§ Occasional licences granted under section 13 of The Revenue Act, 1862 (25 and 26 Vic., c. 22), section 20 of The Revenue Act, 1863 (26 and 27 Vic., c. 33), and section 5 of The Revenue Act, 1864 (27 and 28 Vic., c. 18).
§ Duties:—
- (a) Sale of any intoxicating liquor—per day, 10s.
- (b) Sale of beer or wine only—per day. 5s.
§ The enactments specified to have effect throughout the United Kingdom."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI wish, Mr. Chairman, to ask you a ruling on some points with regard to the Resolution which you have just read from the Table, and which has taken you. Sir, five minutes to read. It includes six separate sets of licences under different letters of the alphabet and six scales subsidiary to those five or six letters dealing with spirit licences. Six numbered scales. I do not know how many licences in all are imposed, but there are some 25 or 30 separate licence duty. What I wish to ask you, Sir, 1467 In view of the importance of the Resolution immediately before the Committee, and from its importance as a precedent, is whether it is in accordance with the practice of the Committee, and whether it is proper that all these different proposals should be grouped together and put from the Chair in a single Resolution?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEMay I submit to you, Sir, that this Resolution is purely a formal stage, with the view to authorising me to introduce the Finance Bill, and that therefore I submit that it is proper that the whole of the licences should be included in one Resolution, seeing that it is a formal stage to enable me to introduce the Bill for licences in general.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)It is quite true, as the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire has said, that the time which I have occupied in reading this Resolution has been quite an unusual draft on the time of the Committee, but with regard to the question put to me as to the form of this Resolution, my reply is that the Resolution is such that I must take it as it is. I cannot say how far there is a precedent for a Resolution of this length, but having regard to the fact that it deals entirely with licences for exciseable liquors, I cannot undertake to alter it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI should like to have the point made clear. I understand your rule is that the introductory words cover the whole purport of the Resolution, and that as they all refer to taxation of the same character, a single Resolution is sufficient for any number of taxes?
§ Mr. G. YOUNGERMay I point out, Sir, that there are two very different and distinct proposals in this Resolution. There is one Resolution with regard to licences which affects manufacturers. It is a totally new and unprecedented licence. Then there is another set which applies to retailers for off and on-licences. It would be very convenient to hon. Members that the Resolution should be divided into two parts so that we might debate that part which deals with manufacturers separately from the part which deals with the other group.
§ The CHAIRMANWith regard to the question put to me by the Member for Ayr Burghs my reply is that the point which he raises is one for the Government to decide and not for me. They have to choose whether the Resolution should be divided 1468 or not. It is not for me to decide. With regard to the second question put to me by the Member for East Worcestershire, I have to say that I am dealing with this Resolution only, and my remarks must be taken as dealing wth this Resolution only.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI wish to rise to a point of order—
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEBefore the hon. Baronet proceeds with his point of order I should like to reply to the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs. If this Resolution had the force of an Act of Parliament, and if this was a last opportunity for discussing these licences I can quite see the force of the suggestion which has been made, but it is purely a Resolution enabling the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with high licences.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI wish to raise a point of an important character. Would it be in order to move that the Resolution be divided into two?
§ The CHAIRMANIt would be in order to do so by Amendment of course to the Resolution, which would have the effect of dividing it into two parts.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move that the resolution be divided into two parts.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet has misinterpreted my meaning. I said that the hon. Baronet might move an Amendment which would have the effect of dividing the Resolution into two parts. He might with his ingenuity devise an Amendment which would have that effect.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI propose to leave out the words "and sale" from the first paragraph headed "Excise Liquor Licences." That would have the effect of confining the discussions to the manufacturers licences.
§ Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ Mr. YOUNGERThis is a matter of great substance, and it is important as a precedent. I do not think that these manufacturing licences ought to be mixed up with the revision of scale of the retail licences. This is a totally new licence, and I think the Committee ought to consider very strictly a departure of this kind, and vote upon the Question. It is a hardship. There are licences imposed upon distillers and brewers which cannot be defended while some duties may meet with approval, and may not be so bad as they look. There are others which cannot be 1469 defended. The Prime Minister has stated in answer to a question that he cannot regard them as admissible at all in regard to manufacturers. I do not wish to detain the Committee with any further remark, but I am sure it will be agreed that this is a matter of great importance, but I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer to listen to the arguments which will be put before him before he makes up his mind, so that he may see whether he cannot get his revenue in some other way, or with some less interference with trade than this proposal will do. There is no precedent for it, absolutely none.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe Member for Ayr Burghs has not advanced any argument. This is the opportunity for doing so. I should like to hear from him what his arguments are.
§ Mr. YOUNGERIn what respect do the brewing and distilling trades differ from other businesses? In no respect except that the articles produced are taxable commodities.
Mr. J. W. WILSONI wish to rise to a point of order. May I ask whether the hon. Member for Sheffield is in order in persisting in his Amendment? I think that the hon. Member is out of order in discussing details. I submit that the motion to leave out "and sale" should be ruled out of order.
§ The CHAIRMANAs regards the point of order the position is this. Some hon. Members of the House may desire to discuss the words "and sale" with the view to their being left out, while other Members may desire that the words "and sale" should be left in. Therefore hon. Members are entitled to discuss the Amendment on that basis.
§ Mr. YOUNGERThe hon. Member does not quite realise the point in dispute. I am talking about licences to manufacturers, and not licences for sale. The hon. Member in moving to leave out the words "for sale" sought to limit this particular discussion to licences for manufacture. I am dealing now with licences for manufacture. It is perfectly right no doubt that the manufacturers should be placed in the position of paying the registration duties, because they produce a taxable commodity, and it is essential it should be produced under proper restriction. But to charge the brewer or distiller a progressive duty in proportion to the prospective business which may be the outcome of the exercise of his brains and of his diligence 1470 is, I suggest, ludicrous, ridiculous, unfair and unjust. What was the position when Mr. Gladstone removed the so-called brewers' tax? It was not a brewers' tax at all. When the hop duty was taken off there was substituted for it a tax of 1s. per quarter on malt. When Mr. Gladstone came forward in 1880 to alter the whole system of taxation he included that 1s. in the new beer duty. It was the deliberate intention of Mr. Gladstone to place the whole of this malt duty upon beer. It was an extremely clever and able thing, and his successors in it have found no difficulty whatever in raising the money. Therefore that is not now within our purview. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes forward, and says that he will do an entirely different thing. He says "the brewer and distiller is a person out of whom I ought to get something," and he is going to get it by penalising these men for carrying on their business, and placing a tax upon those who are most capable. He is going to impose it in advance before he knows whether they will produce good beer or bad beer, whether they will produce beer which is saleable or unsaleable, whether they will produce beer which is going to be consumed by the public or to be returned to him. I say, therefore, that the whole position is perfectly impossible and intolerable. In the old days the 1s. duty on malt was only charged when the malt was brewed, but now the right hon. Gentleman presumes to say in advance that the brewers and distillers will produce the same amount of beer and whisky in the coming year as in the year which has passed, and he proposes to charge this duty accordingly. This is the point which we ask the House to consider—Are they going to place on a perfectly free trade this additional duty without granting any kind of monopoly; are they going to encourage and support the right hon. Gentleman in putting a tax of this kind on these people for which there is no pretence, and for which certainly there is no warrant, and which, I assert, is grossly unjust/
§ Mr. JAMES F. HOPEI have been appealed to not to press this Amendment, but I fear I cannot respond to that invitation. My Amendment was moved in the interests of accurate and precise discussion. It was also moved in the interests of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, because the right hon. Gentleman will surely see how much more convenient it would be for the purposes of the Debate 1471 if he accepted the procedure which I have suggested. If we discuss the whole Resolution on the Paper we shall have to wander around an immense variety of subjects. We shall have to deal not only with manufacturers' licences and with distillers' licences, but also with other licences, and it will naturally be extremely difficult for the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, to cover the whole field of the discussion. I want, therefore, to limit it. I know that the Resolution cannot be divided into two absolutely separate Resolutions, and I do not think it would be desirable if it could. But my hon. Friend below me has pointed out a very real distinction between the class of manufacturers' and the class of distillers' licences. I venture to suggest that the proposal of the Government is a serious departure from precedent, inasmuch as it changes a very small and convenient duty by registration into a tax, and that certainly is a matter of extreme gravity. It is, I urge, only fair and right that that should be discussed separately, and it would be extremely convenient, otherwise the discussion might prove most dilatory. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us have a fair discussion on this concrete point, and therefore I press him to accept the Amendment which I have proposed.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEHon. Members who have spoken have raised the question of the manufacturers' licence, and the hon. Member for Ayr seems to think that it is a grossly unfair charge. I cannot see upon what ground he bases that assertion. It is only a charge of 2¾d. per barrel of 36 gallons. It is really a very trivial duty to be placed upon the brewers, who are now making a profit of anything between 10s. and 14s. per barrel. I would ask, Is it really a monstrous proposition that in a time of need they should be requested to contribute 2¾d. out of the profit of 14s.? I at any rate do not think that it is. Suppose that instead of putting it on the manufacturers I had raised the duty on beer from 7s. 9d. to 8s.; would the hon. Member for Ayr have declared that to be very monstrous?
§ Mr. YOUNGERI do not think that that is a question which I am called upon to answer, but I would say that if the right hon. Gentleman wants to raise an extra 3d. upon beer, that would be the proper way to do it, and not the method he now proposes.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am at a loss to know where the difference is. I venture to say that it amounts to exactly the same thing. The hon. Member practically admits that if I put it on in the form of an addition to the beer duty it would be quite unobjectionable.
§ Mr. YOUNGERI did not say that. What I did say was that if the right hon. Gentleman put it on the barrel of beer he would be following a perfectly clearly-defined principle, but if he puts it on the brewer merely because he is the manufacturer of the beer he is introducing a new principle, which is capable of extension, and, therefore, I entirely object to it as a matter of principle.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI see. The hon. Member for Ayr objects because he says I ask the Committee to subscribe to something that a future Chancellor of the Exchequer may want to do. But I take it he does not regard this as a very oppressive tax; it amounts to less than 3d. per barrel of 36 gallons, and I say that that cannot be regarded as very oppressive. I therefore hope that the Committee will pass on to the discussion of the heavier duties which I propose to impose.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMy hon. Friend who moved this Amendment desired to perform a surgical operation upon the Resolution and to divide it into two parts, while the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the opportunity of the Amendment to discuss the merits of the Resolution itself. Now, I do not desire to do that.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI must correct the right hon. Gentleman. This discussion was initiated by hon. Members on his own side of the House—by the hon. Member for Sheffield and by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, who, on the basis of this Amendment, have challenged this particular tax. They chose to raise the discussion this way, and I accordingly replied.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Chancellor of the Exchequer's memory has a little misled him. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs simply argued that it was an inconvenient thing to have these distinct proposals put together in one Resolution, and he urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield in order that each part might be discussed 1473 separately. It was then that the Chancellor of the Exchequer lured my hon. Friend into saying a few words on the merits of the proposal itself, and it was only in reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's special request that he did so. I do not think that this is a convenient Motion on which to take a discussion on the merits of the proposal, and I therefore do not propose to do so. I propose merely to defend my personal attitude with regard to the suggestion that the resolution should be divided into two parts. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall not be able to support his proposal. I asked your ruling, Sir, as to whether this Resolution was in order and in accordance with custom and practice, because it appeared to me to be
§ a matter of great present and, possibly, of greater future importance. We are, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal, going to impose, by a single Resolution, something like 40 separate Excise duties; we now know that a single Resolution on Excise may cover 40 duties, and I presume that if that is true of Excise it is equally true of Customs. That is a very useful precedent, and I think my hon. Friend would not be well advised to vote against it
§ Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 71.
