§ In this Part of this Act—
§ The expression "beer" includes ale, porter, spruce beer, black beer, and any other description of beer, and any liquor which is made or sold as a description of beer or as a substitute for beer, and which on analysis of a sample thereof at any time is found to contain more than 2 per cent. of proof spirit;
§ The expression "wine" means foreign wine;
§ The expression "sweets" means any liquor which is made from fruit and sugar, or from fruit or sugar mixed with any other material, and which has undergone a process of fermentation in the manufacture thereof, and includes British wines, made wines, mead, and metheglin;
§ Any reference to cider shall include a. reference to perry;
§ The expression "registered club" means a club for the time being registered under the Licensing Act, 1902, and in Scotland and Ireland a registered club within the meaning of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, respectively;
§ The expression "passenger vessel" means a vessel of any description employed for the carriage and conveyance of persons going as passengers from any place in the United Kingdom to any other place in the 1602 United Kingdom, or going from and returning to the same place on the same day;
§ The expression "publican's licence" means the on-licence to be taken out by a retailer of spirits, and the expression" beer-house licence" means the on-licence to be taken out by a retailer of beer;
§ The expression "fully licensed premises" means premises to which a publican's licence is attached, and the expression "beer-house" means premises to which a beer-house licence is attached;
§ The expression "premises" in relation to licensed premises includes any offices, courts, yards, and gardens occupied together with the house in which the liquor is sold.
§ Mr. GRETTONmoved in the second paragraph, after the word "wine," to add, "not wine made and grown in British Colonies."
I would like to know if the words "foreign wine" include wine made in British Colonies? I understand that hitherto wine made in British Colonies has for excise purposes been classed as foreign wine?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe words do include Colonial wine.
§ Mr. GRETTONThen I must move the Amendment. It is a manifest absurdity to class as foreign wine wine which is grown and made in British possessions. There is some advantage in these duties for British wine which is classed for the purpose of excise as "sweets." The retailer's duty upon foreign wine is double what it is upon British wine, and the manufacturer's duty is rather more than double, and I claim that Colonial wine should be put on the same footing as British wine in this country. I therefore beg to move that those words be there inserted, and, of course, other words would have to be added to give a definition of Colonial wines.
§ Mr. J. D. REESHow would this affect the definition in the case of wine made in Wales? Very good wine is made in Cardiff, though in small quantities.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe term "foreign wine" really means wine that comes from oversea. It is possible that some change of terminology may be necessary. I understand that the hon. Member proposes that wine from Australia and the Cape should be sold under a different licence for precisely similar wines from 1603 France or Spain. I should not be prepared to accept that without very carefully considering where it would take us and what the effect would be on our whole system of excise. Clearly, as a matter of fact, British-made wines do not command that wide sale and general approval which I have no doubt they well deserve. To assume that the wines from Australia and the Cape should be sold under the easy circumstances that attach to wines made in other countries may be to forfeit a very great deal of revenue. We cannot do that without very careful consideration. I undertake to consider the question of terminology, which is a matter of sentiment.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Chancellor of the Duchy used the phrase "wines from oversea." Does that mean from oversea only, or does it exclude wines such as the hon. Gentleman referred to?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELBritish wines? We do not grow grapes in this country.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThere, is a Customs duty, though it may be in the form of a retailer's duty on foreign wines, without a corresponding excise duty in the case of British wines. That is contrary to all the Free Trade principles. Though I suppose the wines of Wales will command a larger market than they do, it is not only protecting British wines against foreign wines, but it seems also to protect them against Colonial wines. I hope the present state of things against foreign wines, which is apparently endorsed by the Government, will continue; but I want Colonial wines to be on the same footing as British wanes, and therefore I support the Amendment.
§ Mr. GRETTONAfter the statement of the right hon. Gentleman I will not press my Amendment on the present occasion, but I note carefully the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to give it careful consideration. I have no doubt very good wine is made in Wales, as was stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Rees), but it is not a matter of sentiment, and in moving the Amendment I hoped to obtain from the Government the concession that Colonial wines would be put on the same footing as British wines.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1604§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONmoved to leave out the sixth paragraph ["The expression, passenger vessel,'" etc.].
