§ (1) If any person makes or manufactures any intoxicating liquor, for the making or manufacture of which he is required to take out a licence under this Act, without taking out such a licence, he shall be liable in respect of each offence to an Excise penalty of five hundred pounds.
1592§ (2) If any person deals wholesale in any intoxicating liquor, for the wholesale dealing in which he is required to take out u licence under this Act, without taking out such a licence, he shall be liable in respect of each offence to an Excise penalty of one hundred pounds.
§ (3) If any person sells by retail any intoxicating liquor, for the retail sale of which he is required to take out a licence under this Act, without taking out such a licence, he shall be liable in respect of each offence, at the election of the Com missioners, either to an Excise penalty of fifty pounds, or to an Excise penalty equal to treble the amount of the duty which would have been chargeable on the licence.
§ (4) If any person holding any of the licences specified in the First Schedule to this Act contravenes the terms of the licence, or sells otherwise than as he is authorised by the licence, or contravenes any of the provisions applicable to the licence under that Schedule, he shall be liable in respect of each offence, if the offence is not an offence for which any specific penalty is imposed by any Act relating to Excise duties or licences, to an Excise penalty of fifty pounds.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSmoved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "in the case of spirits and one hundred pounds in the case of beer, and in any other case fifth pounds."
This Clause very largely increases the Excise penalties in three cases. The first is in the case of the manufacturers of intoxicating liquor. The second is in the case of wholesale dealers. The third is in the case of the retail dealers. There are three Amendments down in my name, the first one being that of the manufacturer or makers of intoxicating liquors. But perhaps I had better state the law as it is. The present law is that the penalty for distilling spirits without a licence is £500, with the forfeiture of stocks and material. The penalty in the case of beer is only £100, with the forfeiture of stock and material. In the case of cider there is no penalty at all, because no Licence Duty is required. For sweets the penalty is £50, with forfeiture of the article. The Committee, therefore, will see that under these new provisions the brewers are raised from £100 to £500 penalty; the manufacturers of cider have to take out a licence, which they are not required to do now, and are liable to a penalty of £500 if they do not take out that licence. The manufacturers of sweets are now under a penalty of £50, and they 1593 are put under a penalty of £500 if they do not take out a licence. I want to ask the Solicitor-General, or the Chancellor of the Duchy, the reason why the Government propose to increase these penalties so very largely? I should also like to ask either of them if they can give any information as to the number of cases in the past where licences have not been taken out, and the penalties that have been inflicted. Because if it cannot be shown to the Committee that it is a common offence I think there is really no reason why these very severe penalties of £500 in each case should be insisted upon. I beg to move my Amendment.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe object of the Clause is, I think, a very good one. That is, first of all, to secure revenue, and, in the next place, to have uniformity. There is a good deal of want of uniformity at present in the penalties which are recoverable. The scale which the Bill has adopted is this: for manufacturers' licences a penalty of £500. I am not now dealing with the forfeiture of material and stock. For the wholesale dealer we propose a uniform penalty of £100 in every case, and for the others, £50. As to manufacturers' licences, distillers and rectifying distillers are at present under a penalty of £500, and brewers at present are subject to a pecuniary penalty of £100. There is an alteration in the pecuniary penalty for brewers to £500; but, then, the brewers' licence is very small under the existing law, and the fine under the existing law was very much greater in proportion to the Licence Duty than it is under this Bill. The only other remaining manufacturers' penalty is that of the sweet manufacturer, which is increased to £500. Of course, if these were duties, the increase would be very serious, but they are merely penalties. With regard to the wholesale dealers dealt with in the second Sub-section, the uniform penalty we suggest is £100. In respect to wholesale dealers in spirits, beer, and wine, the penalty is £100, and in the case of retailers the penalty in every case is £50, or treble the duty on the licence. For spirits in Ireland the penalty is £100; that is reduced; and, for beer and cider the penalty is £15 and £20 on, and £10 off; wine, £10; sweets, £50. In some cases there is no difference; in one case there is a reduction of the penalty; and, in two or three, there is an increase. The result of the whole thing is we have a uniform penalty of £500 in respect of manufacturers and a penalty of £100 in respect of wholesale 1594 dealers, and £50, or treble the duty, on the licence on retailers.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI have not much sympathy with people who know they are breaking the law, and I do not think it is possible for anyone to incur these penalties without knowing they are committing a breach of the law. I take the same view as the Solicitor-General, and I hope my hon. Friend will consent to withdraw his Amendment. There are two or three points I want to reserve, but they arise on Sub-section (3). I am referring to the words "treble the amount of the duty," which we can discuss when we come to them. That is a point on which we should like some further explanation. I think we had better wait until we come to that. On the Sub-section we are discussing I would like to ask a question. Does it not occur to the Solicitor-General that the courts ought to have a certain amount of discretion? I do not regard these penalties which it is within the power of the court to inflict as excessive, but I think the court ought to have the option not to inflict the full penalty in every case. I understand that as the words stand in the Bill the court will have absolutely no choice, and wherever a, breach of the law comes before the court the full penalty must be imposed. If the Solicitor-General will consent to put in the words "not exceeding ££00," it would then be in the power of the count to adjust the penalty to the gravity of the offence. In a very grave case I do not think £500 is too high.