1475| Division No. 88.] | AYES. | [4–45 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Erskine, David C. | Massie, J. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Essex, R. W. | Menzies, Walter |
| Agnew, George William | Evans, Sir S. T | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Everett, R. Lacey | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Alden, Percy | Ferens, T. R. | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Fullerton, Hugh | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Gibbs, James (Harrow) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Morse, L. L. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Glover, Thomas | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Barker, Sir John | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Myer, Moratio |
| Barnard, E. B. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Napier, T. B. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Griffith, Ellis J. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Gulland, John W. | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Beale, W. P. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hart-Davies, T. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Partington, Oswald |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hemmerde, Edward George | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Black, Arthur W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Pointer, J. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Henry, Charles S. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Branch, James | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Higham, John Sharp | Pullar, Sir Robert |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Radford, G. H. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Horniman, Emslie John | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Hudson, Walter | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Illingworth, Percy H. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Cameron, Robert | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Rees, J. D. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Jowett, F. W. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Cleland, J W. | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Clough, William | Lambert, George | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lamont, Norman | Robinson, S. |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Leyland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lehmann, R. C. | Rose, Charles Day |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lewis, John Herbert | Rowlands, J. |
| Cox, Harold | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lupton, Arnold | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Crooks, William | Lyell, Charles Henry | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Sears, J. E. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Seddon, J. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Maclean, Donald | Seely, Colonel |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | M'Callum, John M. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Duckworth, Sir James | M'Micking, Major G. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Mallet, Charles E. | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Marnham, F. J. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Stanger, H. Y. | Walsh, Stephen | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Steadman, W. C. | Wardle, George J. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Waring, Walter | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Sutherland, J. E. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Waterlow, D. S. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) | Watt, Henry A. | |
| Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | |
| Thomasson, Franklin | Weir, James Galloway | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank. |
| Tomkinson, James | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | |
| Verney, F. W. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) | |
| Vivian, Henry | Whitehead, Rowland | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gretton, John | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Balcarres, Lord | Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hamilton, Marquess of | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Heaton, John Henniker | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael High Hicks | Hermon-Lodge, Sir Robert | Stanier, Beville |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hill, Sir Clement | Starkey, John R. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Joynson-Hicks, William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Kerry, Earl of | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Kimber, Sir Henry | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | M'Arthur, Charles | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart- |
| Doughty, Sir George | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Young, Samuel |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.James Hope and Earl Winterton. |
| Fell, Arthur | Oddy, John James | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORI have to bring before the Chancellor of the Exchequer some considerations in reference to the figures and the licences. I do not mean to confine my observations exclusively to the case of Ireland, as that case, I believe, will be raised subsequently by an Amendment to be proposed by an hon. Friend of mine at a later stage of the proceedings, and asking that Ireland shall be excluded from the operation of this Resolution. My observations will be of a more general character, but, with regard to Ireland, the reasons why I think these licences will press much more severely upon that country than upon any other part of the kingdom I may put into one figure, which is that there are 7,952 houses in the United Kingdom which pay a minimum licence, and of those no less than 7,190 are in Ireland alone. Therefore it will be seen that this tax upon small houses presses upon Ireland more severely than any other part of the country. I do not think, however, that anybody would deny that the number of small houses in Ireland is excessive in some small towns, and that under proper conditions and with fair treatment it would be highly desirable that the number should be decreased; but I have always belonged to that school of temperance reformers who think that temperance cannot be advanced by injustice 1476 to vested interests. Furthermore, these small houses in Ireland are in a different position to the holders of licences in England. Practically the "tied house" system does not exist in Ireland, and I am very glad it does not exist. All these men, therefore, who hold these small houses within the minimum licence are men who have invested all their own money and enterprise in those small concerns and, in fact, everybody who is acquainted with Irish life knows that the small public-house is the one thing which stands between these people and starvation. I have never been able to see the justice of reducing a man to starvation because he happens to supply a demand for liquor. Coming from that to another branch of this Question, I think I am almost the solitary individual in this House who is in favour of what are called the spirit houses. I have been fighting this battle ever since I have been in the House, and once or twice I succeeded in averting their fate. There was, for instance, a Bill introduced by my late lamented friend Lord Eitchie—I think it was the Bill of 1902—and that measure proposed to put the grocers' licences in the same position as ordinary public-houses. I do not think that any man who has really studied what I may call the psychology of drink will 1477 disagree with me when I say that if people are to drink—and plenty of people do drink even in this House—of course I mean drink in moderation, but plenty of people drink, and often I have seen Members of the Radical party drink, and therefore my point of departure in all these questions is, that there are a certain number of human beings who desire to drink, and all that you can do is not to destroy that appetite, but to regulate it by judicious arrangement. I have always thought that if a man is to drink at all, it is a great deal better that he should drink in his own house than in a public-house. A man goes to a spirit grocer's and buys a bottle of wine, or whisky, or what not, and he goes home and shares it with his wife and children, but if he drinks in a public-house he drinks entirely in obedience to his own appetite and wishes. If he goes into a public-house every single influence in the place is calculated to make him consume perhaps more than he desires to consume. He takes the first drink for himself, the second drink for his friend, the third drink because his friend wants to be as good-natured as himself, and he takes the fourth drink for the good of the house, because I cannot imagine a man who is ordinarily good-natured and feeling taking up the premises of a man, wasting his light, taking advantage of that which he pays a considerable rent for, and not at the same time giving him a fair amount of custom. Therefore between the drink consumed at home and the drink consumed in public-houses there is an enormous difference. In the one case the man drinks as much or as little as he pleases, and in the other there is an almost irresistible requirement to drink rather more than is good for him. When I used this same argument many years ago the reply was, that the evil of grocers' licences was that a large number of women were encouraged thereby to secret drinking, and that this secret drinking among women was encouraged by an arrangement between them and the grocers, so that spirits or beer were put down by fraudulent agreement as household necessities—tea, or coffee, or something of that kind. I thought myself that was rather a farfetched idea. I did not say such cases did not exist. No man can undertake to trace the Protean methods by which a person afflicted with this malady of over-drinking will get the means of drinking to excess, but, at the same time, I am strongly of opinion that the case did not really exist 1478 in practice. However, in order to meet that view, some friends of mine who are interested in the spirit licences made a suggestion to the Minister in charge of the Bill, which was adopted, and the suggestion was to insert this clause, which is sub-section 4 in the Bill of 1902, and it is the clause which gives the grounds on which the magistrates can refuse the renewal of a grocer's licence, and here are two of the grounds:—
Section (5). That the applicant has sold surreptitiously under his licence;(6). That the applicant has assisted in concealing or misrepresenting the nature of goods sold under his licence.And so, under this section of the Act of 1902, any grocer who made this fraudulent compact with a drunken woman for the purpose of concealing the nature of the goods she bought, forfeited his licence. That was, I think, very stringent, and also a very wise and necessary precaution in order to meet this evil. I dare say I shall surprise the Committee when I tell them that although that has been on the Statute Book now for more than six years, not one single conviction has taken place under it. I believe I could even go further, and say many of the gentlemen who are engaged in this business of grocers' licences have offered considerable rewards, in one case, I think, as much as £100, to be given to a charity, for one clear, definite proof of a violation of the law in this particular fashion. I hope the Committee will take it from me that before that great Licensing Commission, which is the starting point of many temperance proposals since, there was an absolutely unanimous if not an unbroken chain of evidence in favour of the good character of these houses. My hon. Friend opposite shakes his head. I know when I am dealing with him I am dealing with a mild edition of an English Robespierre, a sea-green incorruptible. I am rather afraid if he and I came to discuss the question of temperance legislation, he would discuss it from the point of view of a temperance fanatic not as well acquainted with the wicked ways of the world as a practising journalist. My hon. Friend disputes my proposition, but, as a matter of fact, as he challenges me, I should like to read to the Committee some testimony which was given upon this question. I take the testimony of Sir Algernon West, who was deputy-chairman of the Royal Commission and chairman of the Inland Revenue Department, and every 1479 one who knows him knows that he is one of the most distinguished and able public servants in this country. In dealing with the difference of opinion between the majority and the minority on the Commission he wrote:—The first serious difference of opinion arose on Lord Peel's proposal for separation of the trades, which was tantamount to abolition of what are known in this country as grocers' licences. Now I am sorry to say that I was old enough to recollect their origin by Mr. Gladstone in 1860. His object in so establishing them was in the interests of sobriety, to make it unnecessary for anyone requiring a bottle of wine or spirits to enter a public-house, and he had also in view the encouragement in this country of the consumption of the light wines of France in the place of spirits or the heavier and more intoxicating wines of other countries. The licences have been an unqualified success, and no untainted evidence I thought had been produced to the contrary. Ever since their establishment, 39 years ago, there had not been a single complaint made of them to the Board of Inland Revenue, and consequently not a single prosecution had been taken against so-called grocers for any infringement of the Excise laws.Sir John Bridge, the very distinguished and able magistrate, is asked:—It has been frequently stated on public platforms that women have a facility for getting drink connected with the purchase of food and other articles purchased otherwise than at a public-house. Is there any truth in that?—I do not believe it.Mr. G. Crispe Whiteley, clerk to the justices of the Newington division of London, well known to us as a very earnest and sincere Liberal, gives the same evidence. Dr. Lawson Tait, the great surgeon, is asked:—You have known of no cases where direct evils can be traced to the sale by mixed traders?—If you mean the grocers' licence I know nothing of the kind.There was no man in this country who knew better about the tendencies and maladies of women than that very distinguished surgeon. Mr. C. Malcolm Wood, chief constable of Manchester, was asked:—How many 'off' licences are there in Manchester?—There are 551.Do those licences include the grocers?—Yes.That includes all 'off' licences?—…Have the police had any difficulty with those 551 'off' licences?—No, we have had no difficulty whatever with them.I come now to my own city of Liverpool. Captain Nott Bower, the chief constable, is asked:—I am told that during 25 years they have only known three cases of wine and spirit selling grocers being summoned, and those were for keeping open late on Saturday night and Christmas Eve. Do you think that would be a fair statement of the case?—I should think it probably would be.Then I think I may accept your view, that there is no charge in Liverpool against that class of licence?—Yes.Probably I put it too strongly when I said there was no evidence. I would have been more accurate if I had said a very 1480 considerable body of evidence came from all classes and from all representatives in favour of the opinion which I have always held, that these grocers' licences were not abused, and rather tended to the diminution than to the increase of the drink evil. My point of view with regard to the licences proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that if he makes these licences in any way impossible he will thereby not only inflict an injury on the trader himself, but will not be doing good to the cause of temperance, of which I know he is a sincere advocate. I may be wrong, but that is my point of view, and the Committee must allow me to give these figures as showing that the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal unfairly with this class of trade, and therefore will do injury to the cause of temperance. I have here some figures, given me by a very high authority, and I believe I can honestly commit myself to them, but in any case they shall be forwarded to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for examination by his experts. On the assessment of houses under £30 the licence is increased by 30 per cent.; on an assessment over £30 and under £50 it is increased by 50 per cent.; on an assessment over £50 and under £100 it is increased by 200 per cent., and on an assessment of £100 and over it is increased by no less than 300 per cent. That is an extraordinary and pressing burden to put upon this class of trade. It will specially affect the small trader, and small traders of this kind exist very largely in Ireland. Mr. Fry, formerly a Liberal Member of this House, has 23 or 24 of this kind of houses in Ireland, and I understood that he believes, if the licence be at the figure mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, these houses will go out of existence and other great firms who have houses of this kind in Ireland complain that practically the higher licence will swallow up the small margin of profit which these small traders have. I do not think that is fair to the small trader or to the cause of temperance.Another objection against the licences in their present form is that the licence is charged on the assessment of the premises as a whole. That is not fair. In England, to a large extent, and in Ireland to a larger extent, there is what is called mixed trade. In Ireland we have not by any means that scientific and complete separation of different trades which is one of the marks of English life and on the old theory of Adam Smith of the division of 1481 labour, it is also one of the symptoms and signs of a more highly developed form of trade. In Ireland you will find in most of the small towns, especially in the west, that the shopkeeper there finds it a necessity of his business to have a store in which a peasant who goes in can get almost any class of article, including whisky or stout. In England it is the same thing, and that has become more necessary in some of the smaller towns of England, and especially near London, because of the enormous growth within a few years of the cooperative system. I have nothing to say against the co-operative system. Personally, I believe co-operation is the one practical solution I have ever seen for the chaos and anarchy of industrial life, but at the same time co-operation has its weak side as well as its good side, and I have a certain amount of sympathy for the small trader, say, in a place like Croydon, who has to make his living in spite of the immense competition and the tremendous advantage of a co-operative store. There is scarcely one of these stores which has not had to have a wine and spirit and beer department. They began sometimes by only selling provisions, tea, coffee, vegetables, and so on, but the whole tendency now in that class of shop, both in London and in the towns immediately adjoining it, is to have a mixed trade, and to have the wine, spirit, and beer department as well as the other. Of course, when I discuss this matter I find myself in opposition to a large number of gentlemen with whom I generally agree. I think that is a good thing, and not a bad thing. Some of them have suggested over and over again a distinct separation between the wine and spirit department and the general store where the ordinary business is carried on. I think those who make that proposal do so in forgetfulness of the large amount of expense and inconvenience which this new arrangement would involve to the general dealer. I think myself if a family want a bottle of whisky, a bottle of wine, or a bottle of beer, there is no reason why they should not buy it openly and honestly. As there is no retail drinking in these houses, of course a separate entrance has nothing to do with the amount of drinking on the premises. The effect of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this: He estimates the assessment of a house on the entire value of the house and the entire business. I am informed that what may be called the liquor side of these houses is usually not more than one-sixth 1482 of the entire business premises, and so you are charging on the whole business though the liquor side only represents one-sixth. I think that is obviously unfair. I am perfectly sure my right hon. Friend has no desire to do anything but justice and equity all round. I do not accuse him of any other intention; I simply put the facts before him with the desire that he should arrive at something like reasonable and equitable arrangements. I know the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that any man who has to raise £16,000,000 of money is bound to tread on the corns of numerous classes, and that there is no class of trader or property owner who is taxed who is not ready to cry to Heaven for vengeance on the unfortunate Finance Minister who has to find the money. I do not join in what I consider the exaggerated and absurd attacks which have been made upon him with respect to the general scheme of the Budget. I wish to point what I think is practical, and what by a fair amount of consideration between him and the trade affected may end in some arrangement which at the same time would give him a reasonable amount of money and leave people to conduct their business with a fair margin of profit.