The definition of "passenger vessel,'" has only been brought to my notice within a very short time, and I really cannot understand it. The first part of the definition is tolerably clear—"The expression 'passenger vessel' means a vessel of any description employed for the carriage and conveyance of persons going as passengers from any place in the United Kingdom." That is quite clear, but I have great difficulty about the rest of the paragraph, which. goes on to provide, "or going from and returning to the same place on the same day." I do not know if that means that the vessel is to go from and return to the same place, or if the passengers are to go from and return to the same place on the same day. I do not know even whether that place is to be in the United Kingdom. Apparently, as I read the paragraph that would not be necessary. I assume, of course, that what the Government do mean is that those words are intended to cover cases of excursions, say a day excursion from Ramsgate to the French coast. That means, I suppose, that cross-Channel steamers are not intended to be liable. It is quite clear that after the second word "going" you ought to put in "as passengers."
Supposing you do not intend to tax Channel steamers, and that the Chancellor of the Duchy and myself, after the labours of these Debates, were to go across to Calais or Boulogne for a blow and return on the same day, we are persons who have gone from a place in the United Kingdom and returned to the same place in the United Kingdom, and we have gone on a passenger vessel. Is the vessel liable under the definition of this Clause? I think it is a very bad definition. It is taken largely from previous Acts which you repeal, thereby creating a new definition. I think we ought to have some further explanation. I beg to move.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt is clear we cannot bring within the scope of our licensing provisions a ship which sails from the United Kingdom for a six months' cruise to foreign ports. The question is. what class of ships should, and we have simply followed the existing law which says that if a ship goes from a British port and back again on the same day from a foreign port, it requires a licence, and if it goes from one British port to another, whether on the same day or not, it requires a licence. In other words, the ship which 1605 goes on long voyages does not require a licence. The wording of the paragraph is, I think, fairly clear, and "going to or returning from" refers not to the passengers but to the vessels.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI suggest he should look at the wording, and the words "going from and returning to "I suggest should be" passenger vessels going from and returning to."
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELWe will consider that on the Report.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWill these duties be levied on foreign cross-Channel steamers?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI do not think we have jurisdiction over such ships.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThen you are purporting to do what you have no power to do; and you are imposing on British steamers an obligation which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, you have no power to impose on foreign steamers with which they may be competing. I do not know whether you have jurisdiction or not; but you purport to have it. You do not say that this shall apply to British vessels, but to all vessels under the conditions named.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELNeither do we say that these new licence duties are to apply to British public-houses only. It is obvious that a British Act of Parliament must apply to that which is subject to British law. If a ship is outside British jurisdiction you cannot apply your Act to it, just as you cannot make your legislation run on foreign territory.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman, on consideration, will see that he has really made no answer. Of course, you cannot levy excise duties on a public-house not within the United Kingdom, nor can you apply your law to a ship not within your jurisdiction. But these ships are within your jurisdiction; they come into your ports, and you purport to apply this Clause to them. These words certainly purport to cover the case of foreign steamers. The right hon. Gentleman must seriously consider what jurisdiction we have over them in these circumstances, and whether, if his statement is correct, it is desirable to apply to our own steamers restrictions which you cannot apply to their competitors. Speaking as one layman to another, but subject to correction from legal Members. I would sub- 1606 mit that we have jurisdiction, and that we have the same right to apply this provision to foreign ships that we have to apply the conditions included in the merchant shipping law, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with full approval from this side of the House, and with great credit to himself and to the Government, did extend to foreign shipping coming into our harbours conditions which had previously been imposed upon British ships only. I think that upon reflection the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is more in my case than he was at first inclined to grant.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONI do not know on what grounds it is assumed that we have no jurisdiction over boats of foreign owners conveying passengers between, say, Dover and Ostend. When they come into our territorial waters and into our harbours, why should we have no jurisdiction to treat them in exactly the same way as we treat our own boats? Suppose a French or Belgian company decided to run coasting steamers between various ports on our own coast. Would they be exempt? The moment they come to our ports they become subject to our law. We apply certain rules and regulations as regards loading and unloading. The moment they are within our ports they are within our jurisdiction, and the same rule should apply here.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe words that we propose are precisely the words of the Act of 1880. As a matter of fact under that Act foreign shins are not charged these Licence Duties. Perhaps I may have been rash in assuming from that that they could not be charged. We will consider the point.
