COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 11 May 1863 vol 170 cc1555-71

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Clubs to be licensed for the selling of excisable Liquors to their Members) struck out.

Clauses 2 to 8 were agreed to,

Clause 9 (Lower Hates of Duty on Stage Carriages licensed to carry not more than Eight Persons).

MR. AYRTON

said, he would move to leave out "one halfpenny" in line 26, and to insert "one farthing," and to add to the end of the clause the following words:— And for and in respect of every mile which any stage carriage licensed to carry more than eight passengers at one time shall be licensed to travel, the duty of one halfpenny. Since he had had a seat in that House he never knew a clearer case of justice than that which he had to submit to the judgment of the Committee, and to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Continual attempts had been made, ever since the introduction of railways, to obtain a fair and uniform duty on passengers travelling by stage coaches and railways. The difficulty was to say in what manner these taxes should be levied consistently with equality. In 1837, when a charge of one-third of a penny was paid by railways, and a farthing by stage coach passengers, a Committee was appointed to consider the subject. They reported that great inequality existed, the travelling by animal power being heavily burdened, while travelling by steam-motive power was lightly taxed by comparison. They recommended the abolition of all the taxes on public conveyances at the earliest possible period. That Report produced no result, and in 1839 the subject was brought under the notice of the House, but the state of the revenue did not admit of a change. Lord Monteagle, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that there was an inequality in the rate of taxation, which it behaved Parliament to consider. The late Sir Robert Peel admitted that the owners of the older description of vehicles were suffering from the introduction of railways, and that it would be unfair on the part of the Legislature to give them an unequal share of taxation to contend against. In 1842 the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day introduced a Bill to carry the principle that had been laid down, and the taxes on stage carriages and railways were re-adjusted. Stage carriages were charged1½d. per mile and railways 5 per cent on the gross income derived from passengers. That was thought to be a fair settlement of the question; but since then the equality had been again disturbed by the general Act which compelled railway companies to send one train a day to convey passengers at 1d. per mile. In 1855 the subject was again brought before the House in connection with a transaction which occurred in the north of England, where the owners of stage carriages had made a private arrangement to reduce their own rate of taxation. General Wyndham in that year moved a Resolution, that, in the opinion of the House, the law relating to stage carriages ought to be modified. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day, Sir George Lewis, said, that if he had to submit a supplementary Budget, the question of the mileage duty would be entitled to a prominent place in it; that if a favourable opportunity arose for the re-consideration of that class of duties, he was quite alive to the objections which had been urged against them; and the right hon. Gentleman added, that these duties ought to be remitted whenever the state of the revenue allowed of their removal. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) concurred in the opinion, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who closed the debate, said, that seeing that the Government had the authority of the House for taking the matter into consideration with a view to the modification of the duties, he was not disposed to oppose the Motion. The consequence was, that the Government fixed the duty at 1d., and there it had since remained. Before the Committee, which sat two years ago, of which the late Sir George Lewis was a member, and of which he had the honour to be Chairman, attention was called to the mileage duties, and it was shown that there were altogether different rates upon the different railways. Some had a larger amount of cheap traffic than others; and whenever passengers were carried at a less rate than 1d. per passenger per mile, they claimed exemption from duty in respect of these earnings; and that exemption, although it was perfectly illegal, was allowed by the Government, in order to keep itself in harmony with the companies. The only deduction which could properly be made was in respect of what were called Parliamentary trains running once a day in each direction. The result was that the duty, instead of being 5 per cent as originally imposed, was reduced to less than 3½ per cent on the large railways, and even, in, some cases, to 1 per cent. What was the case of 'the omnibus proprietors? Since the establishment of a great concern in London, publishing its accounts, and carrying on business as a joint stock company, the most accurate data had been procurable. From these it appeared that the omnibus company was in receipt of £582,000 annually, out of which it paid a tax of £52,000 a year, being nearly 10 per cent on its gross earnings. Those persons who had stage carriages throughout the country were still more aggrieved; but although they might grumble, being isolated individuals, they had no opportunity of making known their case to the public. It was only now, when the circumstances of the country enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in a Budget not provoking much discussion or opposition, that he felt it his duty to enter into special questions of grievance or injustice connected with finance, and to some extent, he might therefore say, that he brought forward the subject at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. The Resolutions affecting the railway companies seemed rather to have fallen behind, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was waiting for detailed statistical information. When those accounts were received, he would see that the charge on the railway companies was really taken at 3 per cent, while the charge on stage carriages might be taken as ranging at about 10 per cent. He had never heard but one reason suggested for the inequality to which he referred, and that, although specious, was unsound. It was said that railways were the owners of the road, while omnibuses ran upon the public roads. But, because the railway companies had made a complex machine of an iron road, and a steam engine, which they said was more economical than horses upon a common road, that was not a matter with which Parliament had anything to do. As well might a different duty be levied upon long cloth manufactured by handloom to that which was levied upon the produce of great and expensive machinery. The proper test of taxation was the gross earnings. The railways had obtained a large exemption, from duty upon the plea that they convoyed passengers cheaply, at the rate of 1d. per mile. But he had a long list of omnibus fares which did not exceed that rate; and if the omnibus proprietors possessed the same influence as was enjoyed by the railway companies, they would be wholly exempt from taxation. The duty, no doubt, in its origin was a sumptuary tax paid by the richer classes, and as such was a legitimate source of revenue But the incidence of the tax had changed, for it was not the rich who rode in omnibuses, but to a great extent the working classes, who were thus conveyed from the districts where they lived to the places where they worked. The amount involved was not such as to indispose the Committee to deal with the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made some rather weak appeals, that his surplus should be regarded as a sacred fund, but he had had already to re-consider his propositions upon one or two points. It was true that upon those points greater influence had been brought to bear than he could boast of; but the right hon. Gentleman, the other evening, made an appeal to the justice and firmness of the House, which had so powerful an effect that all considerations of party were abandoned, and all concurred in condemning that with which every one was satisfied before. He hoped that upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman could see that there was a necessity for dealing with the grievance, and would yield to the appeal made to him. The effect of his Amendment would be to reduce the duty paid by stage carriages by one-half, and accordingly he moved to reduce the sums inserted in the clause in that proportion.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, to leave out the words "one halfpenny," and insert the words "one farthing."