§ Mr. A. J. SHERWELLI do not propose to follow my hon. Friend in the discussion of the particular issues which he has raised in the case of Ireland, and which are likely to receive very considerable emphasis in the subsequent discussion. I assure my hon. Friend that whilst it is perfectly true that the lowest class of houses are those under £10 value, he has forgotten the other extremely important fact, that of the total number of public-houses in Ireland, seven-tenths, that is to say 70 per cent., are to be found in rural districts and small places with a population of less than 5,000. It is these particular districts which receive the most generous terms under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme, so that from the point of Ireland and the particular feature to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, I think it would not be difficult, if one had time, and if this were the proper occasion, to show that Ireland receives more generous treatment than the neighbouring portion of the kingdom—Scotland. We are accustomed to be told that Ireland suffers appreciably under these liquor licence duties and taxes, simply because a large proportion of the alcohol consumed in Ireland is in the form of spirits. As a matter of fact, only 33 per cent. is represented by 1483 spirits. The consumption in England amounts to 24 per cent. and in Scotland it is 66 per cent., so that relatively Ireland has received far more generous treatment than Scotland.
I propose this afternoon rather to concentrate attention on the more general principles that underlie the particular taxes which are now under discussion. I was very much impressed, as presumably we were all impressed, by the fact that last week in the general discussion of the Budget emphasis was laid by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and by other Members on that side of the House on the motive underlying these particular licence duties. It was frankly suggested by the right hon. Gentleman himself that the motive of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in proposing these what are called high licence duties was simply a motive of revenge for the rejection of the Licensing Bill last year in another place. It is not for me to be concerned in the defence of the consistency of the Government. I imagine if this were the proper time such a defence would not be difficult. I believe this Committee, however, will be much more concerned for the general equitable principles which may be said to be the ultimate justification for these particular duties. I am quite free to admit that the rejection of the Licensing Bill in another place last year did open the way to alternative methods of action, which would not have been available had that measure passed on to the Statute Book. But I venture to say that, apart altogether from recent Parliamentary events, there has been no single proposal in any Budget introduced in this House in recent times which has greater equitable justification behind it than the proposal for higher licence duties on public-houses and other licensed premises. Under ordinary circumstances, and leaving out of account entirely recent Parliamentary events, the licensed trade is one which economists of all schools, and I imagine Parliamentarians of all schools, have always frankly recognised justifies and indeed demands special taxation. In the first place, it is concerned with the manufacture and sale of a commodity which is admittedly a luxury and not a necessity for efficient subsistence. In the second place, it is a trade which entails upon the community quite exceptional expenditure in regard to its social effects. In the third place, it is a lucrative monopoly, whose exceptional 1484 value is in chief part due to the action of the laws and the State. I quite frankly admit that there are limits to the practical application of these general principles which cannot in justice be exceeded, but I venture to suggest that no one who takes a dispassionate view of the history of our licensing laws, and especially the fiscal treatment of the licensed trade, will be able to contend from the point of view of our present standards of taxation that these limits have even yet been measurably approached.
I am not concerned for the moment to discuss the details of the scheme of licence duties included in this Resolution. I am rather anxious to discuss the essential principle which underlies the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What is the central and essential principle of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal? It is that a valuable monopoly conferred by the State, owing in large part its exceptional value to the action of the laws and the State, should return by way of licence duties some equivalent payment for the enormous value that has accrued to licences in that way. Will any one, looking dispassionately at the history of the fiscal treatment of the licensed liquor trade, be prepared to say that at any point in the history of that trade anything approaching an equivalent return has been made by the Trade to the State for the enormous values that have been conferred by the State upon that trade? In the entire history of our fiscal arrangements I know of nothing more essentially unjust and more strikingly anomalous than the altogether inadequate standards of licence taxation imposed by Parliament on traders in this particular commodity. Originally, as hon. Members are aware, our licensing system was a free trade system. Gradually, and chiefly owing to the social effects of an ill-regulated trade, Parliament introduced changes into its laws which completely transformed the character of that system from free trade in licences into a valuable and close monopoly. But Parliament, which by its action altogether transformed the character of the privilege it had conferred, never adjusted its taxation to the change in the character and in the value of the licences.
Let me give the Committee one or two figures in justification of that statement. Let me take, first of all, the publican's beer licence—the licence which, prior to 1880, every publican was required to take out who desired to sell beer. From the establishment of our licensing system until 1710 1485 no payment of any sort was required in consideration of a publican's beer licence. In 1710 a mere stamp duty of 1s. was imposed. By 1755 it was raised to a charge of one guinea, and as late as 1800 the entire charge upon a beer licence was only a fee of two guineas. Seventy years later, and, indeed, as recently as 1880, it averaged only two and a half guineas in the whole of England and Wales, although since 1800 the population had increased by 155 per cent., and the total expenditure upon alcohol by over 100 per cent. Let me take the publican's spirit licence. In 1800 the average cost for England and Wales was £5 1s. 6d. Thirty years later, that is in 1830, when there had been an increase of nearly five millions in the population, the average cost of a publican's spirit licence was slightly less than in 1800. Between 1840 and 1880 no change of any kind was made on the standard of taxation regarding the publican's spirit licence. This Committee will hardly believe the simple historical fact that for nearly a century prior to 1870 every public-house having a spirit licence and exceeding £50 annual value was treated alike—that is to say, any house exceeding £50 annual value, however much the house became enlarged under the pressure of new and extending trade, did not give one penny to the State in consideration of that larger trade, due largely to the restrictive action of the State. In 1880 the average cost of publicans' licences was only £2 17s. 6d. more than it had been in 1800, although the quantity of spirits charged with duty for home consumption had increased in the interval by something like 25 million gallons. In 1880 Mr. Gladstone recast and revised, and to some extent increased, the scale of licence duty, but the whole effect of his action then, which I would suggest to the Committee was the first attempt ever made in our history to put the licence duty upon anything approaching a fiscal basis, was to raise the average cost of publicans' licences for selling beer and wine and spirits by something like £5. Since 1880 no change of any kind has been made in the scale of licence taxation.
Thirty years have passed, and meantime, during these 30 years, the State has been ceaseless in its endeavour to further restrictively and to intensify the monopoly value of these holding licences, but despite this steady enhancement of the value? of the monopoly conferred since 1880, Parliament has never raised the scale of 1486 licence duties by a single farthing. In fact, in proportion to the population, the revenue from public-houses to-day is less in ratio to the population than it was in 1880. Look at the changes that have taken place in the State's conduct of this industry or in the State's attitude towards it since 1880. In the 28 years from 1880 to 1908 the number of public-houses in the United Kingdom, despite the growth of population, fell from 96,700 odd to 89,493. In 1880 there were 2.8 public - houses for every 1,000 inhabitants. At present there are only two public-houses for every 1,000 inhabitants—that is, there is nearly one public-house less per 1,000 inhabitants than there was in 1880. But meantime the annual expenditure on alcohol had increased by something like £21,000,000—that is, with 7,234 fewer public-houses than in 1880 the expenditure on alcohol has, nevertheless, increased by £21,000,000 sterling. Take another fact—the increase in the size of public-houses during the last 25 years. In that period nearly 12,000 public-houses of less than £25 annual value, or nearly half of the entire number, disappeared. I do not mean that they have in every case absolutely disappeared. In some cases reassessment and increased busines have sent them up into another category; but the total number of public-houses under £25 annual value has decreased nearly one half in the last 25 years. Of these between £25 and £40 annual value 690 have disappeared. But in every other grade there has been a steady, progressive, and continuous increase, until for houses above £500 annual value the increase has been 1,517, or nearly 350 per cent. Take the case of licence in London alone. I have given evidence to show that since the seventies the value of fully licensed public-houses in London has increased something like fourfold, and since 1850 the increase has been, to some of the provincial centres, quite as striking. In 1901 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham stated that the value of the licensed houses in Birmingham in 1876 was £900,000, and to-day he said, speaking in 1901, six times that sum would not buy them.
As I read the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman, all that his proposals assert and emphasise is the principle that the State, which has chiefly enhanced those licence values, shall receive something like a proper equivalent in return for its action in so enhancing the value. I would like to 1487 ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite if there is anything very revolutionary or predatory in a proposal of that kind? I would like to quote from a source which I think will not be suspect by hon. Members opposite. I would like to refer them to perfectly consistent but very emphatic declarations made by the "Spectator" newspaper in connection with this question. The "Spectator" in 1900, when it was giving advice to the Government as to the sources of revenue for expenditure upon the then new war, said: "In our belief the best plan would be to deal with our licence system, and divert into the Treasury the money now literally thrown at the heads of the proprietors of existing licences. Surely," it added, "it should be the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stop this waste?" I might give, if it were necessary, other similar quotations, in some cases more emphatic, proceeding from the same journal, but let me take another case, which will, perhaps, appeal more strongly to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition in 1904 called emphatic attention to the irrational character of the proceedings under which hitherto the State had conferred, in respect of licences, enormous values due to its own action upon the recipients, who had done nothing to create those. He called that proceeding irrational, and he was justified, and logically he proceeded to enact that in case of new licence the favoured recipients should pay the full monopoly value of those licences to the local taxation account. I would venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in hat action he logically conceded the essential of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget. What was it that created the monopoly value in the case of new licences? The monopoly value of new licences was obviously not due to any effort of the recipient. It was due to the fact that the whole systematic and continued effort of the State and the local authorities was to so intensify the monopoly as to give a vast value to every licensee conducting that trade.
If you concede the monopoly value as State created in the case of a new licence, you obviously concede it in the case of existing licences. It is perfectly obvious that if a new licence in that district has an enormous value due not to the action of the recipient, the existing licences must themselves be also influenced, affected, enhanced, by the same action of the State and the community. 1488 But there is another test in which hon. Members opposite will be interested, I think, judging by some of the discussions that took place last week. You must judge of the inadequacy of the existing scale of licence duties, not merely absolutely by examining the standard of the taxation, but you must judge it in comparison with the standard of licence duties of taxation enforced elsewhere. Let me give the Noble Lord, concerning whose part in the discussion I shall have something to say presently, a few figures as to the city of Greater New York. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the highest of the lot."] Some hon. Member, speaking in ignorance, says that is the highest. I will show him that other cities have even higher duties; but take the case of New York. In the greater part of New York, which constitutes the old city of New York, every publican, despite the value of his premises or trade, is compelled to pay a licence of £245 per annum; and taking the whole of Greater New York, the average sum paid by the publican is £205 per annum. In London we have over a million more people, and the average sum paid by a publican here is only £38 per annum. That is to say, if you confine it to the largest city in New York State, the rate of licence duty charged in the largest city is six times as much as the average rate charged in similar cities in this country. In the next five groups of cities the average is from five to seven and a half times as much, and in the very smallest places of all—places of less than 1,200 inhabitants—the average rate of duty charged there is three times as much as the average charge in similar districts in this country.
I will give another illustration. In London we receive an annual revenue from publicans' licences of £200,000. In Greater New York, with a million fewer people, the contribution from publicans' licences to the revenue is £2,200,000. That is to say, New York, despite the million fewer people, actually pays in publicans' licences £2,000,000 sterling more than London itself does. In London the average revenue from publicans' licences is £45 per 1,000 of the inhabitants. In New York it is not £45, but £603 per 1,000 of the inhabitants. I will answer an objection or a murmur that was raised just now. I assume that that murmur was in reference to a statement made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and other Members the other night, that while the scale of licence duties is unquestionably much higher in the United States than it is here, nevertheless. 1489 the taxation of beer and spirit is lower there than the taxation of beer and spirit here. If I were so disposed I think I might dispose of both the relevancy and the validity of that statement. If the Noble Lord will only listen to my argument I will justify it.
I could question, if I were so disposed, the relevancy and the validity of that plea on this ground, that historically and legally to-day the publicans' licence duty stands as a thing quite apart. In the whole of our fiscal treatment of the licensed liquor trade this Parliament has always insisted on treating the publican's licence without regard to the duty on beer or spirits. Moreover, although it is perfectly true that it is owing to internal arrangements of the trade itself, the historical and legal distinction between the brewer and the publican has tended to become obscured. It is simply an internal arrangement on the part of the trade itself; it is not legal or constitutional; but while there has grown up that combination between the brewer and the publican in this country, there is no such combination between the publican and the brewer in the United States of America. In the United States of America the tied house system does not exist to anything like the same extent or anything remotely approaching the same form which exists in this country. In the United States of America it is the publican, qua publican, who is assessed, and who pays a high licence duty. Therefore, I submit, you can legitimately question the validity of the objection raised by hon. Members opposite. But I am not disposed to go on that plea. I would rather be prepared to admit, as in all these discussions I have been prepared to admit, that in estimating the taxation of a particular branch of trade, you ought in justice to pay some regard to the taxation of the whole trade. Therefore, I am quite prepared to consider the taxation of the liquor trade in the United States of America and in this country. When the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham made a statement of a rather striking character the other night, to the effect that if you have regard to the total taxation of the liquor trade, the trade here was taxed much more highly than in the United States, I ventured to interrupt him by asking him the question on what basis he arrived at that statement. The Noble Lord, with perfect courtesy, answered me that he had no time to enter into details that night, but he explained that 1490 he referred to reports of the United States Government. I make the frank confession that, when the Noble Lord spoke, I knew perfectly well the authority from which he quoted. I knew his authority for the statement was a little book which I had in my hand at that time, and which had been sent to me in common I believe with other Members of this House. But I rose and asked that question for this reason: I think it is highly desirable in the interests of scientific fact and truth that, when a statement of that, striking character and sweeping comprehensiveness is made in this House, we should have some knoweldge of the authority on which it is based. Nothing since I have had the honour of entering this House has more amazed me than the readiness, I might almost say the light-heartedness, with which statements obviously requiring support and justification and prolonged and careful investigation are almost welcomed by this very generous and sometimes very credulous assembly. I have been amazed by seeing the case with which these statements pass into currency as scientific facts.
