LICENSING BILL.

§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)

, in moving the insertion of the words "save as hereinafter provided," said it must be read in conjunction to the Amendment in his name lower down, which ran as follows: "Nothing in this section shall prevent the grant of an excise licence to a spirit dealer or wine dealer where the trade to be carried on is of a wholesale character and where any retail sales in connection therewith are merely auxiliary and incidental to the carrying on of a wholesale business." The clause was really of a very grave and far-reaching character, and he was glad to see, by one of the Amendments put down by the learned Solicitor-General, that the Government recognised that fact. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments were satisfactory, but he was glad at any rate that the Government realised the seriousness of the position which the clause created. The clause, in order to be understood, must be read with no less than three other clauses, two in existing Acts of Parliament, and one in this Bill. It must be read first of all with the third clause of the Bill, as amended on the Motion of the First Commissioner of Works. It must be read, secondly, in connection with Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, and, thirdly, in connection with Section 10 of the Licensing Act, 1904. The whole of that made a somewhat complicated study. Reading these four clauses together, so far as he could come to a conclusion, they meant this. First of all, a man in business as a wine or spirit dealer who entered into that business 1002 before 25th June, 1902, would be safe under this clause till 1930, i.e., till after the expiration, of the reduction period, plus the additional seven years. A man going into the business between the years 1902 and 1909 would be safe till 1930 against being charged monopoly value for his licence, but he would not be safe against a refusal to renew. A man going into the business after 1st June, 1909, would be subject to monopoly value charges and the risk of refusal to renew; and after the expiration of twenty-one years all dealers in wines and spirits, under the clause as it stood, would be subject to the extra charge for monopoly value for off-licences, and also to the risk of refusal to renew, and the effect of the clause would be that by 1930 the State would have the monopoly of the wine and spirit trade, wholesale and retail, throughout England. He now came to the Solicitor-General's Amendment, the second on the Paper, the effect of which would be to exempt the wholesale wine dealer from the effect of the clause. As long as he dealt wholesale he would be able to go on with his business, and would be protected by Section 10 of the Act of 1902, and would not be liable to have a renewal of his licence refused. So far, so good. But he wanted to ask why should wine alone be exempt and not spirits. What essential difference was there between the two? The spirit dealer, wholesale or retail, would have to submit to the justices, even though his business was not a local business at all. The justices would have an absolute right of refusing to renew the licence of any spirit dealer, even though he was a wholesale dealer and practically did no business whatever in the locality. A wholesale spirit dealer in London would be liable to have all his business in any part of the country absolutely cut away. He submitted that there was no possible justification for this provision—unless indeed it were held that dealing in spirits was something per se worse than dealing in wine, then the question might arise; or there was the possible explanation that these provisions were destined to be the first steps towards the State ultimately establishing either a Gothenburg or a Norwegian Bolag system; but if that was the intention of the Government, he submitted that that ought to have been 1003 declared from the first. It might be said that under the last words of the section the existing holders would be protected. It was quite true that they would be protected so long as they themselves carried on the business, but what if they wanted to sell? The purchaser would not be protected. He would have to go, cap in hand, to the justices just the same as any ordinary retail dealer, and the justices might very likely—there was no telling what their action would be—refuse a renewal of the licence, and therefore the existing property, the goodwill of the business, would be hopelessly depreciated, and if the spirit dealer wished to make his business over to his son, he would do so with the property enormously reduced. The whole question of a man's substantial property, of the security on which he could borrow money, would be enormously affected by the clause, even as amended, in the case of a spirit dealer, although there would seem at first sight to be protection for the man himself so long as he carried on the business and did not part with it to anyone else. Apart from that there were one or two objections more of detail. In the first place, even as regarded the wholesale wine merchant, he was put in a very unfortunate position, as it was very often a necessary condition of business to send out sample bottles, and that would not be possible under the Solicitor-General's Amendment. Also, he was informed, even the wholesale wine merchants in very expensive qualities—such articles as liqueur brandies and Chartreuse—very often; got orders from large customers for six bottles at a time, and great inconvenience would be caused if they had to go cap in hand to the magistrate. Now another question arose. He was told that on the face of them the words of the Solicitor-General would want some further confirmation. He was informed that there was no such thing at present as a wine dealers' wholesale licence. There was a wine dealers' retail licence under the Act of 1867, and there was a wine dealers' general licence under a much older Act—the sixth of George IV., c. 81—a wholesale licence which embraced a retail licence too. It was a licence for a dealer in foreign wines to 1004 sell wholesale and retail alike. But in this case the object was to give a licence to sell wholesale only, and he was informed that no such licence now existed, and if that was so they could not create it by merely giving a discretion to the Commissioners under this clause. It would require fresh legislation, and being financial legislation imposing a new tax, they would have to go into Committee of Ways and Means and get a Resolution before it could be carried out. If that was so, the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be carried out by those words. How far did the Amendment meet the case of those whom it was ostensibly meant to protect? There were very few firms, he imagined, probably only some specialised firms like importers of port wine and the like, who did not do a spirit business as well, and the spirit business was not protected. Therefore, this would apply to the ordinary merchants in this way, even though the other difficulties about samples and the new form of licence were got over, that he would be safe only as to one part of his business. The other part would be immediately jeopardised. He would be put, so soon as the actual holder had ceased to be in business, under the discretion of the justices, so that in case, of the sale of his property the whole value would be enormously reduced, because although the wine value might to some extent be maintained the spirit value would be enormously cut away. Some other words were necessary, and he submitted that his words were better than those of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The object was to protect the bona fide wholesale business in wine or spirits, and with regard to samples it would be quite possible for the vigilance of an Excise officer to put a stop to retail sales by fraud in the way of samples, and at the same time the ordinary retail business would no doubt come within the purview of the justices. If the clause was maintained, even with the Solicitor-General's Amendment, no wholesale wine and spirit dealer's business, taken as a whole, would be safe from immediate depreciation and ultimate great loss, and, although in perhaps a rather smaller sphere, the Government 1005 would have struck another of those blows at confidence in trade of which they had already given so many examples.

