The House met on Thursday, October 14, to discuss the motion that ‘ This House would welcome the revival of Sumptuary Laws.’
The Proposer (Mr. TURBERVILLE) began by defining sumptuary laws ; he said that they limited expenditure in food, furniture, apparel, &c., and had first appeared in Rome during the third century before Christ, but had obtained since in some form or other in all civilised countries. He pointed out that people were failing to economise now, not because they were unwilling, but because they did not realise the pressing need for it ; legislation would help them to realise this need. At the present moment we were doing nothing to prepare ourselves to bear the burden of the great debt which would ensue from the war ; we should merely shift it on to the shoulders of generations to come. Ordinary taxes press hardest on the lower classes, while it is those higher up in the social scale who indulge in reckless expenditure, subversive to the interests of the country and, at the present time, of the world. We had had enough of appealing pamphlets, and it was time that legislation should be introduced. Mr. Turberville has a hesitating delivery and tendency to repeat himself, but he brought out the main points of his case.
The Opposer (Mr. HARROD) said that there were two ways in which sumptuary laws might be introduced. A mild Government might limitexpenditure in certain articles, the number of which would be gradually increased ; this would only turn the attention of the population to articles to which no limit of expenditure was laid down, and the evil would increase ; there were sumptuary laws at Rome, but Rome fell because of her indulgence in luxury. Secondly, a determined Government might prohibit all luxuries at one fell swoop. No Englishman would stand this, we are too jealous of our private life. Some other remedy must be found to limit extravagance. It was absurd to let people possess excessive wealth, and then make laws to prevent them using it. Such steps as the nationalisation of railways and the revision of our laws of inheritance must be taken to ensure an even distribution of wealth. Mr. Harrod made a brief recapitulation of the chief points of his speech, and then sat down ; he speaks well, though his method of delivery is apt to grate on the nerves.
The Seconder (Mr. ELLIS) spoke so fast and so indistinctly that it was almost impossible to gather the drift of his argument. He suggested that such legislation might help to alleviate poverty. As for the impracticability of such measures, he thought the dropping of Mr. Lloyd George’s Bill dealing with drink a disgrace to the nation. Personally he thought sumptuary laws would be welcome.
Mr. GREIG added his theory of the history of sumptuary laws, with special reference to any such legislation obtaining at any time in England. There were sumptuary laws at present in force in the shape of taxes on foodstuffs. After a quotation from Horace he brought his speech to an end.
The PRESIDENT then disputed several of Mr. Harrod’s statements, after which he sat down.
Mr. BRANDON-THOMAS said that nothing would stop a man having drink. If you tried to abolish luxury you would throw thousands of dressmakers and clothworkers out of work. You couldn’t abolish luxury without hurting others.
Mr. HERBERT pointed out that the expense of assessing everybody’s level of luxury would be tremendous.
After a final definition by the VICE-PRESIDENT the motion was put to the vote and lost by 6 votes to 11