GENERAL BUCKLEY

said, he had hoped, from a conversation that he had had with the right hon. Gentleman, that he would agree to some remission of the tax. He had laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the case of a coach which, in the county which he represented, travelled forty miles a day, and afforded the only public conveyance which the inhabitants of the villages through which it passed possessed. That coach paid £52 a year in taxes; and as the gain was very small, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not be indisposed to make some remission in favour of that class of vehicles, in order that they might not be obliged to stop running.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, when appeals such as were made by the hon. and gallant Member were presented to his notice, he was naturally desirous of meeting them as far as lay in his power. There were, no doubt, many taxes which it was desirable should be remitted; and, certainly, it would be a happy state of things if, as far as locomotion was concerned, there were no taxes at all. But it was his duty, in the office he held, to measure his acts by his necessities, and he would endeavour to state those necessities to the Committee. It must not be supposed that the question raised by the hon. Gentleman was limited by the terms in which it was couched. He could not look at the duties upon locomotion with regard to one portion only. The first effect of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, if carried, would be to deprive the revenue of £70,000 a year, and the Government were not prepared, under existing circumstances, to acquiesce in that proposal. But the duty upon stage carriages was only one portion of the revenue derived from locomotion, which amounted to £775,000 a year. The railways paid £387,000 a year; stage carriages paid £144,000; hackney carriages, £104,000; and post-horse licences, £138,000. With regard to the duty on hackney carriages, the case, no doubt, was peculiar. Some years ago Parliament compelled hackney carriages to reduce their fares, but omnibuses still charged what they pleased. During the Exhibition period there was a great augmentation of traffic, and the consequence was the omnibus fares were raised. The hon. Member had omitted to point out, that owing to the peculiar nature of the control which the omnibus proprietors had over the traffic, the immediate consequence of an increased demand was increased fares. Therefore, if the House considered the case of stage carriages they must also consider the hackney carriages and the post-horse licences. The railway companies would also fairly be entitled to raise a question for themselves as they were in immediate competition with stage carriages all over the country. The four branches of revenue were associated together, and it was impossible to open one for the purpose of reduction—first, because of its direct effect upon the revenue; and next, because its indirect effect would be to give rise to fresh demands in other quarters. The hon. Member had stated that his arguments in favour of maintaining the surplus were very feeble; and, as inroads had already been made upon that surplus, the hon. Member tranquilly inferred that further inroads might be made upon it without detriment to any one. The surplus which he had proposed to maintain was about £530,000, and lie had stated on the part of his Colleagues their intention steadily to resist all invasion whatever of that surplus. But he did not presume to place revenue arising from proposals which he intended to make, and which had never received the approval of Parliament, on the same footing with revenue arising from established sources. The surplus stood at about £400,000; and he trusted that the Committee would not think, with the hon. Member, that his arguments for its maintenance were weak. He did not speak of the revenue from locomotion as a revenue which ought at all times, and under all circumstances, to be retained. But he thought that the intention of the country was not to fritter away public revenue at the present moment by minute remissions in favour of this or that class, but rather to husband its resources with a view to the attainment of objects in which the whole public had an interest. These taxes upon locomotion were taxes with regard to which every reasonable and enlightened man would say that the more they could