What is the authority for the statement of the Noble Lord? The comparison he suggests is obviously extremely difficult, and its difficulty arises principally from one fact, that whilst it is perfectly easy to compare taxation of beer and spirits when you have quantities giving revenue, you cannot so compare licence duties. Therefore, in instituting a comparison you, must secure two conditions at least. First of all, that the things compared should be fairly comparable, and secondly, that the things compared should be compared on a uniform basis. The Noble Lord quoted figures showing if you apply the scale of taxation in Massachusetts to the liquor trade here you might establish, on the basis of American taxation, that the liquor trade in this country would escape to the extent of £4,000,000 annually; that is to say, judging by the Massachusetts scale of taxation, the liquor trade in this country is overtaxed as compared with the United States to the extent of £4,000,000 annually. On what authority and on what process of reasoning does that statement rest? The author of this book is a brewer, and he is therefore in a position to know all the intricacies of comparison, and, above all, he is a man who would be warned off from subtleties that are only misleading in the conclusions which they convey. The author of this book proceeds to compare the taxation of two countries in this way. 1491 Knowing that the licence duties cover the sale of beer, wines, and spirits, he takes first of all the revenue from the licence duties in each country, and he estimates it in terms of population. He applies this test entirely without regard to the quantity of the commodity taxed, and he absolutely ignores the ratio between public-houses and population, and at the same time the difference per capita in the consumption of alcohol, and he says when you apply the comparison on the basis of population it shows that the trade here is overtaxed to the extent of £4,000,000 sterling annually. Suppose I say, for the sake of argument, that the methods of comparison employed by the author of this book are fair—which obviously they are not, because they are not uniform, and therefore cannot be fair—may I ask the Noble Lord and those who enforce the Argument of this writer why Massachusetts was chosen as the unit for comparison?
§ Earl WINTERTONIn Massachusetts the number of licences allowed is strictly limited.
§ Mr. SHERWELLThe Noble Lord is probably not aware that the number of licences is one per thousand of the population.
§ Earl WINTERTONThat is what I say.
§ Mr. SHERWELLBut there is no such limitation in this country, and, as a matter of fact, the ratio of licences to the population is far higher here than in Massachusetts. If the basis of comparison be fair, obviously it must be fair in reference to other States also. Without questioning the motive of any writers who select a particular State for comparison, I may be allowed to point out that Massachusetts presents a most favourable ground for comparison from the point of view of the Noble Lord. To begin with, in this State 41 per cent, of the population live in no-licence areas. Secondly, it is a State where there is a statutory limitation of the number of public-houses in relation to population, and, as a matter of fact, the number of public-houses per population is considerably less than is the case in this country. Obviously, where you have fewer public-houses per thousand of the population, there must be a smaller revenue from the licences. Change the comparison for one moment. Take the case of New York, and adopt precisely the same methods of comparison—which I hold to be most unscientific and fallacious—and 1492 assume that there are precisely the same conditions and burdens—
§ Earl WINTERTONThe hon. Member must remember that in New York the clubs have to pay exactly the same licence as public-houses.
§ Mr. SHERWELLIn Massachusetts the clubs also have to pay a high licence duty.
§ Earl WINTERTONNot the same.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI can assure the Noble Lord that the inclusion of clubs does not materially affect the comparison. If instead of having chosen Massachusetts the writer of the book had chosen New York, which has 7,000,000 of population, and obviously is therefore a fair unit for comparison, there would be not four millions annually too much on the liquor trade in this country, but more than four millions on the opposite side of the balance sheet. Using exactly the same methods as is employed by the writer of this book, and choosing the State of New York instead of the State of Massachusetts, they would show that the liquor trade in this country as compared with the liquor trade in New York is under-taxed to the extent of at least four millions sterling. The writer of this book apparently is aware of some flaw, for he proceeds to adopt an alternative basis of comparison by taking the total of revenue from liquor taxation in both countries, and then he points out that in the United States of America the amount of taxation is 13s. 8¾d. per head, and in this country, annually, 17s. 6¾d.; but the author of this book ignores the fact that during the last ten years the consumption of alcohol in the United States of America has been only six-tenths of the consumption of alcohol in this country. Last year there was collected in the form of beer duty in Scotland £633,000, or 2s. 8d. per head of the population. In England and Wales in the same year there was collected in the form of beer duty over eleven millions sterling, or 6s. 4½d. per head. The Noble Lord and his Friends, with the same justice as is exercised by this writer, might therefore argue that by taxation the amount of revenue derived from beer duty in Scotland was only 2s. 8d., as against 6s. 4½d. per head in England and Wales; but you might just as fairly argue that the taxation of beer is lower in Scotland than in this country, whereas, as a matter of fact, we all know that the duty is uniform in the two countries. The hon. Member for the City of 1493 London interrupted the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, when he was referring to these licence duties, and he reminded the right hon. Gentleman that in the United States of America there was no income tax. The hon. Baronet did not inform the Committee at the same time that in the place of income tax there is an annual tax upon real estate and personal property, and if you are going to allow income tax to enter into comparison, obviously you must allow to come into comparison that which represents its value. In Massachusetts there is, in addition to the tax upon real estate and personal property, an income tax on profits of over £400 a year. In Massachusetts a publican is charged first of all on his real estate, secondly on his personal property, including stock, fittings, machinery; and, thirdly, he is taxed on all profits or income exceeding £400 a year. In other words, he is liable to the taxes to which all ordinary tradesmen are liable, and in addition he pays a licence duty which in this State as a whole averages £324 per house, as against an average of £21 in the United Kingdom.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONWill the hon. Gentleman tell us the relative proportion of profit on beer and spirits in the two countries?
§ Mr. SHERWELLI should be very happy to oblige the right hon. Gentleman if there were time and the Committee would permit me. [HON. MEMBERS: "GO on."] I am perfectly prepared with the leave of the Committee. [HON MEMBERS: "Go on."] I do not wish to take up too much time; let me take another—["No, no. Go on."]. I will come to it before I sit down. That is fairer, but if the right hon. Gentleman likes I will take it now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] It is perfectly true that the retail price of the bar trade in the United States averages somewhat higher than the retail price of the bar trade in the United Kingdom. The average price for a glass of beer in the United States is 5 cents, or 2½d. In this country, as a result of very careful investigation, it works out at something like l½d. per glass. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the size of the glass?"] Spirits are usually sold in the United States at 10 cents. There are some places in the east of New York City to which I shall be happy to convey the Noble Lord.
§ Earl WINTERTONI have just as much experience of them as he has.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI will not enter in any competitive spirit with the Noble Lord, but there are houses in the east portion of New York City where you get a drachm for 3 cents and many for 5 cents, but the average price is 10 cents, as against 3d. average cost of a drachm of spirits in this country. If you take not merely the drachm sale at the bars of spirits, but if you take into comparison the trade done by bottles, I can assure the Noble Lord and his friends opposite, from a great mass of figures, that if you take the whole of that trade, bar and bottle, there is very little in it as between the average price of beer and spirits in the United States and here.
§ Mr. YOUNGERWould he tell the House how much beer the glass contains?
§ Mr. SHERWELLI carry a good many figures, but I do not carry every figure in my recollection. I would refer the Member for Ayr Burghs to the statement on taxation of the liquor trade.
§ Mr. YOUNGERIt makes all the difference, does it not?
§ Mr. SHERWELLMy hon. Friend's interruption is actually met in the conclusions in the publication I have referred to.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)I really think we had better have one speaker at a time.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI would repeat that the point of the interruption was really anticipated in the statement to which I referred. In the comparison of the average price of beer and spirits, including bottle sales and bar sales, I made full allowance for the size of the glass in the United States and in this country. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs may see all the facts given elsewhere if he will have the goodness to refer to the detailed statement. Moreover, he will find that I give full proof for my statement that, allowing for all kinds sold in America and here, there is not so much difference in the actual price of liquor. Now there are one or two facts on the other side which have not been mentioned by hon. Members opposite. They will not dispute the fact that the charge for the New York publican or the American publican in respect of rent charges and working expenses is far higher than similar expenses in this country. They also will allow for the fact that, 1495 whereas in this country soda water is usually asked for with spirits, and is charged for separately, in America—as a general rule—seltzer water is provided free without any extra charge for those who get spirits. He will also pay attention to the fact that in the United States, if he asks for a drachm, he is not given a drachm of the infinitesimal size given in this country, but he is handed a bottle of spirits and he is free to help himself. I would venture to say that in the practical exercise of that system the average size of the drachm of spirits in the United States is higher than the average size of the drachm here. Moreover, hon. Members' opposite, in their estimate of publicans' profits, make no allowance for the universal prevalence of the free-lunch system in America. If the Noble Lord and his friend will enter a saloon in the United States, and they are really handicapped by lack of acquaintance at first hand with those saloons, if they will visit saloons in America, they will find that those free lunches are substantial meals which have to be paid for on whatever margin of profit there may be on the glass of beer and drachm of spirits. I venture unhesitatingly to say that if allowance be made for the whole of those considerations it will be found that the margin of difference between the retail prices of America and here is considerably exceeded by the difference in connection with those expenses which I have already alluded to.
To close this aspect of the question I believe there could be no surer indictment of the present scale of the present standard of licence taxation in this country than is revealed in this fact that at the present time seven-tenths of all the public-houses of this country pay a licence of from £4 10s. to £25 per annum and only three-tenths of the houses of this country pay licence duty exceeding £25 per annum. Other Members probably will criticise, as some Members have already done, the scale proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the ground that it is grossly excessive. I believe that impression of excess is based almost entirely upon the pressure, I am inclined to think the unduly heavy pressure, of 50 per cent. as applied to the licences by the way of a scale of valuation to the large houses. After all, the large houses form a very small proportion, and most insignificant proportion, of the whole of the public-houses of these countries. The public-houses in the United Kingdom exceeding 1496 £500 annual value represent only 2 per cent. of the total public-houses of this country, while public-houses exceeding £700 annual value only represent 1 per cent. of the total. A much fairer test of the incidence of the scale suggested by my right hon. Friend is to take the average pressure of the scale all over the country. At the present moment the average licence duty charged to publicans in the United Kingdom represents 20 per cent. of the annual value of the premises. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes 50 per cent. I venture to say, having regard to all those historical facts which I have given to the Committee, there is no justification for a reckless charge of excess in the difference between 20 and 50 per cent. As a matter of fact, the average rateable value of public-houses in England is £110. Fifty per cent. all the way up the scale gives an average licence duty of £55. Will hon. and right hon. Gentlemen say that that is excessive? It is far less than is charged in much smaller communities in the Colonies, which they are always quoting for our admiration and heed. I admit, and at a later stage I hope to point out, I think that the 50 per cent. presses somewhat hardly on some of the larger houses. Houses of £50 valuation can easily pay a licence duty equivalent to 50 per cent. It is obvious houses of £2,000 or £5,000 cannot pay the same proportion. There is room there, I believe, for modification, and the loss of revenue involved in such a reduction is not great. I believe, if my right hon. Friend were to suddenly reduce the percentage of rateable value in cases of houses exceeding £700 from 50 to 25 per cent., the total loss over the whole of the Kingdom would not exceed £250,000 per annum. Judged in relation to the full sum involved I do not think that is a very excessive loss, but that is on the assumption that he reduced it from 50 to 25 per cent.
I want to make one reference to a question which has loomed very large in these Debates, and which has received further emphasis this afternoon at the hand of the Member for Ayr Burghs, that is, the supposed injustice of what is called the new brewers' licence duty. I entirely dissent from the statement made by the Member for East Worcestershire to the effect that this is a wholly new tax without precedent of any kind. Hon. Members connected with the trade know that prior to 1880 there was such a barrelage charge. They may say that was in 1880 taken into account in fixing the beer duty, but what will 1497 they say to the precedent of the barrelage charge that was enforced prior to 1836, when there was a barrelage charge as well as a beer duty. Therefore, you have an historical precedent for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is the Leader of the Opposition perfectly justified in insisting that this brewers' licence duty is really in essence a tax on beer? That same suggestion underlay the remarks of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs this afternoon. Is it purely and entirely a tax on beer? The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs impressively reminds the house that a brewer has no monopoly, and that anybody can set up brewing beer. It is perfectly true, but nobody but a brewer is allowed to sell it wholesale unless he has a wholesale dealer's licence. The registration duty of £1 was simply imposed as a registration duty, and it had reference to the brewer's business as a manufacturer. We all of us are aware that in recent years, largely as a result of increasing restrictions on publicans and beer-sellers, the brewer has exceeded his natural and legitimate province as a manufacturer, and has developed a very large and lucrative wholesale trade. I may remind the hon. Member, if I want to sell beer in wholesale quantities. I am bound to apply for a licence and pay a licence duty, but the brewer does not; therefore I say, having regard to the enormous trade done by brewers as wholesale dealers and not as manufacturers, in 4½ gallon casks and jars and more recently in bottles, it cannot be contended for a single moment that the new licence duty is wholly a tax on beer. But treat it as a tax on beer, if you like, and it works out at 2¾d. per barrel. I want to mention one other fact—it is a striking fact which has never been brought out that that 2¾d. per barrel is only the exact equivalent of the sum which the revenue has annually lost since 1900 as the result of the reduction of the gravity of beer by the brewers when the war tax was imposed. When the extra 1s. was put on the brewers straightway proclaimed their patriotism and their readiness to pay the war taxes by reducing the gravity of their beer.