§ Mr. RENWICKI am extremely surprised at the remark made by the Chancellor of the Duchy that this paragraph is "fairly clear." I think it is exactly the reverse. The Government have gone out of their way to define what a passenger vessel is. Why did they not define it in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act? Had they done that they would have been on safe ground. What does the paragraph say? It defines a passenger vessel as one "of any description employed for the carriage and conveyance of persons going as passengers from any place in the United Kingdom to any other place in the United Kingdom." That, in many cases, is exactly what a passenger vessel does not mean. May I remind the Committee that the Merchant Shipping Act distinctly states that a vessel carrying less 1607 than 12 passengers does not need to take out a passenger certificate. Again, I could take a ship and go on a trial trip, or a trip from one part of the Kingdom to the other, and carry as many passengers as I like without a passenger certificate, provided I do not charge for them. That shows that the Government have put in this paragraph without considering the exact meaning of a passenger vessel.
I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel) that if he wants to be on safe ground, and avoid having to say that this is "fairly clear," to make it really clear by using the definition of the Merchant Shipping Act. We are told that the Government have not the power to penalise or make foreign vessels conform to our laws. May I remark to the right hon. Gentleman, and the Committee in particular, that we have full powers where a foreign vessel overloads or is overladen in a British port to detain her. Surely if that is so with overloading, we can compel her to conform to our laws in regard to taking out a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor. I would also remind him that we are the only country—I speak from practical experience—that leaves its coasting trade absolutely open to the foreigner. All other countries retain their own coasting trade for their own ships. Therefore they have no difficulties of this kind to deal with. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy not to let us have any more Clauses or Sub-sections in the Bill that are "fairly clear." The whole Bill is full of Sub-sections that are anything but "fairly clear." I want it to be really clear. If the right hon. Gentleman wants it really clear, and to be on safe ground, let him draw this paragraph in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONTwo points arise here; one is a matter of drafting and the other is a matter of international law, and I do not think it would be right to press the Government at the present moment in regard to them. When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the question of international law he might also consider Section 5 of Schedule D, which says that "for the purpose of giving jurisdiction any sale of liquor on a passenger vessel shall be deemed to have taken place either where it has actually taken place, or in any place in which the vessel may be found." That complicates 1608 the point very much, and I hope we shall have before the Report stage some clearer wording. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved in the last paragraph, after the word "to' ["The expression premises' in relation to licensed premises"'], to insert the words "the annual value of."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Earl WINTERTONmoved in the same paragraph, after the word "courts," to insert the word "and" with a view subsequently to move to leave out the word "gardens."
