be submitted should think fit? But the respect to docks. In the case of two railhon. Member asked, why railway compa- ways, on the contrary, being constructed nies should be alarmed when the Order he in a district which could only maintain proposed to substitute would equally en-one, a vast capital would be wasted in pertitle them to be heard against new works? manently spoiling a large tract of land; Because the words proposed to be substi- and the public would be exposed to the tuted for "as the Referees shall think hazard and inconvenience of being carfit," were these, "on the ground of ab- ried by companies who were obliged, in sence of public advantage"-words which order to make both ends meet, to stretch the hon. Gentleman himself admitted he economy beyond what was consistent should not and could not define. The with public safety. Moreover, there had hon. Member had told them that the great always been this merit allowed to Comobject of the change he proposed was to mittees of that House-namely, that they save expense in Private Bill legislation; shut out no evidence, but that, whatever but the most direct method of reducing might be the value of their decisions, the costs of parties promoting Private Bills they gave all parties a patient hearing. in Parliament would be to substitute one He was afraid a departure from this rule tribunal for the five different tribunals might have the appearance of injustice and before which such Bills had now to be hostility to existing companies, and might taken. If this plan were adopted it would also lead to the evil of frequent appeals to be far more effectual than the mere repeal the House to suspend the Standing Order of a Standing Order. in such cases. It was also manifest that in most instances opposition might be carried on through landowners. He thought, therefore, looking at the period of the Session, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) had done the best thing by bringing about, as he had done-though his own Motion was not carried-in the course of economy and justice, the discontinuance of the double trial and the strengthening of the Committee which would have to decide between reasonable and unreasonable opposition on the ground of competition, and in this he would be materially assisted by the late Act with reference to costs. he did not think that for the future competition would be heard very much of before Committees. The main lines were for the most part made, and new lines would chiefly be feeders of existing lines, and he believed that Parliament would have to take care that fair arrangements were made for working these small weak lines, so that they might not be oppressed by powerful companies. Competition was, doubtless, the safeguard of the public. Under it they secured convenience and economy. In many instances the maximum rates of fares had been fixed with the intention that they should be moderated by competition. But just now competition was likely to be reduced below what was wholesome and safe by the process of amalgamation and working arrangements. It was an old saying that competition ended in combination, and this had received a remarkable illustration, as the House knew, in the case of the gas companies. The House should have its at

MR. STEPHEN CAVE said, he was certainly not one of those who thought that a railway company should be able to prevent the formation of another railway, merely on the ground of interference with profits. Parliament gave compulsory powers over land in return for restrictions imposed; but it did not guarantee monopoly, as the hon. Member for York appeared to suppose, and therefore such a provision as that in the Railways Construction Facilities Act, which enabled an existing company absolutely to stop in limine a competing line, would be most injurious to public interests, if extended to proceedings before Committees of that House. At the same time he was not sure that he went as far as the Chairman of Committees, and would exclude a railway company from tendering evidence on the ground of competition. Indeed, he doubted very much whether such evidence might not, in every case, be presented in the guise of absence of public advantage-whether prudently or not, he would leave it to Mr. Blenkinsop to decide-and would this not be reasonable? It was easy to say that Parliament would not interfere with the establishment of two banks or two hotels where there was only room for one; but there was a difference in the nature of things between the two cases. The weakest bank or hotel would succumb, the proprietors would be injured; but the premises might easily be turned to some more useful purpose, and the public would suffer to a very small extent. The same might be said, though with some qualification with

But

Boundary Commissioners, whose Reports | the Navy Estimates, to lay upon the Table are laid on the table. The Reports of of the House any detailed Estimates of the Assistant Boundary Commissioners are not laid upon the table, but are made solely for the use of the Boundary Commissioners.

If such an alteration as

were made, and 10 per cent additional put upon the Customs in respect to this article of wine, it would amply recoup the Government for any losses they sustained by this change in the licencing system. Dealers in sweets were taxed to the amount of £11,000. Dealers in plate were also taxed, and the mode in which the tax was levied upon them was unequal and complicated. A very small percentage on the value of the plate would in this case also render licences unnecessary, and at the same time guard the Revenue of the country against loss. He might observe that under the

sumed, when any defenders of taxing soap | after all, comparatively, very little to the could be found. The licence to make public revenue. In respect to the article vinegar, which in fact made itself, was of wine, it was charged at a much higher £5 58., and produced £330 15s. Then rate than it ought to be. Now, take the the vinegar maker was protected against case of a traveller by railway; he could his foreign competitor, and, that nothing procure a newspaper for 1d., a bun for 1d. might escape, pickles were taxed. The at a station, a sandwich for 2d., or a papermaker had to pay £4 4s. a year, not-sausage and potatoes for 4d.; but if he withstanding the House had long since were to venture upon a glass of wine he declared paper should be free of taxation. would have to pay 6d. for it. Now, he Then came a class which was of much was told that such wine as that usually greater importance the licences to tea sold at stations for 6d. a glass could be and coffee dealers. Such persons, if their purchased for 16s. a dozen, and that each premises were rated at as much as £8, had bottle contained about sixteen glasses. to pay 11s. 6d. for a licence, and if such The result was, that for each bottle costa person living in a village sold only 30lb. ing to the retailer only 1s. 4d. he received of tea in one year the licence duty would 88., being a profit of above 600 per cent. amount to 41d. per lb., whilst the import The total produced from wine licences duty was only 6d. The consequence of to the Inland Revenue was £130,911; the licence creating a sort of monopoly the revenue from the Customs was was, that in villages tea, which could be £1,409,127. bought at 28. 2d. per lb. in the towns, was he suggested sold for as much as 4s. in the villages. The tea licence produced £66,577; and the import duty on tea, chicory, and coffee £3,110,000; so that a fractional addition to the duty on tea would recoup the Government for any loss it might sustain by abolishing the licence, and the only hardship that would result would be a rise of about half a farthing per pound on tea. Tobacco manufacturers whose make did not exceed 20,000lb a year had to pay £5 58. for a licence, and the charge increased by a sliding scale, according to the make, up to 100,000lb, for which the charge was £31 108. The arrangement was exceed-existing system a considerable advantage ingly complicated, and, of course, hampered the manufacturers very much. The dealers in tobacco paid 5s. 3d. for a licence; small dealers paid as much as large, and occasional dealers, such as the man who sold a cigar and a light on the Derby Day, were expected to pay 4d. This last charge was of course evaded, and it would be better at once to abolish it. The total received for tobacco licences amounted to £77,957; the total revenue from duty on tobacco, £6,332,000; so that an increase of 1 per cent on the duty would enable the Government to abolish the licence altogether. He now came to the licence duty for selling wines, and he believed that the way in which this duty was imposed had some effect in preventing people from selling wines to the extent that they otherwise would. There were many other licences, including what were called occasional licences, which occasioned much vexation and annoyance, and produced

