be granted as hereinafter mentioned to any licensed keeper of are freshment house to sell therein by retail Foreign and British Wine to be consumed in such house or on the premises belonging thereto—

£ s. d.
If such house and premises shall be under the rent and value of £50 a year 3 3 0
And if the same shall be of the rent or value of £50 a year or upwards 5 5 0

And for every Licence to be taken out by any person for the selling by retail in any shop of Foreign Wine not to be consumed in the house or shop or on the premises where sold—

£ s. d.
If the house and premises shall be under the rent or value of £50 a year 2 2 0
And if the same shall be of the rent or value of £50 a year or upwards 3 3 0"

Resolution agreed to.

Instruction to the Committee on Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill that they have power to make provision accordingly.

Committee of Ways and Means to sit again To-morrow.