§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,) Glamorganshire, Mid.

said he hoped to persuade the hon. Member that they had dealt fairly with these licences. The origin of the proposals here put forward was to be found in Section 10 of the Act of 1902, and, speaking generally, the policy of that section was to make it necessary to have a justices' licence as well as an excise licence for all premises where liquor was to be sold by retail to be consumed off the premises. There came as a proviso to the subsection this— Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any excise licence taken out by a spirit dealer or wine dealer for premises which are exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors or intoxicating liquors and mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks and which have no internal communication with the premises of any person who is carrying on any other trade or business. That was in order to protect people who bona fide carried on in separate premises not communicating with any others a business which a spirit merchant under a spirit licence, or a wine merchant under a wine licence, could carry on. They thought that wherever intoxicating liquor was to be supplied for consumption off the premises, and by retail, a justices' licence ought to be obtained. They did not touch the wholesale supply of intoxicating liquor either in the provisions of this clause or in the provisions with regard to monopoly value. Monopoly value only attached to such licences as required to be granted by the justices themselves, and as wholesale licences did not require to be granted by the justices they did not come within the purview of these provisions. It was found in practice that where justices had refused to give a retail licence because the premises communicated with other premises where other businesses were carried on, the merchant took a 1006 small place for himself which did not in fact communicate, and, therefore, he said he came within the proviso. They wanted to put a stop to that, and that was a reason why they had introduced this Clause 21. A wine dealer's licence authorised him to sell not only wholesale but retail also, while a spirit dealer must have a wholesale licence and a retail licence. He had given notice of his Amendment to protect wine dealers from being affected by this clause, and it was entirely in their interest that it was put in. The wine merchant only had to take out a wholesale licence. It had been decided by a case in the Courts that his wholesale licence enabled him to sell not only wholesale but retail also.

§ MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

Why not give the spirit dealer the same facility?

§ SIR S. EVANS

said because he had to take out two licences. In so far as the spirit dealer sold under a retail licence, he was within the mischief against which they thought they were providing by this clause. With regard to those who already held their licence, their position was safeguarded as much as possible, and all who applied for licences before 1st January, 1909, would be put in the same position as if the Act were not passed. That meant that they would not require the justices' licence to be confirmed by any authority, and that they would be entitled to appeal from the refusal of the justices to grant a licence. Assuming it to be right to have a retail licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the premises, there ought to be a justices' licence as well as an excise licence, with regard to both spirits and wine. Carrying out that policy they had put those who had a licence now in this protected position, and they would not be affected by the provision in regard to monopoly value and other provisions in the Bill. They had put in this entirely for the protection of the wine dealer. The question of the spirit dealer was different, because he took out a spirit licence not only for retail but for wholesale.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

said he did not think 1007 the point was any less complicated after the explanation of the Solicitor-General. He did not profess himself to be an expert on the subject, but there were two points upon which he should like to be satisfied. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the clause distinguished the case of the spirit merchant from that of the wine merchant, but he gathered that it was a purely technical distinction. He understood that wholesale wine merchants and wholesale spirit merchants, in the ordinary exercise of their trade, sold specimen bottles to persons whom they hoped would be their customers. Did that bring them within the definition of retail trader? Was a man subject to all the disabilities attaching to the retail trade if, in the exercise of a wholesale business, he sold specimen bottles to those who were already his customers or whom he hoped would be his customers? His second point was the offering of samples of the liquor on the premises to would-be customers whom the wholesale merchant desired to secure. Would that be retail consumption on the premises? If the Solicitor-General could assure him that in neither of the cases he had mentioned the wholesale trader would be hampered by the clause they were discussing, he would feel that he had not much to complain of. He hoped that point would be made quite clear, because at present they were a little uncertain as to the precise position on the points he had raised.

