TAXATION ON FOOTBALL

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27047, 23 May 1953, Page 2

TAXATION ON FOOTBALL

Exemption Sought By Mr Gaitskell GAME MUCH OLDER THAN CRICKET (Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) „ LONDON, May 20. , ? on ? e "researches” have been made into the history of football and cricket by Mr Hugh Gaitskell, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he has come to the conclusion that “football is a (peat deal older than cricket.” Mr Gaitskell complained in the House of Commons that it was unfair that cricket alone should be freed from entertainment.duty in the recent Budget, and he asked that all entertainment which consisted of games or other sports ahould be exempted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr R. A. Butler) replied that the country could not afford to exempt all sports for the cost this year would be between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000, and he could not spare that money. The Government upheld Mr Butler with a majority vote of 11. During his speech, Mr Gaitskell said: “The Charicellor says that cricket has a special place and that it is part of the English tradition. That is not a very convincing argument. The Chancellor should furnish facts on this and see just how cricket and football stand in relation to each other. “The results of my researches show that football is a great deal older than cricket. It was played in some form bv the Greeks and Romans. It was played izi London in 1175. It was forbidden by Edward II in consequence of the ‘great noise in the city caused by hustling over large balls.’ It was again prohibited by Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, because, I understand, of the brutality and violence associated with the game. “Cannot Bear Comparison” "After this splendid record in our island history I am afraid that cricket canont bear comparison. As far as I know it was not until the reign of Edward IV that cricket was prohibited —sfeveral reigns after the time when football was prohibited. “Therefore the Chancellor has some precedents to go on. We know that precedents appeal to him just as tradition appeals. New Zealand has now set a precedent which he might be prepared to follow." The “Daily Express” says that Mr Gaitskell missed one historical reference: “In 1608 a Manchester Court banned football under a penalty of Is because of ‘ye glasse windows broken and spoyled by a company of disorderly persons using that unlawful exercise of playinge with ye footballe in ye streets; breakings many windows and glasse at- their pleasure and other great enormities.' ’’