COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 31 May 1861 vol 163 cc435-9

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he intended to reprint the Bill after Amendments had been made.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Licensed Dealers in spirits taking out an additional Licence may retail and send out Foreign or British Spirits in less Quantities than Two Gallons),

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he had to present several numerously signed petitions from persons who either began business or increased it last year in consequence of the provisions of the Bill then passed with regard to refreshment houses, by undertaking the sale of wine. He had inquired what kind of wine they sold, expecting that it would turn out to be light wines, but he found, to his astonishment, that the wine was strong wine used for medicinal purposes. They stated that a pint bottle was convenient for the pocket, while the quart bottle was not. He would, therefore, move to substitute "pint" for "quart." The Government had vindicated themselves very successfully from any entanglement with regard to the Gal-way contract, and he hoped they would clear themselves from any suspicion with regard to being influenced by the in-keepers.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, his sympathy was with the hon. Gentleman; but having agreed that a single quart bottle should be the smallest quantity saleable by the wholesale dealers, he could not agree that the clause should be altered to the word "pint." He felt quite sure that the kindly and genial nature of the hon. Gentleman would assist him out of his entanglement with the supporters of a contract on the other side of the water.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, the quart bottle referred to in the clause would in fact be no more than a pint in measure.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he would not press his Amendment.

MR. P. W. MARTIN

said, he proposed to add a proviso to the clause, empowering retailers of spirituous liquors to recover for any amount of spirituous liquors supplied by them, and not consumed on their premises. His object was to prevent dishonesty; for many persons, having procured spirits, not for the purposes of tippling, yet, to avoid payment, pleaded the Tippling Act.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he doubted whether the proviso was within the scope of the Bill, which altered the Excise duties, while the Amendment referred to the Tippling Act.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

observed, that the point raised by the proviso was not a fiscal one, but an important question of law, very fitting for the House to consider on a proper occasion. He confessed that his own prepossessions were in favour of the proposition; but, as it was not strictly germane to the present Bill, perhaps the hon. Member had better withdraw it.

Proviso, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD FERMOY

said, he would move, as an Amendment, to add to the end of Clause 2— That, notwithstanding any provision hereinafter contained, all penalties to be incurred or recoverable under this section, or in relation thereto, may be sued for by any superintendent or inspector of police, upon information and summons, before the police-court or Justice having jurisdiction in the place where the offence is committed, but the appropriation of the penalty shall be the same as is hereinafter specified. He asked the Committee to take proper means to see that the law was properly carried out by giving the police the duty of seeing that the rights of the Licensed Victuallers were carried out on the one hand and the law on the other.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not object to the introduction of these words, though he would not be responsible for the form of the proviso, which, however, he believed was Bound in principle.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Any Person may take out a Licence for the Sale of Table Beer by retail not to be consumed on the premises),

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, the extension of the beer-house system in the country had been most prejudicial, and he was afraid the clause would be only extending the evil of which so much complaint was made. The houses for the sale of small beer ought to be subjected to the same supervision as the beer-houses. Without such supervision he looked forward with much alarm to the proposed 5s, licence. The houses would spring up all over the country, and he believed that a great risk would be run by licensing the house in the way proposed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the object of the clause was not to create any new houses for the sale of liquor. The houses already existed, and the purpose of the clause was simply to legalize a practice which prevailed throughout the country to the comfort and advantage of the people. The 5s. licence was only applicable to liquor of the weakest description, and which was not to be consumed on the premises.

Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 4 to 10 inclusive.

Clause 11 (Who shall be deemed House Agents and require to be licensed as such),

MR. AYRTON

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would withdraw the clause, which compelled every person who had anything to do with the letting of a house to take out a two guinea licence. The object seemed to be to protect these who were called "legitimate" house agents by making every person who undertook the letting of a house, say at a watering place, take out a licence. The clause was conceived in the very spirit of protection and reactionary legislation, and he hoped it would be omitted altogether.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the lion, and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets mistook both the objects and origin of the proposal, and immensely exaggerated the inconveniences which he said would arise from the duty. His arguments applied only to the very limited class of places similar to that from which he had received the communication he had read—namely, the watering-places, The agreements by which fur- nished houses were taken were already liable to a stamp duty, and it was only following out what was already the usual practice in legislation, first to reduce a duty which was unreasonable in amount to a moderate sum, and, secondly, to bring the persons on whom the payment of the stamp duty depended, under the view of the Board of Inland Revenue by means of a licence so as to ensure its collection. The present proposal was merely to apply that general principle to a particular case, and was not suggested by house agents. The only reason Mr. Ayrton had given for supposing that it was so suggested, was a letter from a house agent, approving, not the tax now produced, but one of a much larger amount. The only sense in which this measure was protective was that it tended to protect the revenue.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he concurred in objecting to that sort of interference, which was accustoming the people of the country to the interference of the police in their private affairs. It was a vexatious interference with trade; and though he was a strong supporter of the general policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought that fright hon. Gentleman made himself obnoxious by his constant petty interferences, his penny stamps and licences.

MR. AYRTON

said, he must be permitted to observe that there was no such principle as was alleged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No person was licensed because he used stamps. Persons were licensed to bring them under the purview of the Excise; but then there was a power to take away the licence if they sought to defraud the Exchequer. There was no such provision in the Bill. The measure, if carried would give a colour to an agitation against class legislation. It was a monstrous proposition, and he should divide the Committee on it then, and, if necessary, in a larger House.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

thought that the clause was neither more nor less than an attempt to throw the whole letting of lodgings into the hands of the auctioneers.

MR. FRANK CROSSLEY

said, he wished to know whether the tax would apply to persons in the habit of collecting rents? He had received a letter from a constituent who collected rents for a friend at a distance, and he wanted to know at what point the operation of the law would begin and end?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied in the negative.

MR. G. W. HOPE

asked if it would apply to the letting of farm-houses?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was entirely confined to the letting of furnished houses; and the 14th Clause would make an exception in favour of all persons whoso duty it was to act as agents for landed estates.

MR. PULLER

said, it would be a considerable innovation to put a penalty on all who made agreements not on stamped paper, as many made agreements by letter, and would be much inconvenienced if restricted from doing so.

Motion made, and Question put "That Clause 11 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 24: Majority 11.

Clauses, 12, 13, and 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 (The Stamp on the Lease of a furnished House may be adhesive; the same to be cancelled),

MR. HENNESSY

said, he wished to ask whether the adhesive stamp would not in some cases be too small for all the parties to an agreement to sign their names on?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must admit the defect, but it would be very inconvenient to change the law that applied to other adhesive stamps.

Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 16.

House resumed; Bill reported, as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.