§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

pointed out that there was no such thing as a wholesale wine licence known to the law. There was a licence to sell wine, which covered both wholesale and retail trade. He hoped the Amendment would receive further consideration.

§ *MR. GRETTON (Rutland)

said that according to the information he had received there was only one kind of wine dealers' licence and that covered sale, wholesale and retail, and also the sale of spirits. There was no provision defining what a wholesale licence was. He could not understand the action of the Government in this matter in exempting wholesale spirit merchants, and harassing retail 1008 wine merchants, and he did not think any case had been made out for refusing to continue the present system of excise, licences to retail dealers in wines and spirits. To have to go before the justices every year was very obnoxious, and it was a very unnecessary restriction unless a real case could be made out that the present administration of the law was unsatisfactory and that the public interest had suffered. His information was that no such state of things had arisen and some explanation should be offered to the Committee as to why all these difficulties should be created by an unnecessary provision of this kind.

§ SIR S. EVANS

said he had already indicated that a justices' licence would not be required for the grant of an excise licence to a wine dealer to enable him to sell wine wholesale only. He was advised that the giving of samples on the premises or sending samples would not constitute a sale retail, and would come within the powers of the person carrying on business under a wholesale licence. The Amendment on the Paper, he believed, carried out what the Government intended; if it did not then they would have to reconsider the point. If a person only wanted so sell wine wholesale he did not need to go before the justices, but if he wanted to sell retail as well he would require not only the excise licence but the justices' licence as well.

§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)

said the Solicitor-General had stated that the giving of a sample would not bring the wholesale merchant within the purview of this section. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent anyone giving beer, spirits, or wine as they pleased. His experience of wine merchants was that they were not in the habit of giving but selling the samples. A wine merchant might send three bottles of different wines as a sample with the idea of obtaining a wholesale order. A sale might or might not follow, just as the recipient was pleased or displeased with the samples and the price. His experience was that wholesale merchants were in the habit of charging for such samples. He wished to know if the sale of samples 1009 of wine in that way would bring the wine merchant within the scope of the section applying to the retail trader.

§ SIR S. EVANS

said that if the quantity sold was below the quantity sold by retail a justices' licence would be required, but if it came within the wholesale category as a part of a larger parcel sold it would be a wholesale order. It was, in his opinion, a question of fact in each case.

§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said it was obvious that it was impossible for a wine merchant in perfectly bona fide cases to guarantee that a wholesale order would follow the submitting of samples. He would be quite satisfied if the Solicitor-General assured him that the fact of the transaction being intended to lead to and was necessary for the purpose of obtaining a wholesale order would be accepted as a test of the bona fides of the transaction whether an order followed or not.

§ SIR S. EVANS

said that that was the general law at present, and they did not propose to alter it in the Bill before the House.

§ *MR. YOUNGER

said this was rather an exceptional case. It was one upon which both the Majority Report and the Minority Report of the Royal Commission were in agreement. That Commission considered the question and recommended that wholesale licences required by brewers, distillers, and wine and spirit merchants should not require the consent of the justices and should not come under the control of the licensing authority. The Commission came unanimously to the conclusion that these licences should be exempted. The Solicitor-General had not shown any ground for making the change except the desire to get some monopoly value out of these houses. The hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly aware that they had no monopoly value at present. They were in that respect in a different position from on-licences, which had, of course, a monopoly value. Therefore, by this particular provision the Government were going to create a monopoly value for the purpose of afterwards securing it. He thought that was the object of the clause. 1010 The hon. and learned Gentleman had not produced any evidence to show that there was any ground for supposing that the retail use of these licences either for wine or spirits had been in any way abused. The desire was to get as much as possible out of the unfortunate people who held these licences. In that connection it would be interesting to know what definition of monopoly value the Solicitor-General proposed to apply to these licences. He thought it would be exceedingly difficult to apply any. The hon. and learned Gentleman would be well advised if he discarded his own Amendment and accepted that proposed by his hon. friend which would meet the case.

§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

said the hon. and learned Gentleman had told the Committee that he wished to meet the case which had been represented from the Opposition side. He had based his refusal to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield on the ground that he did not wish to alter the general law. But what he was doing by the clause now under discussion was to repeal a section of the Act of 1902.

§ SIR S. EVANS

Only affecting the proviso.

§ MR. WYNDHAM

said it was proposed to repeal a provision in the Act of 1902, and to substitute a proviso which contained a phrase unknown to the general law. How would these words be construed— A justices' licence shall not be required for the grant of an Excise licence to a wine dealer to enable him to sell wine by wholesale only? His hon. friend had pointed out that this was a novelty which must be interpreted before it could be understood. It had already been pointed out that a wine dealer had a licence which embraced both wholesale and retail trade. If the hon. and learned Gentleman put into a new Act of Parliament words specifying the wholesale trade as distinct from anything else he was doing the very thing which he said he was not doing. He was altering the general law, and the effect would not 1011 be known until it was interpreted in particular cases.