be reduced the better. But how stood the case? The statement of the hon. Member on the subject, though able, was not, quite fair and impartial. He said that stage carriages were subject to a payment of 10 per cent, while railways only paid about 3 per cent; and he added that it was not a legitimate argument to justify the distinction by any reference to the peculiar circumstance that railways found their own roads and stage carriages ran on roads provided for them. By an ingenious artifice, the hon. Member mixed up together bodies of stage carriages, which were very differently circumstanced indeed. The country stage carriages, for which the hon. and gallant Member near him (General Buckley) had pleaded, helped to make their own roads, since they paid turnpike tolls. But the country carriages were by no means the chief clients of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton). His London clients, in their published statements, objected to the partial reduction proposed to be given in the Bill in the case of smaller carriages. They declared, that if the reduction were carried out, many large vehicles paying £3 3s. a year and a penny a mile, would be replaced by smaller ones, paying a licence duty of 10s. yearly and a halfpenny per mile. Well, it was rather hard that in the exceptionally favourable condition which the London omnibus proprietors enjoyed, having their roads made for them, they should object to the relief proposed to be given, upon no exceptional or arbitrary principles, to smaller carriages, which did help to make their roads. It was commonly said that misfortune tended to soften the heart and make us compassionate towards brethren in affliction; but the clients of the hon. Member seemed in this respect to be rather in the rear of the average of mankind. He would, however, grapple with the real argument of the hon. Gentleman by saying, that the comparison between the percentage upon railways and that upon stage carriages in London, must obviously be unjust, because the tax upon stage carriages fell upon rolling stock alone, while that on railways fell on rolling stock and on roads. The hon. Member contended that the road was no part of the instrument by which the passenger was carried. It seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) an astonishing doctrine, for they did not travel in the air. To justify the comparison of the hon. Member, a proportion of tax ought to be imposed in respect of the roads traversed by stage carriages, for probably three-fourths of the expenses of railway companies had been incurred in laying down their permanent way, and only one-fourth in providing the rolling stock. The hon. Gentleman also said, that the remission of duty made to railway companies was illegal, and he complained that railway companies, being influential and powerful bodies, obtained a degree of favour which their competitors did not. The hon. Member was wrong in that statement; for if he referred to the Act of 1844, he would find that these exemptions were made in favour of the low-priced trains, and were not limited to a single train a day—the Parliamentary train.

He wished to call the attention of the; Committee to what had been done at various times in regard to these duties. Down to 1839 the rate of duty on carriages conveying above fifteen persons was 3d. a mile. Since that time the size of stage carriages had been greatly increased, while the amount of the tax upon them had been greatly reduced. Prom 1839 to 1842 the duty was2½d. per mile. From 1842 to 1855 it was 1½d. In the latter year, Parliament considered the incidence of the tax upon railways and stage carriages respectively, and remitted one-third of the tax upon omnibuses. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets argued, that as railway trains travelled at less than a penny a mile, omnibuses ought to go free; but when a train travelled at a penny a mile, it did so from station to station, and a passenger, by counting the number of miles he wanted to go, was able to tell the amount of his fare. That was not the ease with an omnibus, because, though for the whole journey the rate might be under a penny per mile, the vehicle did not travel from station to station at that rate. For instance, a passenger entering an omnibus at Charing Cross and travelling only as far as Regent Street certainly would not be carried for the rate of a penny a mile.