This Amendment proposes to exclude from the operation of the Act those parts of the licensed premises which would not ordinarily be used for the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquors. As the Clause stands now, the premises would include gardens and courts and other places not ordinarily so used. I want to exclude from the operations of the Sub-section such places as tea gardens attached to public-houses, but in no sense having any intercourse with the part of the premises where beer or spirits are consumed. It seems hard that the owner of a public-house who desires to improve his premises and make them more desirable should be penalised by this Bill by having these gardens included when the annual value is taken into consideration. I do not suppose the Government wish to see these gardens included. I am sure the last thing the Committee would desire to do would be to penalise the owner of public-house property for providing places where people may take these kind of refreshments in the open air.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe words in question have been included in all the Acts of Parliament dealing with licensing for many years past. [Cries of "Speak up."]. The same words which we are using here were repeated in the Act of 1880, and have remained in the Acts from that time to this in the definition of licensed premises. We are not making any change in what we are proposing, and I do not think we ought to make any change.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Solicitor-General is technically right when he says the Government are not making any change, but practically you are making a very great change. When the Licence 1609 Duties were low this matter of the gardens was of small consequence, and it did not make much difference whether you included the gardens in the premises which had to be valued, but now that you are making the Licence Duties very high it becomes a matter of the greatest importance, and you have indirectly made a change in the situation not by leaving these words in, but by the changes which you have made in oilier parts of the Bill. The late Chairman of the Birmingham licensing justices once called my attention to a particular house in Birmingham which he said was a model licensed house and the class of house which he would like to see extended throughout the boundaries of the city if it were possible to do so. Its principal peculiarity was that it had a garden into which the men did not go alone but they took their wives and families just as an hon. Member has described the people in his constituency do in the case of the club. I am of the same opinion as the late chairman of the Birmingham licensing justices, that it is desirable to encourage that kind of thing, which does not lead to excessive drinking. I think you do a disservice to the cause of temperance and to the good conduct of public-houses and the trade if you do anything to make it more difficult for the owners of licensed premises to have this kind of amenity attached to their houses. I earnestly press the Government to give a sympathetic consideration to the Amendment which has been moved by my Noble Friend.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERI am anxious to know the view of the Government on this point. So long as the duties were moderately small, the size of the licensed premises was comparatively unimportant. It is quite obvious that, having regard to the alteration in the scale which is being made by this Bill, the dimensions and limits of the licensed premises become a matter of very great importance. We are dealing now with the definition of the word "premises" in relation to licensed premises. The position, as I understand it, is this: A man goes to the justice and gets a licence to sell intoxicating liquor on premises known as the "Bull," High Street, with the result that if any offence against the Licensing Laws takes place in the garden he is liable because the garden is held to be the "Bull," which is the description of the licensed premises. I see some difficulty in dealing with that point. Is it possible to prevent that and to make a separation of the garden from the rest of the premises 1610 so that it would no longer be part of the licensed premises and subject to the Licensing Laws? Will it be possible to limit the licence to the house in which the liquor is sold so that gardens, stables, and other places may be excepted from the operation of the Licensing Laws?
§ Mr. G. D. FABER (York)It is true that the definition of licensed premises in this Bill is the same as in Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1880, but with this drastic system of high licences an altogether different position arises. The Act of 1880 only referred to fully licensed premises. This Bill also applies to beer-houses and "off" licensed premises. You are therefore attributing to beer-houses and "off" licensed premises this very wide definition which in the Act of 1880 was only attributed to fully licensed premises. Did the Government designedly intend to include "off" licences in a definition which they have apparently culled from the Act of 1880?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe point raised is as to the limitation of the area to be covered by the licence when the Commissioners are ascertaining the annual value of the premises. I think it will be possible for the justices to say "We will only license this part or these parts of the premises," and in that case, of course, on the remainder there can be no sale of intoxicating liquors. But that would not affect the ascertainment of the value of the premises. It may be that the gardens could not be taken by themselves and without the outhouses, which might include the value of the premises. But may I point out that in most of these rural houses with gardens the assessment is so low that there is practically no increase of duty at all.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI have taken an urban house which the Chairman of the licensing justices in Birmingham described as a model house. We have not arrived as yet in that paradise at Birmingham in which every square yard of the land is built upon.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThese houses with gardens are usually £40 houses, and there is no increase of duty at all. That will, of course, apply to beer-houses.
§ Earl WINTERTONDo I understand that the licensing justices can exclude gardens if they so desire?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThis does not affect the law, which is applicable to the ascertainment of the annual value. If these 1611 words stand, whatever course the justices may take with respect to the licences under their control, it will be the same to the licence holder. It will not affect the rights which the law now gives.