§ SIR S. EVANS

said his reason for saying that they were not altering the general law was that the law now provided for licences which were applicable to wholesale and retail trade. They were not in any sense altering the law as to wholesale supply. His answer to the right hon. Gentleman was the same as he had given to the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, namely, that the intention was to avoid altogether the necessity for a justices' licence in the case of the wholesale dealer. Therefore, if a wine merchant wanted only to sell wine wholesale, he need not go to the justices at all. He had put down his Amendment lest it might be argued that the licence would entitle him, whether it did or not, to sell by retail. The Amendment did not touch the wholesale licence at all. The Government were anxious that the justices' licence should be necessary for the purpose of selling by retail. In answer to the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs he would point out that what the Commission reported was that in their opinion it might be desirable with certain exceptions even to require a justices' licence for the wholesale trade.

§ *MR. YOUNGER

said the explanation of that recommendation was that there were Excise licences which were taken out by shebeening people, and they desired to stop that. The Commission did not wish to get at the ordinary respectable wine and spirit merchant, and therefore they said that he should be exempted.

§ SIR S. EVANS

We are not doing anything against the recommendation. We are not affecting the wholesale licence, or proposing to bring it within the jurisdiction of the licensing justices.

§ MR. YOUNGER

Oh, yes, you are.

§ MR. SAMUEL YOUNG (Cavan, E.)

suggested that in the Solicitor-General's Amendment the words "or spirit" should be inserted after the word "wine."

§ SIR S. EVANS

It is not necessary.

§ MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said they were very nearly agreed on this matter. It seemed to him that the single point which remained outstanding had reference to the widespread practice of wine dealers sending out sample bottles in prosecution of wholesale trade. To interfere with that practice in any way would be to encumber business seriously, and judging from what the Solicitor-General had said it was not his desire to do so. He himself, if he were acting as a Judge, would certainly direct a jury in the sense of his hon. friend's Amendment. He would say to the jury that a wine dealer who sent out a sample bottle was bona fide carrying on trade of a wholesale character, the sale of the sample bottle being ancillary or incidental to the carrying on of the wholesale business. The Solicitor-General said that that would not be the direction which a Judge would give, but that he would direct that when sample bottles were sold to customers and paid for the sales were retail sales. He thought that would be a manifest injustice, but he must defer to what the Solicitor-General had said. It came to this that if a wine dealer sent out sample bottles he would require a justices' licence, and would therefore fall within the extremely onerous conditions attaching to monopoly value. He thought the Government, if they did not want, to act unjustly towards wholesale wine dealers, ought to accept the Amendment moved by his hon. friend.

§ MR. G. D. FABER (York)

said the supply of sample bottles was often important to a wine merchant's business nowadays. He understood that in the present conduct of the trade sales frequently consisted in supplying consignments of half-a-dozen, a dozen, or up to two dozen bottles to meet small wants all over the country. Two dozen bottles came within the definition of a wholesale sale. In future the whole of these sales would be stopped unless wine merchants got a justices' licence as well as an Excise licence. This change might hereafter involve the wine merchant in the net of monopoly value, and that would be a most serious matter. They were going to cut at the root of a great deal of the trade carried on by wine merchants. Another point which was not clear to his mind was 1013 in regard to the spirit dealer's licence. The Solicitor-General had said there was no necessity to exempt the spirit dealer. The Act of 1902 which the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted mentioned the spirit dealer as well as the wine dealer. He asked him to tell the Committee why it was not necessary to insert words exempting the spirit dealer.

§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)

said it seemed to him that some alteration in the clause was necessary to meet the point stated by the hon. Member for Kingston. The Solicitor-General had stated that a justices' licence would not be necessary to enable a wine merchant to sell wine by wholesale only. There was no such thing as an Excise licence to enable a man to sell wine by wholesale only. But that was not their Amendment at all. At any rate, the Amendment as it stood did not mean what their intention was. He suggested the desirability of the Government's reconsidering the wording of the clause.

§ MR. JAMES HOPE

said that the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the spirit dealer's licence was satisfactory. He understood that the case of the wholesale spirit dealer was covered already. As for this form of licence which enabled the wine dealer to carry on wholesale dealing, he maintained that it was not possible for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to issue a fresh form of licence. Legislation would be necessary, and as that legislation involved taxation it would have to be

§ MR. JAMES HOPE

asked whether the hon. and learned Solicitor-General was not rather dissatisfied with the ambiguity of the words "to enable." If they meant that the licensee was to give an undertaking not to sell by retail, had that not better be put in on the face of it before they got to the Report stage? As the Amendment stood there would be many different constructions of the words.