was given to the French manufacturers of plate. Pawnbrokers in London paid £15 licence, and in the country £7 10s. Pawnbroking was said to be a necessity to the poor, and foreign Governments took this trade into their own hands. He did not say that, as a protection against receivers of stolen property, pawnbrokers ought not to be registered in some way; but he did think that the State ought not to tax the wants of the poor. With respect to malt and beer, they were taxed six times over and in twenty-five different ways. So unequal was the manner in which the licences were levied that the small man had to pay most, the large man paid least, and the country gentleman who brewed his own beer at home paid nothing at all. He did not propose to deal with the retail trade, though he believed that the licencing system was of no use in preventing drunkenness. In some places where there was free trade in brandies and wines there was no

Abuses

drunkenness at all. He knew that the | to pay a license of £10 10s.? malt tax was an unpopular impost; but it there might be connected with aucwas a question whether it would not be tions; but, on the whole, the system of better to raise money by a tax on beer public competition was the fairest that than by means of all those licence payments could be devised. One would suppose that in the malting and brewing trades. He the classes invidiously subjected to the believed there would be no difficulty in payment of licence duty would remonstrate raising a tax on beer, and the great advan- and petition Parliament for relief. But as tage of this would be that the Excise would long as they fancied that monopoly was be levied in the last stage before consump- thereby secured to them they reconciled tion. Adam Smith laid it down that this themselves to the payment of these charges. was the most advisable way of levying A wine merchant to whom he spoke upon excise on a manufactured article. A the subject recently avowed that he did brewer had written to him to explain not think the licence duty any hardship. that there would be no difficulty in raising For, said he, "it keeps people out of a tax on beer. The private brewers at the trade," thereby letting the cat out the present moment were becoming an of the bag. It might be thought that extinct species. They could not contend if this small additional percentage were in towns against the machinery and capital added to the Customs and Excise duof the large brewers, and hence private ties the odd sums would be found very brewing practically was confined to the difficult to collect. But tables could, wealthy farmers and country gentlemen. of course, be produced which would give But these were the very persons least likely equivalents; and, moreover, the existing to cheat the Excise, and assuming even that proportions of duty- such, for instance, the disposition existed, how was it to be as 38. 1d. and eight-tenths of 1d. per done? The income tax might be evaded, pound upon tobacco were often quite because you could not smell it; but he incomprehensible. The licence system, in defied any person to conduct brewing fact, had been tolerated because the payoperations without the fact becoming ments were almost inappreciable; but known. If the duty levied upon malt were surely it was better to pay 6d. and know levied at the last moment, instead of at it, than to pay 1s. and know nothing about the first, a great many disadvantages would it. He objected to the charges which he be got rid of. It was impossible for a had enumerated, because they were partial maltster under the conditions of modern and unjust in their operations; interfering science to comply literally with Excise unequally with many industries, and beregulations, some of which were 200 years cause they were often evaded, and where old. If the course which he advocated paid, established a monopoly resulting in were adopted, anybody would be free to more than commensurate loss to the conuse barley, according to its quality, for sumers. The hon. Member concluded by any purpose that he liked; and it was only moving the Resolution of which he had if he turned it into beer that he would given notice, intimating, however, that it have to pay duty. The duty raised from was not his intention to put the House to spirits was enormous; but it was not the trouble of dividing. merely the amount of the levy which was oppressive, but the operation of the tax, which extended to chymists, and exercised an effect almost prohibitory upon various industries. If we allowed French tables to come in duty free, at least we ought to take care that the materials for French polishing were not denied to our own tradesmen. Stage carriages were taxed in ten different ways, and it appeared to him that many of those taxes were most injurious, some of them acting very severely upon cabmen, a much abused but good class of men. It would be better, instead of licences, to increase the assessed taxes on horses and carriages. Why, again, should auctioneers be called upon

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that all Licences injuriously affecting the industry and Commerce of the Country should be abolished."-(Mr. Marsh.)

MR. LABOUCHERE said, he wished to make a few remarks on the subject of one licence, especially as it seemed to be supposed that the burden fell upon the consumer. He referred to the licence upon those unfortunate victims of taxation, the brewers. That licence was entirely paid by the brewers themselves; and what did it amount to? A London brewer who made 100,000 barrels of beer per annum, would require a capital of about £300,000.