§ Mr. PEELIt is quite clear that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend on my left would not help us at all, because the hon. and learned Gentleman says that even if the justices were to restrict the area of licence, that would not detract from the annual value. Of course, that makes the difficulty far more formidable, because I had thought the suggestion of my hon. Friend would have got rid of the difficulty. It does not, however, get rid of the difficulty at all that the licensee may find himself in the position of deliberately getting his garden included as a place where liquor may be sold, and the next day he may find himself obliged to pay a large sum of money in respect of this garden. May I remind the Solicitor-General that in the previous portions of the Bill with regard to licences the Government have been assuring us, that although they intend to levy this duty on annual value, they look upon that as an extraordinarily unfair way of levying the duty, and if that is so, they might give us this small concession by allowing the omission of the garden from the annual value which they have admitted id an unfair basis to levy the duty on. A great deal of stress is being laid upon the garden in the country, but there are in the outskirts of London many licensed houses with gardens. I could give instances if I chose of places where the gardens are of very great rateable value, and where if a man sold the land it would be extremely valuable. In all these cases it would make a very substantial difference and not a small one as the Solicitor-General thinks
§ it is. I do earnestly urge the Government to reconsider this question.
§ Sir E. CARSONI think the Solicitor-General alluded to small hotels and small houses with a garden at the back, but how about an hotel like that of the N. E. Rly. Co. at York. That hotel has got a most beautiful garden; is it to be taken into the annual value in regard to the collection of these enormously increased Licence Duties?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe value of that would be assessed in regard to its compensation value.
§ Sir E. CARSONBut we have never heard what that means.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe great virtue of Sub-section (3) of Clause 30 is, that it will enable all these premises to be charged irrespective of their gardens, &c, but according to the value of their licence.
§ Mr. E. B. BARNARDThe Solicitor-General the other evening said, in answer to a specific question which I put to him, that he considered it would be within the power of the justices and that if the justices do so that it would be perfectly clear that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in making their valuation, would not go outside the licensed premises as defined by the licensing justices. I rather thought, from what he said to-night, that he was not quite expressing the same view.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI assume the licensing justices will confine their licence to the exact building itself.
§ Question put, "That the word 'and' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 133.
1613| Division No. 629.] | AYES. | [12.5 a.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Wore'r) | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Clive, Percy Archer | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Coates Major E. F (Lewisham) | Hunt, Rowland |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Cochrane. Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S.) | Kerry, Earl of |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Doughty, Sir George | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.) | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gardner, Ernest | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | M'Arthur, Charles |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Moore, William |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Gretton, John | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Carlile, E Hildred | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'nds.) | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Helmsley, Viscount | Peel, Hon. Win. Robert Wellesley |
| Percy, Earl | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mia) |
| Renton, Leslie | Stanier, Beville | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Renwick, George | Starkey, John R. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Ronaldshay, Earl of | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) | |
| Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | |
| Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl |
| Salter, Arthur Clavel | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) | Winterton and Captain Faber. |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Valentia, Viscount | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, George William | Harwood, George | Radford, G. H. |
| Allen, A Acland (Christchurch) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Hedges, A. Paget | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Henry, Charles S. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Barker, Sir John | Higham John Sharp | Rendal, Athelstan |
| Beale, W. P. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Holland. Sir William Henry | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Howard. Hon. Geoffrey | Robinson, S. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hudson, Walter | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Illingworth, Percy H. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Rowlands, J. |
| Bright, J. A. | Jardine, Sir J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmer (Swansea) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Seely, Colonel |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Shaw, Sir Charles Edward |
| Byles, William Pollard | Jowett, F. W. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Carr-Gomm, H W | Laidlaw, Robert | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Chaining, Sir Francis Allston | Lambert, George | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lamont, Norman | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dough, William | Lehmann, R. C. | Summer bell, T. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Levy, Sir Maurice | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lupton, Arnold | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Collins, Sir Win. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lynch, H. B. (Yorks, W.R., Ripon) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Corbett, A Cameron (Glasgow) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Theme, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Tomkinson, James |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Maclean, Donald | Toulmin, George |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Walters, John Tudor |
| Cowan, W. H. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Waring, Walter |
| Crossley, William J. | M'Micking, Major G. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Maddison, Frederick | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Davies. Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Dickinson, W H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Massie, J. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Micklem, Nathaniel | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Worrell, Philip | Wiles, Thomas |
| Elibank, Master of | Morse, L. L. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T | Murray, Capt Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Winfrey, R. |
| Falconer, James | Nussey, Sir Willans | Wood, T. M' Kinnon |
| Findlay, Alexander | Nuttall, Harry | |
| Gladstone. Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Gulland, John W. | Partington, Oswald | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Harvey. A. G. C. (Rochdale] | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
Question, "That the Contract be approved," put, and agreed to.
