But as "the point at issue" is a proposal to
increase the yield of the License-duty from 41,500,000 to 410,000,000 by an en- hanced duty, surely the amount of the taxation already paid by the industry that is to bear the burden of this proposed enhance- ment is a relevant and necessary consideration. If it could be shown that the contribution to the revenue already made is in- sufficient, then there would appear an argument in favour of your proposed increase of duty. As it is, however, the contribution of 431,000,000 (excluding Income-tax, House-duty, Death-duties, local rates, &c.) is not only an adequate contribution on the part of an industry whose entire capital has been estimated at 4250,000,000, but is one greatly in excess of that which is given by the recipients of other monopolies, such as railways, tramways, gas and electric lighting companies, ere., in proportion to their respective capital. Of course, if your proposal to increase the License-duty is to be accompanied by a pro rata reduction of other taxes that fall upon the licensed trade, the objections I have raised disappear, and the question becomes merely one of re- adjustment, and of the convenience and economy of collection. But if, on the other hand, your proposal is to add a new License- duty of 48,000,000 a year to the heavy taxation which at present presses upon the licensed trade, this addition would naturally involve the ruin of individuals and the extinction of companies engaged in a trade which you describe as a "perfectly legitiniate trade," and one which you desire to see "protected from unfair attacks." May I in one sentence venture to question the state- ment that "a naked license—i.e., a license apart from the premises —will often fetch from 45,000 to £15,000"? A license could. only attain such a value when attached to premises in an excep- tional situation, just as the business premises of banks, of jewellers, of drapers, &c., vary in value in accordance with their position. It would, therefore, surely be the situation or position of the licensed premises, and not the "naked license," that would be responsible for the high prices you have mentioned.
—I am, Sir, &c., J. T. AGO-GARDNER.
House of Commons Library.
Sherwell.—En. Spectator.] (To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTiT08.1
Previous page