MR. AYRTON

Neither would he be carried for such a distance in any railway train at the rate of a penny a mile, because there is an Act which provides that railways need not take anything under a four-mile fare.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was showing that the principle of distances was a test in the case of railway fares, whereas the distance the passenger was carried was not a test in the case of omnibuses, and that therefore the cases were different. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the low earnings of the London General Omnibus Company; but he ought to have entered into some explanation with the view of showing how far the low profits of that company were to be accounted for by the expenses which it had gone to in driving competitors off the line, because it was a matter of notoriety that the drivers and conductors of independent proprietors made frequent complaints against the managers and drivers of the London General Omnibus Company for driving them off the road. He observed that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets shook his head at that statement, which showed that the hon. Gentleman did not read the police reports in the newspapers. However it was, competitors to the London General Omnibus Company disappeared after a short time. That was a matter of which the House of Commons could take no notice, but it was one which ought to engage the hon. Gentleman's attention when he made an appeal for the company on the ground of their low earnings.

The point, however, to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished specially to call the attention of the Committee was the general position of the finances of the country. If the Committee thought it right to go on without a surplus—if the Committee thought the claim now made was the only claim on the surplus which existed—let them support the hon. Gentleman. But as there were abundance of other claimants, with good cases, calling for reduction, and as the claim now put forward directly menaced a very considerable sum, and indirectly menaced a considerably larger sum, the matter deserved their serious attention, inasmuch as it involved the maintenance of that moderate revenue which was necessary for the public service. Still, the Government had looked into the case of the proprietors of omnibuses, and had endeavoured to relieve them as far it was possible to do so without detriment to the revenue of the country. No doubt the greatest pressure in respect of the charges on those vehicles was felt in the case of lines where there was but small traffic, such as those from small railway stations, and where the omnibuses were also taxed for the road they travelled on. The Government had endeavoured to meet that case by a considerable remission of taxation. At present, a licence of three guineas and a mileage of 1d. per mile were charged under all circumstances, no matter what the size of the vehicle or how small the traffic. Besides, the licence must be paid for the whole year, though the traffic might be only for a portion of the year. In the first place the Government had drawn the distinction between small carriages—carriages carrying not more than eight passengers—and large ones; and it was to be remembered that omnibuses used in the North and in London carried from twenty to forty passengers. They reduced the licence on small carriages from three guineas to 10 s.; and they were further justified in doing that because they believed that the present high rate of licence duty in respect of these small vehicles had the effect of checking enterprise. Then they reduced the mileage from 1d. to ½d. per mile in the case of that class of vehicles to which he was referring; and the 10s. licence might be divided into fractions, according to the portion of the year for which it was paid. He did not think that these reductions would result in any loss to the revenue. He calculated that an increased traffic would recoupe the revenue on the reductions. In respect of large carriages they had endeavoured to do justice also. For the future it would not be necessary for that class of carriage to pay the whole three guineas before obtaining a licence. The licence year would expire on the 31st of October instead of the 30th of September, and licences might always be had at any period of the year for the period of the licence year then unexpired. In some parts of the country the season closed at the end of September, and the Bill therefore provided that licences might be taken out for any of the four quarters of the year. He had said that he expected an increase of traffic from the remission in the case of the taxes on small omnibuses in rural districts; but he hoped no hon. Member would argue from that admission that an increase might also be expected if similar remissions were made to the London General Omnibus Company. In the former ease the pressure of expenses confined the traffic; but in London the omnibus traffic was a large and increasing one. For these reasons he could not consent, by agreeing to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to weaken those financial arrangements which he thought the House had allowed to be reasonable—looking to the actual and possible wants of the country—to the necessity of maintaining the solidity of our finances, and to the general condition of the world, which could not be separated from financial considerations.

