We take the view that land cannot be regarded as an ordinary commodity, nor are we prepared to place publicans’ licences in the same position as ordinary property.  A licence is a gift from the State, and the licensed trade is subject to special restrictions and special taxation; this has been recognised by all parties and by all Governments.  The position in regard to licences, as we know perfectly well, has been sensibly and, indeed, entirely altered in the course of the last few years.  We have seen the assertion on the part of the licensed trade of their right to convert their annual tenancy of a licence from what it has been understood to be, to a freehold, and in that position they must face the logical consequences of the arguments they have used and of their action.  If there are any hardships to them in the taxation proposed, let the hardships be exposed to Parliament and they will be considered in no spirit of prejudice or malice.  Do not, however, let us have attempts to represent that the tax which involves an increase in the cost of production extinguishes the profits of the industry.  It does not necessarily affect the profits of the industry; it is not a deduction from resultant profits; it is an incident in the turnover.  If there are hard cases and special instances, we are prepared to meet them with the closest attention and with a desire to avoid severity or anything like the appearance of harsh treatment of individuals.  But we decline to regard licences or land on the same footing as ordinary property.  Licences are not to be regarded as ordinary private property, but as public property which ought never to have been alienated from the State.

No one will deny that we are making very considerable proposals to Parliament for the finance of the year; but the Conservative Party have gravely compromised their power of resistance.  Those who desire to see armaments restricted to the minimum consistent with national security, those who labour to combat the scares of war, and to show how many alarms have no foundation,—­those are not ill-situated, if they choose to make criticisms on the scale and scope of the finance required for the year’s expenditure.  But an Opposition that day after day exposes the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister to a rain of questions and cross-questions, the only object of which, or an important object of which, is to promote a feeling of insecurity, involving demands for new expenditure of an almost indefinite character, those who, like the right hon.  Member for Dover,[16] hurry to and fro in the land saying—­or was it singing?—­“We want eight, and we won’t wait”—­they, at least, are not in the best position to tell the taxpayer to call on some one else.  Surely a reputation for patriotism would be cheaply gained by clamouring for ships that are not needed, to be paid for with money that is to come from other people.