§ SIR S. EVANS

did not think there was ambiguity, but he would certainly consider the matter, because when they were at one as to the object to be attained the question of words must be considered. Since the last discussion took place he had had an opportunity of consulting the authorities, and he would read the instructions issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in 1905. First of all, the Instruction 621 dealt with the similar case of the sale of sweets either by wholesale or retail. It ran— A person who has obtained a licence to deal in sweets may also retail sweets without taking 1018 out any further excise licence. In Great Britain he must obtain a justices' licence or certificate before he commences to retail, but in Ireland a certificate is not required. Instruction 645, dealing with the wine licence, said— A licensed dealer in foreign wine may sell such wine or sweets, made wines, mead or metheglin, in any quantity, but only for consumption off the premises." "With the following exceptions a justices' licence or certificate is required in the case of every excise licence under which intoxicating liquor may be sold by retail, including the sale of wine under a wine dealer's licence." "Exceptions. It is not required: (1) In England for a licence taken out by a spirit dealer or a wine dealer for premises which are exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors or intoxicating liquors and mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, and which have no internal communication with the premises of any person carrying on any other trade or business. He was advised that it was within the competence of the authorities at Somerset House to grant, on the principle of the greater including the less, a wholesale excise licence, and under that licence a wholesale dealer could carry on his trade without any justices' licence; but if he intended to or did sell by retail on the premises he would require a separate justices' licence also.

§ *MR. YOUNGER

said the difficulty was that there was no form of licence to meet the case. Exactly the 1019 same difficulty arose in Scotland. The Paisley justices had granted, illegally, as it proved, six-day licences, because they could only grant a seven-days licence, and in consequence, the people were prosecuted for refusing to serve travellers on Sunday and convicted. A licence was issued to the wine dealer which at present included the right to retail, but if he refused to sell by retail he might get into the same difficulty that the unfortunate people of Paisley did.

§ SIR S. EVANS

said he was told there was no difficulty here.

§ MR. JAMES HOPE

asked whether, when a man had got a wholesale wine licence, he could go on selling by retail. There did not seem to be anything to prevent him, whatever undertaking he might give, except his own conscience. The only consequence was that it would not be renewed at the end of the year, but he could go on for the year, in spite of all the justices could do to him.

§ MR. WYNDHAM

thought the Solicitor-General must realise that he had not made this point clear to laymen. It was important that those who had not the benefit of legal experience should be informed of the nature of the laws they were making. Already the words of the Solicitor-General had been understood in different ways. He understood that at present a wholesale wine merchant got a licence from the justices which enabled him to sell by retail, and so far as he understood the Solicitor-General he intended that if a man had a licence which entitled him to sell both wholesale and retail, he would not require a justices' licence. But these words did not provide for any practical potentialities of what might occur if this Amendment was adopted. It might be held that a man having a wholesale licence who sold two or three bottles of wine was selling by retail. If that were the case, a great number of wholesale wine dealers would have off-licences, and in view of what had been vaguely foreshadowed as to what the Government meant to do on the Report stage, it was impossible for the Committee to imagine what the effect of this Amendment would be.

§ SIR S. EVANS

thought it was quite possible for the authorities of the Inland Revenue to grant a licence without the sanction of the justices, for the purpose of carrying on a wholesale business, and it was possible for them to append a footnote to that licence that it did not cover the retail sale of wine, unless there was also a justices' licence. In the book on the Excise Laws of Sir Nathaniel Highmore, the greatest authority, in Vol. II., page 6, it was stated— By reason of Secton 5 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 35., Part IV., a licence to a dealer in wine in Scotland does not confer any authority to sell wine by retail unless the holder thereof is in possession of a certificate from the justices under that Act authorising him to sell wine by retail. He was informed by Sir Nathaniel Highmore himself that he had a distinct recollection that the note in his book followed the footnote which appeared at that time—1899—on the licence granted to a wine dealer in Scotland. His object was to protect the wine dealer, and if better words could be found he would consider them; but he was informed that a wine dealer's licence could be granted by the Inland Revenue authorities to a person desiring to sell wine by wholesale only with such a note, and would by that means be limited to sale by wholesale, and that any sale by retail under that licence would not only be a breach of the Act of 1902, if the person selling was a person required to obtain a justices' licence, but would also be a breach of Section 24 of the Revenue Act of 1889 as being a sale in contravention of the terms of the Excise licence.

§ MR. YOUNGER

said he could give the case in point to which he had already referred. Under the old Scottish Act there was no such thing as a six-day licence for hotels. There were only seven-day licences, and when the justices granted a six-day licence they were told they had no right to do so, though they put a footnote on the licence to cover that objection. These licences only permitted sale on six days of the week—not on Sundays, except to people arriving at hotels. A man, a bona fide traveller, believing this to be illegal, demanded drink on a Sunday in Paisley, and was refused. The case came before a Scottish Court, and it was held that a six-day licence was invalid, 1021 and that the hotel-keeper had no business to refuse, and he was fined.

§ SIR S. EVANS

did not think that was quite per incuriam, but if it should turn out that the Inland Revenue authorities had not the authority he would see that provisions were brought forward giving them that authority.