§ Mr. E. B. BARNARDBy how much?
§ Mr. SHERWELLBy over a degree.
§ Mr. BARNARDWhat does that mean in money?
§ Mr. SHERWELLSince then it has been progressively reduced until, taking last gear's production, the average gravity of 1498 beer is 1 6–10th degrees less than it was in 1900.
§ Mr. BARNARDWhat does that mean in money?
§ Mr. SHERWELLEvery degree of gravity represents in beer duty at present £250,000 per annum, so that a reduction of gravity to the extent of 1 6–10th degrees represents an annual loss to the revenue of £400,000, and £400,000 is the outside limit of the total yield of the proposed new brewers' licence duty. When the quality of the beer was reduced in 1900, the prices to the consumers were not reduced; it simply meant that the consumer paid the same amount for a poorer quality of beer. The Leader of the Opposition is fond of appealing, in connection with this matter, to the eternal principles of justice. In what sort of ethical category does the right hon. Gentleman place a proceeding which lowers the quality of the article but at the same time maintains its price to the unfortunate consumer? The best answer to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to his quotation of Messrs. Whitbread's figures is to state the simple fact. Those figures were presented to us on the assumption that the same number of licences would be maintained by that firm, and that the number of barrels would remain the same; and their case was presented as a hard case calling for the sympathetic concern of this House. On the same day, Mr. F. Whit-bread and Mr. E. North Buxton, men of the highest character, wrote a letter to "The Times," pointing out their side of the case; but when these two estimable brewers were appealing for sympathy on account of the hard way in which they would be hit by the Budget, they did not recall the fact that when Mr. E. North Buxton was giving evidence before the Royal Commission on the Liquor Licensing Laws he was asked the plain question, How did the brewers recompense themselves for the extra beer duty imposed by Mr. Goschen? What was his reply? "The pump, or possibly lower priced materials." On the day on which Messrs. Whitbread and Buxton's letter appeared in "The Times," Mr. Whitbread, one of the signatories of that letter, presided at a meeting in London of the National Trade Defence Association, at which it was unanimously resolved to increase the price of beer to the consumer. When appeals are made in this House to the principles of equity and abstract justice, it should not only be justice towards the possessor of a vested interest, but for 1499 one who has too long been ignored in the proceedings of this House in reference to this particular trade, namely, the taxpayer—he also should have justice and equity meted out to him.
Mr. G. D. FABERBy this time I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be convinced that he is over-sanguine in imagining that he can possibly get this most complicated and lengthy series of resolutions—although they are put under the head of one resolution—to-night. My hon. Friend reminds me that the clock already points to quarter past six, and that the last speaker has occupied no less than an hour of the sitting, so that unless we sit until the small hours of the morning it will be perfectly impossible for the matter to be exhausively discussed. When the hon. Member for Huddersfield rises we all feel that we are in the presence of an expert. But experts are dangerous, and the more experts there are the more dangerous it very often is. It is not my intention to follow the hon. Gentleman in the lengthy and abstruse comparisons which he made between the total taxation imposed upon the liquor trade in America and the total taxation here. It seems to me that the conditions are widely different. To begin with, the monetary system is entirely different; the purchasing power is much less there than here; a glass either of beer or of alcohol costs much more in America than here; so that you may get a disastrously erroneous conclusion if you press that comparison too far. The hon. Member made various remarks about America, which took me back to the days of the Licensing Bill. He trotted out the free lunch, or the remainder biscuit, as we used to call it—because the free lunch really whittled itself down into a very hard biscuit, which successions of spirit-drinkers were expected to nibble at. He told us also that the bottle was handed round in America, but he did not state that with the bottle the glass was handed round also, that the glass was extremely small, and that the drinker was limited to the glass; so that that exhibition of generosity does not in the end amount to very much. Although we realise that in the hon. Member we have a great expert in this matter, I think he will admit that as regards the American comparison we have a great expert on the other side in Mr. F. W. Tomson. He is, it is true, in the trade; he is a man of geat expe- 1500 rience in America and also here; but he differs entirely from the conclusions to which the hon. Member has come. Mr. Tomson says that if you compare the total taxation of the liquor trade in America with the total taxation of the trade here—I mean the taxes on liquor plus the licences—this country groans under a much heavier burden in that respect than America; and that if the American system in its entirety were adopted here the Exchequer would lose something like £4,000,000 per annum in revenue; while if, on the other hand, America adopted our system she would be better off to the extent of many millions. That may be right or it may be wrong; I do not profess to have gone into the matter intimately; but I have read Mr. Tomson's book, and I think it is a fair reply to make, by way of observation and criticism, at any rate, that we have an expert whose knowledge of the subject has never been challenged who takes our view of the case, and we put him forward as our champion, as far as the American comparison is concerned, against the hon. Gentleman opposite.
It appears to me that we get nearer to the vitalities of the matter if we compare our system, not with the American system—although I am not afraid of that—but with the system in Germany. The conditions of life in the two countries are more nearly alike, and altogether I think by comparing the systems in this country and in Germany we might arrive at a more useful conclusion. There was a most interesting letter in the "Pall Mall Gazette" ten days or a fortnight ago, evidently from somebody who thoroughly understood the subject, and as I have not seen the allegations there put forward contradicted, perhaps the House will allow me to state quite shortly what the effect of the letter was. The writer said that the trade in Germany was much better treated all round than it is in this country, that a very low licence duty was charged, that the licence there is for life—not a matter coming up every year for confirmation—subject only to good conduct, and that the spirit duty in Germany was 2s. 4d. per gallon, while here it was 11s. I have not checked the figures; but, as this article was written on the very day of the Chancellor's Budget statement, it is evident that the 11s. did not include the new taxation of spirits. Therefore, adding the extra 3s. 9d., it makes 14s. 9d. in this country against 2s. 4d. in Germany, an enormous difference. The duty on beer 1501 per standard barrel in North Germany was 4s. 10d., Bavaria 6s. 5d., Wurtemburg 5s. 8d., Baden 6s., and in this country 7s. 9d. Then the writer, comparing the taxation on the trade in Germany and the taxation here, brought out a total of 4s. 6d. per head of the population in Germany, against no less than 17s. 6d. per head of the population in this country. That was before the new Budget proposals, and it represents an extraordinary difference. The writer summed up the matter by saying that Germany gets l–17th of her total revenue from drink, while we get l–4th of ours. Therefore, if we are to compare the treatment of the liquor trade in this country with the treatment of the liquor trade, either in America, according to Mr. F. W. Tomson, or in Germany, according to the writer whom I have just quoted, the trade in this country comes out at a terrible disadvantage.
The hon. Gentleman again, as in the old days of the Licensing Bill, trotted out our old friend the monopoly value. He talked about the value of a monopoly conferred by the State, and said that some equivalent in return should be made. I must not venture, even if I am in order—I am sure I should come within the Chairman's minatory glance to attempt to follow that—I will not do so; but the same principle that underlay the Licensing Bill underlies the treatment which the licensing trade of this country is exposed to by the Budget. We said it was confiscation then; we say it is confiscation now. We said that justice was lost sight of then in the treatment of the subject; we say that justice is lost sight of in the treatment of the subject now, in the tremendous all-round duties which you propose to put upon the liquor trade of this country. I had hoped from some remarks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made when he was speaking before the Law Society on 29th January last that his attitude had changed. I had hoped that he had left far behind him the old ambition of hen-roosting, and that the trade was going to experience in the Budget Resolutions to be put upon the Table of the House fair treatment. What did the right hon. Gentleman say when he made that speech? May I venture to call the attention of the Committee to the remarks that he then made:—
He had heard it suggested [said the Chancellor] that he regarded the coming budget as a sort of punitive expedition against the tribes which had been molesting the Government, but he did not think it should be necessary for any British Minister to disclaim the possession of such a purpose. If the Chancellor of 1502 the Exchequer undertook the framing of the Budget in a retributive or vindictive spirit against any class, any party, or any section he was unworthy his high office, and would not be fit to be appointed an exciseman in a country village. He would not trust such a man, if he only taxed one dog out of spite to its owner, and excused another because he liked its master. Such things were impossible.Therefore, having read at the time that speech made to that learned audience, I had hoped that the old days had been forgotten, and that a new spirit was about to animate the Chancellor of the Exchequre. When we come to the matter in hand we find there has been, as I believe Professor Darwin used to call it, "a reversion to type." The right hon. Gentleman cannot keep away very long from the henroost. He is unable to forget the old days when he was a freebooter below the Gangway on this side of the House. Although he makes this great profession as to his desire to contribute nothing but the greatest spirit of fairness, when he comes to put his profession into play there seems to be a lamentable lack—I am taking the Chancellor upon that speech. I am afraid that if he was to stand as a candidate for exciseman in that country village to which he referred, and this standard of conduct were applied to him, he would have no chance of gaining the appointment.The Chancellor of the Exchequer is really very ungrateful. What does he draw out of the trade per annum for the purposes of the revenue of the country? Something like £33,000,000 or £34,000,000 sterling. Including Customs, the amount reaches the colossal sum of £38,000,000 sterling per annum drawn into the coffers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from drink. This is a temperance Government. Nearly all the Members on the Front Bench are temperance reformers. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] It is a temperance Government; a temperance party. The corner stone, the very foundation stone, of their finance is the revenue derived from drink! Yet the right hon. Gentleman is so hard-hearted as to keep on loading burden after burden on to the drink trade of this country with his great Free Trade Budget. But for the revenue that he draws from drink the bottom would have dropped out of it long ago. This Budget could not have been introduced. Therefore it is, I think, a little bit ungrateful, a little bit hard, on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to treat the trade so vindictively. I say "vindictively" purposely. I do not intend to use the word wildly. I use it purposely, because you are taxing a falling trade. 1503 What has been the fundamental rule of Chancellor of the Exchequer after Chancellor of the Exchequer? Consider the great men who have occupied that great office over a long series of years. What have they one and all said? The moment you see trade is beginning to fall off, not only do not put further taxation upon it, but let your hand be lighter. Otherwise the well will dry up. The wise hand, when it finds that the water-shed or the liquor-shed is beginning to dry up, does not pump the pump any longer. You are going on pumping and pumping away till you will find that the source from which you have been accustomed to draw these enormous revenues has run dry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in a most interesting explanatory memorandum on Budget Day—for which we all thank him—at least I do sincerely—points out both in the matter of beer and spirits that the trade is a falling trade. But I should like to quote his words. Quotation makes the point quite clear. The memorandum says:—
'That the beer duty which has been practically stationary in the three preceding years showed considerable decline last year, and produced less than in any period since 1899–1900. The spirit duty continues to decline, and the figures show that the consumption of spirits has been affected in much the same way as the consumption of beer.The three Budget speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman, who is now Prime Minister, pointed out clearly that according to the facts of the case the alcoholic group—as he called it—did not show the expansion that it had been accustomed to show. That not only shows that we are showing year after year declension, but the estimates of the Government show it conclusively; because 6d. extra imposed on whisky at the time of the war produced no less than £1,000,000 sterling, whereas now you are putting 3s. 9d. a gallon on it, and you only anticipate that you are going to get £1,600,000 revenue. If the proportion derived from this taxation was anything like commensurate, you ought to get something like 6 or 7 millions out of the extra 3s. 9d. It shows conclusively that you yourselves consider that you are dealing with a falling trade.The same criticism to a certain point seems to apply in the case of licences. Here, I think, you estimate that you are getting £2,600,000 out of the licences. I am told by the experts that you really will get very much more, and so you are underestimating to a very great extent.