LORD FERMOY

said, that long as he had been in the House, he never remembered a Chancellor of the Exchequer giving up a tax without a struggle, nor had he ever heard a Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that the relief proposed by any private Member was exactly the relief which ought to be given. A great deal of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had been devoted to the praise of what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do for carriages in the rural districts; but the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not only relieve the rural carriages a great deal more, but would relieve those in towns altogether. If the right hon. Member justified his taxes on town omnibuses in excess of railways, because they had not to find their own roads, surely he ought to hand over the excess for the benefit of those who did supply the roads. But the truth was the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind to stick by his Budget—as far as he could. He did not wish to say a word in favour of additional tayation on railways, but omnibus proprietors could scarcely help complaining of the manner in which they were treated in comparison with railways. In London they were exposed to competition with railways. The opening of the Metropolitan Railway, for instance, had reduced the earnings of four omnibuses starting from the neighbourhood of the terminus from £2,960 in 1862 to £786 in 1863. The loss must fall, after all, on the public, for the omnibuses, if they were unfairly burdened, would be worse horsed and worse managed altogether. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had shown some little consideration for the rural districts, as opposed to the metropolitan, and he regarded it as a rather remarkable concession. He did not wish to take any part in the combat between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, but he was very much struck with a remark that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, to the effect that, in his opinion, taxes on locomotion ought to be low. Now, if there was any one point to which taxation might be directed, without prejudice to anybody, and with benefit to the community at large, he (Mr. Bentinck) thought it was on locomotion. Locomotion was one of two things. It was either a matter of luxury, or a matter of business. It was agreed on all hands that luxuries of all kinds ought to be taxed. If a tax on locomotion for purposes of business, without detriment to that business, could be levied, it was desirable that it should be done with the least possible inconvenience. It might be said that excursion trains ought not to be taxed. Now, he believed they were the source of nine-tenths of the accidents which occurred, and he doubted whether they really tended to promote the health of those who profited by them. He did not think that going 120 miles at a cheap rate, was the best way of disposing of a man's time; and believed that it might be spent in a much better way. He did not think that there could be any better tax generally speaking than that on railway travelling.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for he regarded cheap locomotion as one of the greatest boons that could be conferred upon the public. He had always been in favour of low fares and speedy communication between all parts of the Empire; and he therefore trusted that the opinion expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer foreshadowed at no distant day the liberation of locomotion from all taxation. With respect to any rise of fares in the metropolis, that might be traced to the high licensing duties, and he was of opinion, that if there was an entire free trade in omnibuses, high fares would be avoided.

MR. AYRTON

said, his proposition applied to the stage coaches in the country as well as to the omnibuses in the City. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have it that the tax in question was a tax upon coaches and the rolling stock of railways; but in that he was opposed to all financiers, who regarded it in this light, that it was a tax upon passengers—a point which had been admitted by all the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office, and by the late Sir Robert Peel. It had nothing whatever to do with the tax whether passengers were carried by one mode of conveyance or by another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not tell the Committee that the omnibus proprietors besides that tax paid £18,000 a year for the roads; and if they paid less tolls, it was because the inhabitants generally preferred to pay a house tax for that purpose. But the right hon. Gentleman thought himself entitled to levy a heavier tax on the omnibus proprietors on that account. It was a fact, that the omnibus proprietors were not able to make a fair profit by their business at present; and surely, when the railway below the road was exempted from taxation, it was not just that the omnibus running above should be heavily taxed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an imperfect denial to his statement that those railway exemptions were illegal. But the law required that the exemptions should take effect only when the railway company ran a train at a penny a mile, allowed a certain weight of luggage to be carried free, and the train stopped at every station. But excursion trains, as they were carried on, were not exempt by law; and he would say more, the Government were aware that they were not exempt; and more than that, the exemption was given in order to make matters work smoothly between the railway companies and the Board of Trade. The consequence was the railway companies were not paying their full share of taxation, while the burden was borne by other parties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had indeed thrown out an indefinite hope that the tax would be done away with. But why were they to be amused with those sensation propositions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that if he yielded in that case, he would be obliged to remit £700,000; but his (Mr. Ayrton's) demand was limited to £70,000, which would be recouped by the increase in the number of omnibuses. If the House took off a duty which was so excessive as nearly to sink the traffic, it would be sure to give a new impulse to it by the remission. That was a well established fact, and one which had been often dwelt on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. But now the right hon. Gentleman said, if the tax were taken off, nothing would be recouped. The right hon. Gentleman made this distinction, that the train carried its passengers from station to station, while the door of the omnibus was always open and one might get out of it when he pleased. But what difference did that make. The omnibus conveyed passengers at a penny a mile, and the railway company professed to do the same; but while the railway company charged for part of a mile as for the whole, the omnibus charged for part of the distance in the same way. In short, it was a case of the simplest justice; but the right hon. Gentleman was frightened about his surplus. The Chancellor of the Exchequer looked upon his surplus just as a mother after several miscarriages looked upon her production. It was the most extraordinary creature, the most lovable creature in the world; everything would injure it, it was to be cherished as the most admirable thing in nature. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that he would take the matter into his consideration, or, if not, that the Committee would give such practical suggestions, with a view to the removal of those inequalities, as would induce him to do so.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman again into the general question, but would merely point one error into which he had fallen in the repetition of his vague assertions. The hon. Gentleman had asserted that the exemption granted by the Government to certain railway trains was illegal. The hon. Gentleman had read the 6th section of the Act, but had stopped there. If he had read the 8th section, he would find that a discretionary power was given to the Executive to dispense with any of the conditions required with regard to the conveyance of passengers by any such cheap trains as aforesaid. [Mr. AYRTON: Yes, Parliamentary trains.] The words were, "by any such cheap trains."