§ *MR. CAVE

pointed out that the Prime Minister; in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Liverpool, had stated that there was no wine dealer's licence for sale by wholesale only. A justices' licence would, therefore, under the provisions of this clause be required, before an Excise licence to deal with wines could be obtained in view of the permission to engage in retail trade given by that licence. The spirit dealer's licence on the other hand covered wholesale trade only, and, therefore, did not come within the provisions of the clause. The hon. Member for Hampshire asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would consider the possibility of issuing a special ten guinea form of Excise licence applicable to the cases of wholesale wine dealers and shippers only for which it would not be necessary to apply for a justices' licence in addition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a new form of licence such as that which was suggested could not be issued without fresh legislation. Was it not clear, therefore, that no such licence as was referred to in the Amendment could be legally issued? If that were so, now or on the Report stage was the time to supply this hiatus in the Act, and he hoped they would have a promise that the Government would reconsider the matter.

§ SIR S. EVANS

Certainly.

§ MR. W. R. REA (Scarborough)

moved to leave out the words "at the commencement of this Act," and to insert the words "on the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and eight." He explained that the Amendment was designed to stop a loop hole which had been overlooked by Government. The clause, 1022 while abolishing exemption, made a privileged class of present holders of these special licences. The words "commencement of this Act," however, enabled anyone desiring to evade the clause to apply now, and the Amendment to substitute 5th April ensured that only those holding licences for the present year should be placed in a position of special privilege.

§ SIR S. EVANS

said he had an open mind on this Amendment. He did not think there was any such danger as that mentioned by his hon. friend. He thought they had taken the ordinary course in saying that the provision should date from the commencement of the Act. He did not know that there was any objection to the Amendment being put, but if there was it could be withdrawn.

§ MR. MITCHELL - THOMSON

reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was conceivable that there might be a case in which this privilege, which it was desired should be a continuing privilege, would not be easy to secure as the Bill stood. It was only to be given to one who held an Excise licence at the commencement of the Act and "holds it" at the time of the application. The application for the justices' licence was not to be treated then as an application for a new licence. The first Brewster Sessions after the passing of the Act would be in the February, and it might happen that the successors of a man who held one of these licences, and who died in January, wished to continue the business. It was inconceivable that it was the intention of the Government to exact from these people the monopoly value, because their predecessor had happened to die in the six weeks that intervened between the passing of the Act and the holding of the Brewster 1023 Sessions. He was certain that that was not the intention of the Government, and therefore it was obviously necessary to fill up that gap in order to fulfil the intentions the Government had in bringing up this clause.

§ MR. SHERWELL (Huddersfield)

thought the hon. Member who had just sat down had not quite seen the point. The licence in question was an Excise licence, and might be called for at any time.

§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

said his point was that the two conditions necessary for an excepted licence were that the licence was held at the date of the commencement of the Act, and at the date of the application. He put the case of a licence, held by a man at the date of the commencement of the Act, but who had died, and which was held by his successor at the date of the application.

§ MR. SHERWELL

expressed his regret at having misunderstod the hon. Gentleman. Obviously there was a loophole in the clause there as it now stood. He thought the Government should fix a date with regard to that. It was a matter of indifference what the date was.

§ MR. CAVE

thought by this Amendment an injustice would be thrust upon the people who had taken out these licences since last April.

§ MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)

suggested that it should be a past and not a future date, say, 1st November. His point was that the Government should not give notice of the advantage conferred upon these holders, otherwise a number of people would take up these licences in order to obtain the advantages which the clause would confer upon them.

§ MR. YOUNGER

said that the people who held these licences had really had notice since last February, and if they wished to take advantage as suggested they would have done so long ago. It did not matter whether the date was a past or future date.

§ *MR. GRETTON

said the real difficulty was that there was a hiatus in the 1024 Bill owing to the fact that it would come into force in its present form on 1st January and the Brewster Sessions would not be held until a day in February. A dealer in wines and spirits might have an Excise licence, but he could not obtain a justices' licence unless he had an Excise licence now, because the Bill said he must hold such a licence at the commencement of the Act. A wine merchant would, therefore, have to carry on his business illegally for some weeks after the 1st January until he could obtain a justices' licence as required by the Bill. Also, the holder of the licence might die in the interval between the 1st January and the date of Brewster Sessions. In that case his successor or partner could not obtain a justices' licence, because the Bill said he must have held a licence at the commencement of this Act. There were many of these wine merchants' businesses being carried on, and some of them were old-established concerns under the control of elderly men. If such a holder died his successors would have to apply for a new licence and to pay the monopoly value because of the death of the former proprietor. He thought it was the intention of the Government that the wine merchant should not pay the monopoly value even at the end of the term laid down for the other licences; therefore he urged upon them that this was a very important omission, which, if not dealt with, would add greatly to the complexity of the subject.

§ MR. LYTTELTON

said he had listened to the speeches made by his hon. friend upon this point, and it seemed to him that an answer was required. It was the business of those responsible for Acts of Parliament at all events to see that those Acts were coherent. If he understood the law rightly the owner of a licence such as this, which on the face of it gave him the power, had a right to trade either by wholesale or retail. He was now to be prevented from trading by retail unless he had a justices' licence. That was one incoherence, and it was to be succeeded by another, viz., that between 1st January and the holding of the Brewster Sessions he could not trade at all.