§ Sir F. BANBURYhad given notice of an Amendment to add the following words to the last paragraph of the Clause, "except where the licensing justices have certified that any part thereof is used for purposes distinct from and independent of the use of the premises as licensed premises."
The CHAIRMANThe question raised "by the hon. Baronet's Amendment was dealt with on an Amendment which has already been decided.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy Amendment does not raise the point which has already been decided. The point already decided is whether a portion of the premises not used for the purpose of the licence should be 1614 included in the valuation for the duty. My Amendment says that where the licensing justices have certified that any part of the premises is not used for the sale of liquor, duty should not be charged on that part, which is a very different thing. The Amendment applies to the particular part which the licensing justices have certified.
The CHAIRMANHave the justices to certify in regard to parts of premises not used for the sale of liquor?
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe value of the entire premises has to be brought forward before the justices, and they say then whether they will license the whole or part of the premises, and whether or not 1615 certain alterations are to be made. My Amendment is simply to enact that where this takes place the portion of the premises not licensed shall not be included in the valuation for the purpose of levying duty.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI submit that the ruling which has been given from the Chair is correct. The licensing justices have no power to certify that a portion of the premises is used for purposes distinct from and independent of the licensed premises.
§ Mr. GRETTONIt follows that the licensing justices have power to define the premises on which the licence is issued.
Amendment made: To add at the end of the Clause: "The expression 'full duty' means the duty which would be charged under the First Schedule to this Act without taking into consideration any reduction or allowance or, in cases where duty may be charged under that Schedule by reference to annual value, any alternative mode of charging the duty."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONNo effort has been made to make this Clause applicable to Scotland. I think that someone on the Government Benches should have been found to put in some interpretation for Scotland.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThere are certain Clauses applicable to Scotland in this Definition Clause. I think that the right hon. Gentleman must be referring to the appeal in certain cases, and the promise made by the Prime Minister.
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONI have endeavoured to get reprints of the clauses, and they are only down to Clause 29, and it is impossible to say what state they are now in. I think the Committee will agree that there have been enormous transformations in this Bill, and there are other matters besides this which require interpretation.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI think it very desirable that the Bill as amended in Committee down to the end of the Licence Clauses should forthwith be printed.
§ Mr. BARNARDI was rather disappointed that the Amendments which stood in my name and the name of the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) were not in order, but I venture once more to appeal to the Solicitor-General whether he cannot hold out some hope that on the Report stage he will do something in the direction he indicated in a previous speech, in which he said that if the justices expressed a certain opinion he had no doubt it would have some effect on the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I now ask him whether he will give effect to that in some form of words?
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONI think that so far as Scotland is concerned some explanation should be given by the Solicitor-General of what is meant by this procedure.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI do not think there is any difference between the separate parts of the United Kingdom under the Excise Acts. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of London, and of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Barnard), which, were out of order, I have been exercising such mind as is left to me to see how I can meet the hon. Gentlemen. I have provided certain words to make it perfectly clear that if any part of the premises is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be for the use of any trade or business separate and distinct from the business authorised by the licence it shall be excluded from the annual valuation. I am prepared to meet the hon. Members, and I do not think they will be in a worse position when they come to the Report stage.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is a very extraordinary statement just made by the Solicitor-General. My Amendment was ruled out of order, yet the hon. and learned Gentleman had in his mind words to meet that Amendment.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSBy way of personal explanation may I say that the Chairman had ruled the hon. Baronet out of order when he began to argue upon it. I got up, and he finished his argument on the point of order by moving the Amendment a little irregularly. I got up to submit to the Chair that the Amendment was out of order. It really is not the same as this that I suggest. His Amendment was one dealing with the justices, while this deals with the Commissioners of Inland. Revenue.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn the Report stage you will consider the matter.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSassented.
§ Mr. BARNARDI understand you will give me that on Report stage?