Question put, "That the words ' one halfpenny' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 35: Majority 46.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 20, inclusive, were likewise agreed to.

Clause 21 (In certain cases excisable liquors may he sold under a Publican's occasional licence after sunset).

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to ask an explanation of the changes which were contained in the clause.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that when the occasional licences to publicans for a certain temporary purpose were passed, a good deal of jealousy had been expressed; indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was one of the principal organs of that jealousy, and the consequence was, that the clause had been made a good deal too restrictive. Very possibly he might have to propose some further relaxation before the measure got through Parliament. The clause removed restrictions on the sale of liquors after sunset and before sunrise, but only on the occasions specified—for instance, on the occasion of any public dinner or ball—and it enacted that under an occasional licence liquors might be sold during such hours before or after sunrise or sunset as should be allowed and specified in that behalf in the consents to be given by the justices of the peace for the granting of such occasional licence. It had been mentioned to him that in some other cases the restriction to sunset was rather too severe. For example, a cricket match was carried on within a few minutes of sunset, and it would be hard to require absolutely the cessation of the sale of liquors at the moment the sun set. In such a case he proposed that a little discretion and some small margin should be given. With regard to Clause 22, it was intended to remedy an error into which he had been led from over-confidence in the judgment and too great a-readiness to acquiesce in the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton). Before the Act 25 & 26 Vict, passed, publicans were permitted, without an Excise licence, to sell liquors at fairs and races. The hon. and learned Gentleman took away that privilege from the publicans without the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it became unlawful to sell liquors during fairs and races without a licence. The object of Clause 22 was to restore to publicans the privilege they before enjoyed with respect to fairs and races.

MR. AYRTON

said, the effort had been to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider moral questions in connection with Excise licences. He had heard that a good deal of debauchery had been repressed by the change to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. Now, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the Act relating to public-houses in Scotland the matter had been carefully considered in reference to the question of occasional licences; and he trusted that if the right hon. Gentleman meant to enlarge those licences, as he was now doing, he would also alter the law by which they were to be issued.

MR. HUNT

observed, that the conditions under which occasional licences could be obtained were rather oppressive to the publican, it being sometimes very difficult to procure the consent of two justices residing in the same district as the person seeking for the licence, as was required. He would suggest that it would be sufficient if a licence were signed by one magistrate living within seven miles of the place for which the licence was required.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken in thinking that an unnecessary amount of restraint was imposed on those publicans who, as a condition of obtaining a licence to supply certain articles on a particular occasion, were compelled to travel over the country to find two justices both acting in their district of petty sessions. He would therefore be disposed to accede to such an Amendment as had been suggested if the hon. Member moved it, or he would propose it himself on bringing up the Report. He had not received any complaints of the abuse of occasional licences. A letter had been published complaining of a great amount of drunkenness on some public occasion in the West of England; hut, on careful investigation, it appeared that the gathering, which was a large one, had been conducted in an unusually satisfactory manner, and that the cases of drunkenness were remarkably few.

MR. FINLAY

said, he hoped Scotland would be excluded from the operation of the clause.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought that Scotland was already without the operation of the enactment

Clause agreed to.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.