1504 I venture to draw the special attention of the Committee to this. Unless you are deliberately—I do not use that word offensively—under-estimating, you yourselves must be perfectly well aware that this trade is a seriously declining trade, and that the further you go the less you are going to get out of taxation to-day. I venture to make that criticism for this reason: I do not think I am out of order in referring to it, it will only be for a few moments. You have an object in underestimating the revenue that you derive from this additional taxation on alcohol. In the good old days you would have had no object. If there was a surplus, if you had under-estimated, it would have fallen automatically into the old Sinking Fund. According to your Budget proposals that will be so no longer. If there is a large surplus on your taxation on alcohol, it is not going to fall into the old Sinking Fund, because that is going to be done away with. It is going to fall into a new fund that you call the Development Grant. That opens up, I venture to say, a most dangerous aspect of the case. You call it a Development Grant euphemistically. I call it a grant which may be used in the direction of developing your own political likes as the General Election draws nearer and nearer. It is one or the other; must be one or the other. Either the 3s. 9d. a gallon on whisky, taking the analogy of 1900, ought to produce between six and seven millions sterling per annum, in which case you will have millions for your Development Grant, or the want of productivity of this tax, owing to this being a falling trade, will be so great that, instead of getting six or seven millions sterling you only get £1,600,000. It is to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, when he gets up, will make this matter absolutely clear to us beyond all doubt. There is a great spirit oil disquietude prevailing throughout the whole country, and amongst politicians on both sides, who feel that you may be introducing a dangerous innovation. You may be grossly underestimating in order to produce an enormous sum for this new fund, the whole application of which lies in the unknown future. If I may venture to go, quite shortly, into a few particulars as to the effect upon the trader of this new system of taxation, I would like, first of all, to say a few words upon the manufacturers' licences. To me this is a new departure. I should have thought that a tax of this kind was directly a tax of a restraining 1505 character. There is no question of monopoly value here, at any rate. Anyone can set up a brewery and brew beer if they can get anyone to buy it, and anybody can set up a whisky distillery just the same as anybody can set up a cocoa manufactory. And here I talk feelingly, because I myself am one of the two representatives of one of the great cocoa Constituencies of this country. I wish the right hon. Gentleman opposite would tell me why it is that they are putting on high taxes, and grievously high taxes as these manufacturers' taxes will be, running into thousands of pounds, as was well pointed out by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, in the case of beer and whisky and not in the case of cocoa? Anybody is free to set up a cocoa manufactory, a brewery, or a distillery.
Why is beer and whisky to have this enormous tax upon it and slave-grown protected cocoa to have none at all? I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman below me add, "Soda-water and temperance drinks." Yes, anything of that kind you please. Why are they to go Scot free and why is the wretched brewer or distiller to have this tax, unprecedented in our history, at any rate, in the cruel way in which it will work out put upon him? Why is this unprecedented tax put upon the brewer, and why not upon the slave-grown cocoa? The reason is simple. We all know it. It is because the protected, slave-grown cocoa is in the hands of those who are the friends, the benefactors, the subscribers of the great Radical party. I do not know what the Radical party would do without the great bonuses that come into their fortunate possession from time to time when the emergency requires it from the great cocoa manufacturers. Where we feel it—I should not say "we," because I am neither a brewer nor a distiller, nor have I any interest whatever in the trade—but, at all events, we feel that the poor brewer or distiller does not belong ts the elect, he is anathema maranatha, he is ruled out. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is rolled out."] Ruled out and rolled out. Nothing is to be left of him. He is to be left entirely out of financial consideration. You lose sight of morality, because I call morality justice; you lose sight of morality or justice whenever the cruel eye, the greedy eye, is fixed upon the brewer or the distiller. Whenever it is turned to the protected slave-grown cocoa manufacturer then your bowels of compassion literally yearn. Then, of course, no manufacturing tax must be put upon him, it is to be reserved for your political enemies, and in 1506 pursuit of this vindictive idea of imposing manufacturers' licences the Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally thrown over the Prime Minister. I suppose we ought not to be surprised at that. A certain section of the Cabinet is always throwing their Prime Minister overboard, whether it is on Ireland, on the Navy, or on the drink trade. They throw over their Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister stands it. I am surprised he does. Now, what did the Prime Minister say two years ago? In answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for North Paddington on this very subject, the Prime Minister replied that—
Principle of graduated ad valorem duties does not apply, nor is applicable to licences which confer no monopoly, and are issued principally for registration purposes.There is no necessity for me to argue this matter any further. I pray the aid of the Prime Minister in this matter, and whatever may be said on the other side as to the justice of imposing this new unheard of manufacturers' licence I simply confront them with this quotation, and I ask them to try and argue the matter with the Prime Minister's dictum, unanswerable from the point of view of logic and justice. May I say a few words about the licensing duties generally? What a long way we have travelled from Mr. Gladstone in 1880. I remember during the Licensing Bill Debates last year I kept rubbing it into hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite how far they were travelling from Mr. Gladstone's idea about the proper amount of compensation to be paid. Mr. Gladstone in 1880 imposed a scale of licensing duties which obtain up to this date. Except right at the bottom he did not proceed logically upon any system of rateable value. At the bottom of the scale Mr. Gladstone's licence duty came to about half of the rateable value of the license property, but as the scale ascended its relation to rateable value dropped out of the matter altogether, and Mr. Gladstone rather seemed to proceed in his scale in this manner; that he tried to arrive at what was fair in each case. Where the annual value of a premises was under £10 the licence duty was £4 10s.; under £15 the licence duty was £6; under £20 the licence duty was £8; under £25 the licence duty was £11, and so forth. But as you mount in the scale the relation of licence duty to rateable value falls, and becomes less and less. If you follow this matter out it is perfectly clear why that course is pursued. The same consideration will not in the least apply when you get to the top of the scale. I do not 1507 think I am overstating the case when I say there is almost a general concensus of opinion throughout the country, except on behalf of those who are really blind partisans in this matter, that the Chancellor's scale, carried to the extreme height it is when you come to the upper compartments, cannot possibly be maintained.Certainly one great concentrated cry has gone up from everybody interested in the liquor trade in this country that if this scale is maintained, if no departure is to be made, you are going to have ruin, and a great deal more ruin than anybody has had any idea of. Houses here and houses there and everywhere will have to be closed, because as you mount the scale the greater is the sum under consideration. But it does not follow that because a house is situated in a fashionable quarter, either in London or in the provincial towns, that that high rateable value makes any difference in the amount of liquor sold. There may be comparatively little drink sold in a house with an enormous rateable value compared with the house in the East End of London, where the rateable value is immeasurably less. As you ascend the scale—and this will illustrate my meaning as well as anything else—and get to the big hotels of the country, the scale becomes unpardonable, ludicrous; in fact, if I may venture to say so without offence, it must have been conceived in Bedlam—conceived in Bedlam and brought to birth in the House of Commons. May I just take five leading hotels in London, which will bring the matter straight home to every Member of this Committee? Take the Carlton Hotel, which has an assessable value of £15,000 a year, because, of course, it is in a very central position at the bottom of the Haymarket. What will the new duty mean to the Carlton Hotel? Hitherto this hotel paid a licence duty of £20, or possibly £60, and it is now going to be called upon to pay £3,750 a year. This hotel will either have to drop its liquor licence or turn temperance. The Carlton Hotel is an hotel which appeals to the world for its trade, and foreigners from all parts of the world flock there. Then there is the Ritz Hotel, with an assessable value of £17,000. This hotel holds almost a unique position in Piccadilly, but, under these proposals, it will have to pay £4,250 a year. Then there is the Savoy Hotel, situated in the Strand, which is doing an enormous trade. Foreigners go there who wish to be in the neighbourhood of the theatres. The 1508 assessable value of this hotel is £25,000, and the new duty will be £6,250. Then there is the Waldorf Hotel, with an assessable value of £15,000, upon which the new duty will be £3,700. The Piccadilly Hotel has an assessable value of no less than £30,000, and the new licence duty will be £7,500. May I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that under the Act of 1904 the Piccadilly Hotel pays a monopoly of £1,000 a year. In the face of this fact, do not let us have any more of this cry about monopoly value. The Piccadilly Hotel is paying a monopoly value of £1,000 a year, as well as a licence duty of either £20 or £60 a year, and now you are proposing to crush it with a new duty of £7,500 a year. It is no secret—in fact, it is common knowledge—that by these proposals you are going to wipe out the ordinary dividend altogether in the case of many of these hotels.
§ Mr. A. B. MARKHAMHas the hon. Member's attention been called to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he said the licence duties framed on the scale to which the hon. Member has referred have no foundation at all in fact.
Mr. G. D. FABERI am much obliged to the hon. Member. The statement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer under rather peculiar circumstances—I think it was in an interview in the "Daily Mail." I think I may say "other times, other manners." Fancy the great Mr. Gladstone, the late Sir William Harcourt, or Lord St. Aldwyn—I will not include the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire who is sitting below me, because I do not wish to bring the blush of modesty to his cheek—fancy any one of those three right hon. Gentlemen, after the deliverance of an epoch-making Budget statement, being interviewed or getting on to the end of a telephone with the "Daily Mail!" I am a fervent admirer of the "Daily Mail," and I read it regularly. The "Daily Mail" is one of the great roots of Conservatism; but what I was surprised at was that the right hon. Gentleman did not go to one of his own newspapers. [OPPOSITION cries of "No circulation."] Why did he not go to the "Daily News?" Why did he not go to the "Daily Chronicle"—
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member had better confine his speech to the Amendment.
Mr. G. D. FABERI think, Mr. Emmott, you will acquit me of any desire to go 1509 astray, but what I was saying arose distinctly and directly out of the interruption of the hon. Member for Mansfield. When the hon. Member interposed I suppose I was making it a little bit too hot for him. I was trying to lay before the House the extraordinary result that would come out of this new scale of licence duties if you applied it to the large hotels, and I was taking as an illustration the great London hotels. I was saying that it meant financial destruction to many of the shareholders in many of those hotels.
If you pass on to the railway group of hotels exactly the same criticism applies. The same result will follow in the case of the hotels owned by the Midland, the London and North-Western, and the Great Northern Railway Companies. Those are hotels run in connection with the railways. They are not drinking shops, but they are run as part of the great railway system of this country for the convenience of cosmopolitan traders and for the convenience of people coming from the other side of the world who come to this country to trade and travel, and who stay at the railway hotels. What is going to be the result of the new licence duties upon them? Exactly the same as with the London hotels. They will be utterly crushed by these proposals, which are utterly opposed to any fundamental idea of fairness or equity. Take any hotel in the country or at the seaside run for the convenience of the public generally. Instead of imposing the nominal licence duty which has hitherto prevailed, you are going to assess their licence duty at the rate of 25 and even 50 per cent. of their rateable value, and you will make their position an impossible one. You are going to ruin them, and all that will be left, if taxation of this kind is going to be pursued to its cruel finish, will be the temperance hotels. I hope I am not wearying the House. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] This is really a matter of such importance to those concerned in this trade that even if I were wearying the Committee I should venture to continue for a few moments longer.
May I take the case of the free houses. I sat for weeks listening to the discussions upon the Licensing Bill, and if there was one thing more than another which the supporters of the Government kept throwing at our heads from the beginning to the end of those discussions, it was that they wanted to knock out the tied house and extend their patronage to the free house. What is the new licence duty going to do to the free house? The owner 1510 of the free house is going to be in an infinitely worse position than the owner of the tied house. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget statement, said that the brewer—I do not know whether he said the wicked brewer, but the brewer is generally called wicked—being really the owner of the tied house, would pay the increased licence duty, and, therefore, the tenant of the tied house would be none the worse off. But how about the owner of the free house? He has no brewer to look after him, because he is rotating on his own fundament. He has got nobody to appeal to, and he cannot go to the full pockets of the wicked brewer. He has got to pay his licence himself. I have got a letter—no doubt I shall have hundreds and thousands more—this morning from the owner of a free house, and he put his case in this way. He puts the assessable value of his premises at so many hundred pounds a year—I think he said £500, but I am quoting from memory. Up to the present time the licence duty has been comparatively a small one, but under the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it will go up at one bound to £250 a year. The gentleman who wrote that said it meant ruination to him. He pointed out to me that the occupant of the tied house would be in a much more fortunate position, because he would have somebody to go to, and he could appeal to the brewer; but the owner of the free house would have nobody to go to, and to him it meant the destruction of his trade. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer really see where he was going to when he introduced proposals of this kind?
May I take another case, I mean that of the leaseholder. Take the case of a long leaseholder who is under covenant to keep up the licence. He has paid a light duty hitherto, but in the future he will have to pay 50 per cent. on his rateable value. He cannot get out of his lease. He is under contract. He has got to bear it. He is between the devil and the deep sea. On the one hand there is this high license duty, and on the other hand he must keep up his licence, or he will be sued. Has such a case been considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is one of extraordinary hardship. I will take one more case. I mean the case of the public-house trust. This is, I believe, a temperance Government, and they believe in temperance principles, and I have always understood that their principle was to encourage temperance. But how 1511 terribly the new license duty will punish the public-house trust. I saw a letter in the "Daily Telegraph" the other day from a gentleman who represents the public-house trust, and he described the treatment to which that trust would be subjected under the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I beg the right hon. Gentleman with all the earnestness which I have at my command not to be misled by the temperance advocates around him. They lost their Licensing Bill through them and they will lose the Budget through them. The Licensing Bill was lost by temperance protagonists, and not by the action of another place, and they will loss their Budget because the proposals which are being debated are opposed as the Licensing Bill was by the best opinion of the country. These Budget Resolutions are demanded not merely for the sake of revenue, because it is quite clear that the further they go the less revenue they will produce. If the Government are going to persist in a spirit of vindictiveness the great predominating opinion of this country will throw them out. These Resolutions may not be thrown out in this House, but they will be by the public opinion which will be manifested at the next General Election.