§ SIR S. EVANS

said the first two conditions referred to the Excise licence and not to the justices' licence. The holder of an Excise licence must have held it at the commencement of the Act and must hold it at the time of his application for the justices' licence. He saw no difficulty at all in the matter. If he wanted while he had the licence, to have the rights attaching to it, the holder must apply for the justices' licence. But it was only if he held the licence on those two dates that he would have the right to go to the justices and apply for a licence.

§ MR. JAMES HOPE

thought the Solicitor-General might accept some such words as "who or whose predecessor is entitled." The right hon. Gentleman had not covered the case of that of an old gentleman who might, as not infrequently happened after the festivities of the season, die early in the year. It would be rather hard lines if because of the death of the holder of the licence before the date of application to Brewster Sessions—which was the first possible date for the application to be made—his successors should be mulcted.

§ *THE CHAIRMAN

said this point could be raised on another Amendment. An Amendment had been handed to him on which this particular point could be more naturally raised.

§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

thought the point which the Committee had just been discussing might be met if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to the insertion of the words "whether by himself or his successors." It was a form of words, he believed, known to the law, certainly of Scotland if not of England. He begged to move.

§ SIR S. EVANS

did not think the words were very apt. He did not know whether 1026 the hon. Gentleman meant to confine those words to predecessors in title.

§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

Yes.

§ SIR S. EVANS

said it was just possible that a man might die between 1st January and the date of the Brewster Sessions, and that his successors might desire to have some rights under this section. If the hon. Gentleman stopped there he might put in some words to meet that case. If it was the case of the representative of a person who died between those two dates, then in that particular case, in order to allay the apprehensions of the hon. Member opposite who apparently thought so badly of the Christmas season and the possible effect of the coming of this Act into operation, he would promise to consider the matter before the Report stage.

§ MR. CAVE

suggested that his hon. friend, after the assurance given by the Solicitor-General, should withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

said he had no objection, after what had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, to withdraw his Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)

said they ought to have some explanation from the Government why they considered the clause necessary. He disagreed with the Solicitor-General when he said that they were all at one. He thought there was a larger difference of opinion than the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think. No one knew whether it was the intention of the Government to make an ordinary wine dealer, whether in town or country, take out a justices' licence if he sold by retail. If that was the intention, there was a wide divergence of opinion between the Government and some of them on that side of the House. He could not understand why the clause should be held necessary. It was not held necessary when the Act of 1902 1027 was passed; and he thought the Committee was entitled to know why the Government considered it necessary now to make a wine dealer take out a justices' licence. It was not as if it were alleged that disorder and drunkenness arose from the conduct of a wine merchant's business. It seemed to him that the clause would inflict a great grievance on a very respectable body of men. In view of the Amendment made to Clause 3, to include "off" licences, the matter became one of considerable importance. He was aware that Amendments were to be moved on Report, but they did not know what they were or whether "off" licences were to be included or not. If they were included, then Clause 21 became of very great importance indeed, and he certainly thought they ought to have an explanation from the Government as to the grounds of their policy.

§ *MR. G. D. FABER

said after the many days that he had sat through the licensing debates listening to the Government's expositions of the clauses, he could not help becoming suspicious of each one in the Bill. He could not help feeling that somewhere at the bottom of this clause there was a desire to drive the wine merchant to take out a retail licence, which necessitated a justices' licence, with the inevitable result that at the end of the reduction period he would come within monopoly value. The wine merchant would find himself on the horns of a dilemma. They were going to dislocate his present mode of carrying on his business. He would no longer be able to sell wines or spirits in small quantities without taking out a justices' licence. If he did not take out a justices' licence, his business would materially suffer. If he did, then at the end of the reduction period his justices' licence would be a new licence and come within all the provisions respecting monopoly value. That was an unfair predicament in which to put him. He should have thought that the Government would have been slow to interfere with the conduct of the ordinary wine merchant's business. There could be no moral reason for doing so. The greatest advocate of temperance could not say that drunkenness or intemperance proceeded from the wine merchant's business. 1028 They must, therefore, search for some other reason, and the reason could be no other than the pecuniary benefit which the Government anticipated they would receive when at the end of the reduction period the wine merchant was mulcted in monopoly value. The clause was a needless and wanton interference with trade. It was not based on any desire to promote sobriety. It was simply in their greedy desire to snatch the monopoly value, that the Government included the wine merchant in the meshes of their net. He hoped the Opposition would divide against the clause.

§ MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)

wished to press upon the Government the point made by the hon. Member for York, as regarded this interference with the trade of wine merchants. To his mind one of the chief causes of intemperance in this country was the extraordinary nastiness of temperance drinks. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of bringing forward bad Bills, would suggest some really good appetising temperance drink, they would do more for the cause of temperance than anything else they could possibly do. Obviously people could not go on perpetually drinking warm water and other nasty temperance concoctions when, if they could afford it, they could obtain small bottles of light wine. These were the people whom temperance advocates should encourage, yet it was this very class who were being discouraged by this legislation. The clause would do a great deal of harm to the cause of temperance, and as far as he could see, with no possible object, unless it was the desire to take somebody else's money.

§ MR. WYNDHAM

said he should certainly vote against the clause which combined in a particularly flagrant degree the main phases of the whole of this legislation, which mixed temperance principle with eccentric finance. The whole object of taxation was to get money with as little discomfort and inconvenience as possible to that portion of the community which provided the money. But the financial provisions of this Bill were drawn up so as to impose the maximum amount of discomfort 1029 and inconvenience on the persons who provided the money. The cause of temperance was not served by such a clause as this. The result, when the clause matured at the end of the period, would be to make wine merchants sell heady and bad wines instead of light and pure wines; in the view of the Opposition at any rate, it would tend to put the wine trade of the country under such conditions as he had described. He thought the operation of the clause would be to force those who enjoyed such privileges as were afforded, to make as much money as they could in the shortest possible period. The Government seemed to have forgotten that it was once the policy of the great Liberal Party to encourage temperance by a wise mixture of temperance legislation with financial legislation. They deliberately moved the heavy duties off light wines. The "Gladstone claret" was one of the emblems embroidered on their flag, and he believed that they had exercised some influence on the taste of the wine drinking public by legislation of that character. Legislation of the character now proposed would also exercise an influence on the taste of the wine-drinking public, but it would be a bad instead of a good influence.

§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY

thought the Government should give some reason in support of the clause. He would point out, in addition to what he had already said, that if at the end of the period the wine merchants were forced to pay monopoly value, then the sum they might have to pay would be very large indeed, because there might be a difference between the value of the premises with a licence under Schedule A., and their value without a licence, owing to the fact that the premises, consisting so largely of cellar accommodation, would be absolutely without a licence; therefore, a very big financial consideration might be involved. He hoped the Solicitor-General would give them some answer.

§ SIR S. EVANS

said he was sorry that he was unable to add anything to what he had already said, except, perhaps, that the noble Lord was wrong in saying that the object of this clause 1030 was that the Government might attach the monopoly value, whatever it might be, of the licence twenty-one years hence. That that was not the object of the clause was obvious from the fact that the clause was as it was originally presented, before they made the Amendment to Clause 3, which included the off-licence. The object of the clause was to bring within the jurisdiction of the justices all premises where intoxicating liquors were sold by retail. It had been found that where the justices refused a licence to sell intoxicating liquor by retail on the ground of the premises communicating with other parts of the premises where other business was carried on, grocers and merchants took small premises which did not communicate with other premises where a business was carried on and thereby brought themselves within the mischief against which they were providing.

§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

said he quite accepted the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance, but he ought to put it in the Bill. When the Government started this idea they had no intention of taking this very large monopoly value from wine merchants. The effect of the Bill as it now was was to take this tremendous sum from wine merchants at the end of fourteen years.

§ SIR S. EVANS

Not on a wholesale business.

§ MR. RAWLINSON

said that if a wine merchant had a retail business he would have to pay monopoly value, and he might assume that the bulk of them had retail businesses. Although he agreed thoroughly with the Solicitor-General in bringing these licences under the control of the local magistrates, he equally agreed with the original intention of the Government, namely, that they did not mean to bring them within the purview of payment of monopoly value. It was obvious justice that if the clause was to be carried in this way there should be some assurance from the Government that they would exempt wine merchants from the liability to pay monopoly value at the end of fourteen years. They had the assurance of the Solicitor-General that the Government never had the slightest 1031 intention when they brought the clause in of exacting monopoly value. It was not too much to say they never had any idea that by amending Clause 3 they would let in this very large amount of monopoly value from retail wine merchants. He urged them to put in words to exempt retail licences from the effect of the monopoly value provisions. If they did not he should certainly vote against the clause. If it was done he should vote in favour of the clause.

§ MR. YOUNGER

said that perhaps they could get an answer from the Prime Minister to the question—what was the monopoly value of the retail portion of a wholesale wine merchant's business? They had, of course, on the Amendment Paper, the Government definition of the monopoly value of any ordinary on-licence, but it would be interesting to know whether that definition was supposed or intended by the Prime Minister to apply to the monopoly value in cases where small

§ *THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is asking a question. If he makes out that his vote on the clause depends on the answer he is in order, but it is not the time to ask questions now of the general kind that he is doing unless he can tell me that his vote depends on the answer.

§ MR. YOUNGER

said it had every bearing on his vote. He entirely objected to the monopoly value being charged at all in this case and therefore he should vote against the clause. But when this monopoly value was for the first time brought in in this connection they ought to know what the Government regarded as the monopoly value and how they arrived at it.