§ Mr. YOUNGERThis is no new question, because this difficulty does arise. As far as my experience goes, I have always found the attitude of the Inland Revenue in this matter very fair, and I have known them treat some bad oases in an extremely lenient way. I think they can be trusted to do that in the future as in the past. I do not think there was any necessity to increase the penalty in the case of brewers.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am afraid my hon. Friend has not sat on the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, and has not had official charge of these matters as I have had, otherwise he would have known that that Committee and Members of the House of Commons are showing an increasing jealousy in regard to any elasticity of administration exercised by official bodies as to the penalties or dues to be levied. I do not share that jealousy, because I think 1595 their discretion is wisely exercised, and I think it is a great advantage to our system in many ways. Some of these cases are relevant to this particular matter and some are not, but still that jealousy exists, and if we could arrive at the same result by a method which would not arouse the jealousy of the House of Commons it would be much better. I am perfectly satisfied with the undertaking which the Solicitor-General has given to have this matter considered.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSAfter the appeal which has been made to me by the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I do not move my second Amendment, but I would like to move the third Amendment standing in my name.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSmoved, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "or to an Excise penalty equal to treble the amount of the duty which would have been chargeable on the licence."
This involves a very important question, because with the increased Licence Duties being imposed by the Bill treble the amount of the duty in many cases would amount to a very large sum indeed. In the case of a retailer's house of the annual value of £100 the penalty, three times half the value, would be £150; and in the case of a house of the annual value of £300 it would be £450. I hope the learned Solicitor-General will agree to strike out these words, and leave the Excise penalty £50 to retailers of intoxicating liquor.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI think I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman that the scale is not objectionable in this case at all.
§ There is a great variety in the amount of the retailer's Licence Duties. Some of them are very low, and in those cases it may be agreed that a penalty of £50 is too high. We therefore intend to meet those cases by the alternative of treble the duty. On the other hand, there are cases in which £50 as a fixed sum would be too low. Our object is to have treble the duty in cases of small amounts, and the alternative of £50 to meet the big amounts.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI know in the Customs it is not uncommon to have a penalty of treble duty. I am not, however, quite certain how this is going to work. The Solicitor-General and the Government assume the courts will apply it in a particular way. They assume they will adopt £50 in a normal case, and take the other calculation to give a lower amount where £50 would be too high. There may, he says, be cases in which the duty payable will be so high that £50 would be far too high, and then the alternative will work out with beautiful simplicity in a sliding scale which will cut off the head of the small man, and another to cut off the head of the tall one. But what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do with the case of the shebeen, where there are no premises? That will rot be touched by the treble duty. Yet these are the worst cases, in which the penalty ought to be high. This matter is one requiring further consideration. I think the real solution is to give discretion to the court—a direct discretion as to the penalty.
§ Question put, "That the words 'or to an Excise penalty equal to treble the amount of the duty' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 80.
1597| Division No. 628.] | AYES. | [10.55 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) |
| Agnew, George William | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Cleland, J. W. | Dillon, John |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Clough, William | Duckworth, Sir James |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Barker, Sir John | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Elibank, Master of |
| Barnard, E. B. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Erskine, David C. |
| Beale, W. P. | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Evans, Sir S. T. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Cooper, G. J. | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Falconer, James |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Findlay, Alexander |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Cowan, W. H. | Gulland, John W. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Crossley, William J. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Cullinan, J. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Harwood, George |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Massie, J. | Seely, Colonel |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Molteno, Percy Alport | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Henry, Charles S. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Higham, John Sharp | Morrell, Philip | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Morse, L. L. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Hogan, Michael | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hudson, Walter | Myer, Horatio | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Summerbell, T. |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Nuttall, Harry | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Jardine, Sir J. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Tomkinson, James |
| Jowett, F. W. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Toulmin, George |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Radford, G. H. | Verney, F. W. |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Rainy, A. Rolland | Walters, John Tudor |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Raphael, Herbert H. | Waring, Walter |
| Lambert, George | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Roes, J. D. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Rendall, Athelstan | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Lupton, Arnold | Ridsdale, E. A. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)' |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Lynch, H. B. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Robinson, S. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Maclean, Donald | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Winfrey, R. |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Rowlands, J. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Maddison, Frederick | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Fletcher, J. S. | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Anson. Sir William Reynell | Foster, P. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gretton, John | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds) | Remnant, James Faquharson |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hamilton, Marquess of | Renton, Leslie |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. (Winchester) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Renwick, George |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Helmsley, Viscount | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hill, Sir Clement | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hills, J. W. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stanier, Beville |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hunt, Rowland | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Kerry, Earl of | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Keswick, William | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Younger, George |
| Doughty, Sir George | M'Arthur, Charles | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Moore, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Morpeth, Viscount | S. Roberts and Mr. G. D. Faber. |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) after the word "the" ["amount of tie duty which would have been chargeable on the licence"] to insert the word "full."
§ In Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "which would have been chargeable on the licence"—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]