§ Mr. E. B. BARNARDThe last speaker has been a little livelier to-night than when he was attacking the super-tax last week, but I cannot forget that it was but a fortnight or three weeks ago he was telling us how desirable it was to spend more money on the Navy. Before I come to the one point on which I wish to speak I should like to say that I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires to get some 13 millions of money. The principle that has hitherto been adopted by Chancellors of the Exchequer is to collect more or less equally the sum required from direct and indirect taxation. It appears to me that this Budget has largely tried to maintain that method. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has tried to get seven millions in one way, and six millions in another way. That is the general plan and scheme of a Budget, but I think that the amount which he proposes to get in connection with licences, the liquor trade, and tobacco, is tremendously under-estimated. I think that the amount which will be raised by these proposals will largely exceed the amount which he apparently anticipates. The amount is £2,600,000, which the Chancellor says he 1512 will get during the present year from these licences. I am not going to refer to the "Daily Mail" except to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is supposed to have made the statements in the "Daily Mail," seems from them to incline to listen to suggestions that may be put forward.
It is because of that disposition on his part that I want to speak a word or two to-night. The £2,600,000 is to come in some form or other from that which the brewing trade produces. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield speaks, I believe, as a temperance reformer. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer this question: Is this a Budget to raise £2,600,000, or is it really as the hon. Member for Huddersfield suggests, a Budget to carry into effect some of the points which temperance reformers require? What they want may be very good, or the contrary, but we have a right to know whether this is a Budget to get money, or whether the proposals in it are such as to meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Huddersfield and his friends?
With regard to the duty on barrels, it has always appeared to me a gross anomaly that a small man should pay the same licensing duty as a great brewer pays, say in Dublin. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that when a war tax was put on the brewers transferred the burden on to the shoulders of the public. It seems to me that you are doing the same thing now. I will not trouble the Committee by reading the statistics, but I should like to say that there is no justification for the suggestion of the Member for Huddersfield that the brewers had shifted the burden on the public. Commercial considerations would not enable them to do that. I will depart from that subject and come to another. The whole tone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks seemed to be conciliatory with the view of imposing this tax so as to produce the least inconvenience. Let me take the case of grocers. I do not know whether the Committee has sufficiently thought this matter out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech alluded to the great difference that his proposals would have upon the grocers. Last year in the Licensing Bill there was no proposal to deal with the grocers' licences at all. The grocer was to hold it as long as he existed and after that it came up in the form of a new licence. I have many communications here, but I will offer but one or two from Constituents of mine. What 1513 is the position with regard to grocers? Under the scale which is proposed there will be many small grocers who are carrying on a variety of businesses in different articles who will be obliged to take out four licences in order to carry on the liquor part of their trade. In the case of one house in my Constituency the net result will be that the man will have to pay in bulk as licence duty instead of 50 per cent. of his rental value a sum representing more than the whole value. I will say this, I think it could not have been the intention, nor do I believe it is the intention, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present moment that this should be the result of his proposal. There are many instances, and it would be easy to quote them, which would show distinctly that as far as profits out of liquor go it is the smaller people who take out the licences who are obliged to do it because of the competition with the great stores, for if they could not accommodate their customers they would be unable to carry on their ordinary business and supply the variety of articles which are called for. Therefore I suggest that these proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer require considerable remodelling.
I come to the next point I want to speak upon, and it is the matter of the free house. We were told, and, indeed, we have always been taught to believe, that that was better than the tied house. Now we are face to face with this position, that if this additional licence duty is charged on the tenant of the tied house he will be able to take a receipt for what he has paid and claim it back from the landlord, who usually is the brewer, but the individual freeholder, who possibly has invested all his money in the business, will be called upon to pay the same proportion of licence duty, and he will not be able to get back his money at all. I have here a list of 20 houses in London which I will read to the House if necessary, or I will take one or two which are rented at a large sum, in order to illustrate my case. For instance, the house paying £60 licence duty will in future be called upon to pay more than £1,000. There is another point I wish to raise, I want to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer means by a tied house. The point is rather intricate. In the country we all understand that in the case of a house which is the property of a brewer the tenant is bound to take his beer from that brewer at a certain price—that is a tied house. The tied house in London is 1514 different in this way. The man who is the tenant is the leaseholder of the house; the brewer or someone else lends him a proportion of money with which to acquire the lease of the house upon the terms that as long as he has the money he agrees to take the beer from the person who lends it. I ask the Government to tell us whether a house in London held under these conditions, which enable the tenant to withdraw the loan and borrow from somebody else whenever he chooses, is to be classified as a tied house, and whether such tenant is to be able to claim exemption and get his money back from the brewer for the beer which he has obtained from him. I ask this because in answer to a question which was put to the Government a few days ago the Home Secretary gave a reply which led me to imagine that they had not contemplated this aspect of the question. This is a matter which should be cleared up.
Now I come to another point in connection with the beerhouse. The Committee should remember that the beerhouses had certain rights which were more or less taken away from them by the Act of 1904. Now we go a step further. It is proposed to make them pay an increased licence duty upon some scale to be arranged. I am not going to deal personally with the hotel-keeper, the restaurant proprietor, or the owner of places of that description. I wish to know exactly how it will operate in these cases. I come to the last point, and that is in reference to the clubs. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to put some small charge upon the clubs, and I am more than glad it is to take the form of charging them an amount in proportion to the business which they are doing. It appears to me that the right course to take with regard to licensed houses and grocers' licences is that the distributors of liquor should be charged in proportion to the trade that they are doing, and if you can do that in connection with the clubs then I suggest you can do it in connection with the other distributors of liquor. I would close my remarks by simply expressing the hope that the Government will tell us that they only mean to get this sum of money from the trade, and if that is really their sole meaning I hope they will indicate that they are willing to consider the convenience of the persons who will have to supply it. Then I have no doubt that in some of these instances—and there certainly are very many of them—the representatives of the Treasury Bench will realise the difficulties which exist, and will seek to remedy them. 1515 I shall be very glad if I can hear a word from them to that effect.
§ Sir WILLIAM BULLI venture to make an appeal to the Committee with regard to the length of speeches made on this subject. It is a point on which I feel very strongly. I have risen every time since the Resolution came on, and this is the first opportunity I have had of speaking. There are, I believe, 18 hours during which this can be discussed. If nine are taken up by Front Bench speakers very little opportunity is left for other speakers. I am sorry to see that the speeches are lengthening to an inordinate degree. The hon. Member for Huddersfield spoke for an hour; my hon. Friend on this side of the House also spoke for an hour. They both made excellent speeches; but, after all, it means that if we are to have a fair examination of all the points of this Budget the question of finishing this Resolution to-night is absolutely out of the question. On all sides of the House a great deal of interest is taken in this question, and it seems to me it would be well if Members would impose on themselves a self-denying ordinance in regard to the length of their speeches. The House is practically divided into four different parties now, and it means practically that a great many of us can have no chance of speaking. I want to make one or two remarks on the subject of this Licensing Bill. In the first place, I am amazed at the attitude which the Government has taken up with regard to the question of free houses. Up to this Budget the free house was supposed to be an ideal house. It was always said it was a house which sold good beer, while the tied house was a wicked house which sold bad beer. Now that is absolutely not the case. Anyone who knows anything of the trade knows that a man who has a free house is subject to every temptation to buy bad beer. Commercial travellers come round continually asking him to change the firm with which he is dealing and telling him that if he will deal with them he will get his beer at a less price. The result is that the free house is a house to be avoided if one wants to get a good glass of beer. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] Well, it is absolutely the case; I know it. But all this will be put an end to under this Budget, because a free house will be driven to become a tied house, and the advantages which have hitherto been supposed to attach to the free house will be entirely 1516 lost. I want to make one remark with regard to club licences. I am anxious to know how this money is going to be collected—how the 3d. is to be collected.
§ Sir WILLIAM BULLI beg your pardon. I want to give one or two instances with regard to the hardships which will affect some of the more respectable of the hotels in London. I wish to give one or two concrete instances which have come under my notice, and I will produce the books if necessary. In the case of one particular hotel the takings in 1907 for wine, beer and spirits amounted to £3,045, while the business done was £48,228, therefore the percentage of liquor sold to the general business of this hotel was only 6.31. In 1908 the takings for wines, spirits and beer fell to £2,832 10s. 3d., while the business done totalled £48,426. Therefore, while the receipts from wines, spirits and beer had gone down the general business had increased and the percentage had fallen from 6.31 to 5.85.
The rateable value of this house was £4,725, and I am not falling into any error, but I am taking the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in the paper, and you take a half of that amount and then one-third, so that it will be one-sixth of the whole. Half of £4,725 is £2,362, and one-third is £787 10s., and therefore this house—a thoroughly respectable, quiet hotel, without even a billiard room and no bars or anything of that sort, of which only 5 or 6 per cent. of its takings are in regard to the sale of liquor—is now going to be taxed to the tune of £787 10s. I think those who use these quiet and respectable hotels ought to know the amount that is going to be put upon them. Then I come to another hotel of a rather more modest character, where the prices are not quite so high as the one of which I have spoken. Here the rateable value is £3,000 a year. At present they pay £20, and your proposed taxation will amount to £500 3s. 4d., in spite of the fact that the proportion of takings for excisable liquors to the total gross receipts for 1907 was one-nineteenth and in 1908 one-twenty-first. That, again, is another example.
On Friday morning a little grocer in my own neighbourhood, the Uxbridge-road, came to me and said he had been 25 or 30 years in business as an assistant, and he had come into a little legacy of £200 or £300. With that he had bought a little 1517 shop there, and had worked for the last five or six years in it. He kept capital books, which he produced, and in the statement which he gave there was a ledger folio for each of the items—rent, rates, taxes and so on—and this had enabled him to account for all the profits that he made. The whole thing was worked out in a most admirable manner, and showed the way in which he made a living for his wife and family and himself by working from eight o'clock in the morning to eleven o'clock at night. The profits he made, he said, amounted to £136 a year, and now under the new arrangement he would have to pay out of that an additional sum of £40 in the way of duty. That is an enormous percentage on an income of that kind, and means that one-third of the income will be gone. I think in these three typical cases that I have given I have shown as well as I am able how this duty will affect these particular trades. I am also rather sorry to see that the Government intend taxing restaurant cars. I know the tax is not very heavy, but the railway companies are extremely chary about putting on these cars, and I do not suppose there is any Member of this House who has not in his mind a particular train upon which he would like to have a restaurant car, about which he has written to the directors of the line, and they have said, "Oh, no, it does not pay, and we cannot afford it." As a matter of fact, the restaurant cars are not increasing, but decreasing, the railway companies finding them so expensive, and as they run them at a loss they are unable to do it. At the present moment, the arrangements are most uncomfortable, and one has to divide luncheon baskets and conjure with them on their knees in order to get a meal on their journey. The sooner that is done away with and restaurant cars put on the better, but I have no doubt that the result of this tax will be that many of these restaurant cars will be taken off. These are one or two remarks that I wish to make on this particular branch of the subject. I had very carefully prepared a speech two or three days ago which I wished to deliver, and this is only a section of it, and I hope in two or three days to deliver the other portions. This, however, is only preliminary.
§ Mr. EDMUND G. LAMBI have no intention of delivering a speech on the lines of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, or of the hon. Gentleman who followed him at some length. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend opposite, that it is not the mo- 1518 ment for such speeches, but I would beg the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to one or two points. Although such speeches are no doubt interesting, we want to get to business. The one specific point which I wish to raise is a question in regard to the sale of cider. It arises under No. 3 of manufacturers' licences, and provides for a payment of £5 5s. by "a maker for sale of cider." In the West of England, farmers manufacture cider for themselves and those who work for them, and they sell some small amount to their neighbours, more by way of a present than for profit. They do it for the convenience of their friends, and I want to know whether these people are "makers for sale," under this Resolution, and whether they require a £5 5s. licence? In these cases the farmer makes the cider for himself, and only sells a few hogsheads to his friends. I have no wish, such as was imputed to our side of the House by the hon. Member for York, to crush the Carlton or the Piccadilly, but I want to know whether the farmer would come under this provision. No doubt it is a small matter, but it would affect many hundreds of people, and I would suggest to the hon. and learned Attorney-General that it might be possible to have a definition of what is meant by the words "for sale." These people do not send the cider out into the country, or advertise it, and I do not think they can be properly described as makers for sale. There is another point in regard to retailers about which I know there is a good deal of uneasiness in the West of England. People want to know whether they will have to pay for a retailers' off licence under these particular circumstances. Many farmers will not give cider in harvest time. There are a great many teetotaler Nonconformist farmers who object to pay wages in kind of that sort, and they pay their labourers in money. They do, however, allow their labourers to buy some cider, if they want it, and what I want to know is whether they come under the head of "retailers"? In what position will that farmer be if he sells the cider, and must he have a retail licence? I only ask this question because I think it is a point that ought to be brought to the notice of the Government. I am glad to see that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is taking notes, and I would put to him another case. In my own house I will not give any beer to my servants, but, on the other hand, they are paid the equivalent of what was known in 1519 the old days as "beer money," and my Servants are allowed to buy beer from my cellar. Am I in the position of a retailer, and must I take out a licence?
§ Mr. ARTHUR FELLMay I bring this Debate back to the main point, which is, the extremely heavy licence which will be charged upon hotels and what I should call the residential blocks in London, and I will bring the attention of the Committee to one of the largest of these blocks, Whitehall Court, because I believe it will appeal to them. There are several hon. Members who sit on both sides of the House who are residents in that block of buildings, and who must be affected by this Budget, if it is ever passed in the form in which it is now before us. This block, as all Members here know, is chiefly a residential block, consisting of a very large number of suites of residential flats, and for the convenience of residents it is necessary that it should have a licence, and therefore the building is licensed, both for the sale of spirits and wines, as a public house. It is absolutely for the convenience of the people who live in that great block, and their friends who come in and lunch with them there, in the restaurant, or dine there, that they should have this accommodation, because the residents have no kitchens of their own. It is necessary that the premises should be licensed, and may I say what the result will be upon that block of this Budget, because I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can have any idea of what it will be, nor do I think that any hon. Member present can have. The tax at present paid in respect to that building is £20 for the licence and £33 for the compensation levy, making a total of £53 per annum, but the duty that will be leviable upon that block, if this Bill passes, will amount to £5,931. I do not believe that any Member could think it possible that in England, in London, within two or three hundred yards of this House, a building which at present pays £53 a year should have its tax raised to £5,931 under such a Bill as this. It may be said that in many of these cases of large hotels and restaurants they do an immense business and make an enormous profit on their wines and spirits, but I have been supplied with the figures in this case of their total business for the last year. Their sales of wine amount to £1,400, spirits and liqueurs to £460, and beer to £500, a total of £2,360. I need not give the Committee the profit on that, because it is clear that the gross 1520 trade done will not amount to more than half of the duty, if this Bill is passed. Is it possible to conceive that such a case as that should occur and should be supported in this House? If it is, I give up all hope in the future of being able to pass measures which will bear the impress of justice.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Herbert Samuel)Will the hon. Member say how he arrives at those figures?
§ Mr. FELLThe rateable value of the buildings is £23,727, and the manager calculates that the licence duty will be £5,931, and that would mean £150,000 of capital value taken off this block of buildings by this extraordinary assessment put upon it. I do not know what the value of the block is, but it cost several hundreds of thousands of pounds, and a hundred and fifty thousand pounds is going to be taken from its value by this measure. It is inconceivable that such a thing should be done. It has never been done before. I do not believe it will be done now, and I do not believe it will be done in the future. But the proposal at present is to mulct that building, one of the finest and most convenient, especially to Members of the House, in such a sum as £150,000 off the capital value. Of course, if the whole sales of spirits and wine only amount to £2,000 and the tax is to be something like £6,000, it is clear that the licence will have to be abandoned. It would have to be run as a teetotal place, and great inconvenience would be felt by the residents in that block, for it cannot be anticipated that more than a small proportion of them will be teetotalers. Immense inconvenience will be thrown upon the people who reside there and the value of the block will be depreciated not only by the £150,000, which is the tax upon it, but generally in the letting value owing to this excessive charge and the fact that it will have to become a teetotal building.
There is another point I should like to mention, which affects, not London, but the agricultural part of the country. It affects counties with which I am connected in the East of England, and the town which I represent most materially. I refer to the effect it will have upon the farming industry, the growing of barley and the malting industry. It is not denied that the increased price which will have to be charged on beer will reduce the consumption of that article. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that. There will be 1521 some reduction, how much, of course, it is impossible for any one to say. That must mean a considerable loss to the farmers, because barley will not be grown. The maltsters will suffer in the same way, and the malting industry in this country is, I should say, one of the most useful and one of the industries of all others which the Government would have sought to assist, instead of damaging it in this way. It is a scattered industry. There are many small towns, villages even, where there are malting works which provide good wages for the people, and as the great object of the Legislature should be to try and keep people in the country and prevent them crowding into the towns, there is nothing which would be more beneficial than the extension of industries such as this in villages and small towns, and the Government are going to give it a deadly blow. Many of these maltings will be closed and men will be thrown out of work and will have to take refuge in the nearest towns. Probably a good many will drift up to London, and you will see them on the Embankment being fed with soup by charitable people. They now have good work, and the Government is going to take it away from them. Has there ever been any case of any impost in the world which has been raised ten times? I will quote a case where the impost has been raised 100 times.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson)For the sake of information I should be glad if the hon. Member will give us the figures of the case he has quoted in Whitehall Court. They are rather striking figures, and I should like to have an opportunity of checking them. I think they are inaccurate.
§ Mr. A. FELLI will give the actual balance sheet and the returns for last year with pleasure. It is a case which I think cannot have been considered by the Government, though I think it must be typical of many others of these large blocks which have licences for the purposes of supplying the residents who do not have kitchens of their own, but dine in a room where they are supplied with both liquor and food by the company which owns the block. In all these cases, as these blocks are rated at very high values, the licence duty will be raised something like 100 times what it is at present. It is a thing which is so impossible that I imagine something will have to be done. It is not increasing the duty, but destroying the trade or the business. It may only damage the trade of the maltsters 1522 and the farmers, but in this case it is absolute destruction, and they cannot continue their business unless some exception is made in their case, or unless this proposal is withdrawn. It is many years ago since I first learnt that the progress and prosperity of a country depend upon its laws and the way in which they are administered. We read in history that the whole point turns on the question whether the laws were just and were justly administered. Directly it came about that the laws were not administered in that way the country went down. I do not believe in any country which has gone down there has been a worse example than this which I have put before the Committee, or any which could do more harm to the country, and I do not believe it will be done by this House of Commons. I am quite sure such an injustice as this could never be perpetrated.
§ Mr. E. H. PICKERSGILLThe proposals before the Committee especially affect London, and I desire to regard them from the point of view of London. We have in London 5,389 licensed public-houses, and the present proceeds of the licence duties is just over £200,000, but the estimated capital value of these public-houses is 41½ millions sterling, so that London is now paying only half of 1 per cent. of the estimated capital value. But that is not all. If, in accordance with these proposals, the present scale, which stops short at an annual value of £700, is extended, the principal effect will be felt in London. I find that three-fifths of the number of very large public-houses, that is, those which are rated at over £700, where the present scale stops short, are in London. It is obvious, therefore, that under these proposals the bulk of the duty will be contributed by London, and one of the effects of the Budget will certainly be to strengthen very much the demand which London has long made for a revision of its share of the Exchequer contribution. I only mention this in passing in order to put in that claim on behalf of London at the earliest possible moment. I want to consider the basis of charge of these licence duties from the special point of view of London. What we want is that the community shall take a fair proportion of the monopoly value, and if the annual value of a public-house as now estimated were a fair measure of the monopoly value no candid critic could suggest for a moment that for the community to take a half of that monopoly value would be excessive. But as a matter of 1523 fact the annual value as now estimated does not represent the monopoly value, and in particular it does not represent it where the site value is exorbitantly high. Take, for instance, the City of London, where, of course, the site value is exceedingly great. I am told, and I have reason to believe, that there are some public-houses—of course there are not many—in the City of London which are rated at a sum which is close upon or even exceeds £20,000. I want to ask, in a spirit of fairness, whether it is possible for a house of that kind to pay 50 per cent. of its annual value?
One of the objects which have been put forward by the supporters of high licences is that it would have the effect of extinguishing small and ill-conducted houses, but it seems to me that there was very much force in the argument which was used the other night by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs that in the instances which I have put the effect would be to crush out not the small, but the larger houses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the real test of monopoly value is the business which is done, and I understood from what the right hon. Gentleman said that he is looking in the direction of an ultimate valuation based upon the principle of what is known as the Kennedy judgment, but he said all we can do now is to take the present basis this year. I am not altogether at case in my own mind with regard to this particular point. Does that mean that when the annual value, as it is now estimated, includes an enormous site value, half of that annual value is to be taken by the community from the occupier of the premises or from the brewer this year? If so, I am afraid injustice will be done, but from some Motion which the right hon. Gentleman made in the course of the discussion I am in hopes that there may be some modification to meet the particular cases to which I have referred.
There is another matter which has already been brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and which I want to impress upon him. I should like under these proposals to see some differentiation in favour of the free house. The Leader of the Opposition told us the other night that the licensing provisions of the Budget sound the death-knell of every house which is not a tied house. Well, of course, that is a rhetorical exaggeration. It is quite possible that the owner of a free house might be a very rich man, who would 1524 be as well able as the big brewer to tide over the financial crisis which will soon be upon him. But there can be no doubt that, if one considers this fairly and candidly, these proposals will press very heavily upon the free house as compared with the tied house in this way: The brewer who owns not one tied house, but, as we know, usually a very large number of tied houses, will be able to recoup himself for the additional cost of his licences by the economies of management he will be able to effect, because he will under these proposals undoubtedly carry on his business through the medium of a smaller number of public-houses. The owner of the tied house will be able, therefore, largely, if not entirely, to recoup himself for the additional cost which will fall upon him, whereas the owner of the free house, having only that one house, will have no means available by which he may recoup himself in the same way as the brewer for the additional charge. Therefore I do think these proposals will be hard upon the owner of the free house. It has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not unfairly, that in times past we have been extremely anxious to advocate the interests of the free house, and that we have denounced the tied house system, and said that the free house system is very much to be preferred. Therefore I do regret that any proposals should be brought forward which will handicap the free house as compared with the tied house, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see his way to make some proposals in the direction of differentiating the charge upon the free house.
§ Mr. PATRICK WHITEI rise to join my protest against the increase of licence duties. I do so because the increase will bear with extreme harshness upon licence-holders in Ireland. I regret that some of the gentlemen who hold highly paid positions in connection with the Government of Ireland, and who might be expected to know something of the bearing of the proposed increase in taxation, are not in their places. I am glad, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here. In dealing with the increased licence duties we must take into account, not only the duty it is proposed to place on licences, but also the duty which it is proposed to put on spirits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his opening statement said he calculated that £1,600,000 additional revenue would be obtained from the increase in the spirit duty. If his statement be 1525 correct that the increase will bring in that amount of additional revenue, having regard to the increased duty put on the trader, it would appear that he assumes there will be less consumption. If there is a quarter less consumption on this special article affected the licence-holder will have to pay the increased duty. Taking together the reduced consumption which, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must ensue, and the increase in the licence duty, it can be easily seen that there must be heavy loss to the licence-holder. To prove my argument, I will give you the Returns of the quantity of whisky consumed now and the quantity likely to be consumed when the increased duty comes into operation. At the present time there is manufactured in Great Britain and Ireland 49,000,000 gallons of whisky a year. The amount of duty on this, according to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at 3s. 9d. per gallon, which is the amount proposed to be added, would be £9,207,000. But if the right hon. Gentleman only expects to get £1,600,000, it follows that the consumption of whisky must be decreased by 13,000,000 gallons. Therefore, if that is so, the retailer of whisky would suffer to the extent of one-fourth of his receipts, while at the same time he would have to pay an increased licence duty. It would fall upon licence holders in Ireland with double severity, and it would impose a burden upon them which they are unable to bear.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEMay I ask the hon. Member whether in that calculation he has taken into account the effect of the forestalments with respect to which I have already given the House some information?
§ Mr. WHITEI have only taken into account the whole year's reduction, the effect of which would be so vast that I think the forestalments would not bear to any great extent upon the argument I am putting before the Committee. I wish to impress upon the Committee that the increase in the licence duty goes hand in hand with the increase in the spirit duty. That is, I think, specially unfair with regard to Ireland. I wish the right hon. Gentleman not to be forgetful of the principles which he used to enunciate in former times—when he sat on this side of the House—now that he is in office and enrobed with authority. That ought not to induce him to totally forget his early principles. At one time the right hon. Gentleman held—I do not know whether he holds it still—that Ire- 1526 land should be taxed according to her taxable capacity, and I think he voted in this House for that principle. Well, a Commission sat and went into this matter thoroughly, and found that the taxable capacity of Ireland in proportion to Great Britain was only 1 in 20. Another authority said it was 1 in 36. I will take the licence duty as at present levied in Ireland and Great Britain, and I say that according to the taxable capacity of the country the licence duty in Ireland ought not to be raised a single farthing even if you raise it in England.
The licence duty in Ireland at the present time, according to figures supplied to me to-day, amounts to £167,000 per annum. According to the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sum realised by licence duties in Great Britain and Ireland last year was £1,809,000. The ratio of Ireland's contribution to the licensing revenue under that heading is about as one is to eleven. Ireland's taxable capacity is as one is to twenty. If you increase the licence duty in England by the total amount named in the Budget, £2,600,000, and put it all on England, the amount Ireland would contribute, if her present contribution were unaltered, would be as one is to twenty-five; and according to all statisticians that is a fair and reasonable amount for Ireland to contribute. Since the Commission known as the Financial Relations Commission sat to inquire into this matter, England has grown richer year by year, and her income tax returns have increased something like millions per year, while Ireland has remained stationary. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise the importance of those figures if he is prepared to act on the maxim that Ireland ought not to pay more than she is capable of paying. If you compare the present amount from licence duties in Ireland, £167,000 per annum, and have regard to her capacity for paying those taxes, you ought not to put a penny more on her, even when you increase the taxes in Great Britain by £2,600,000, as you propose to do. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into that very important matter. Two questions are involved, one is the principle I have referred to, and to which his party when on this side of the House repeatedly gave their adhesion theoretically, and which now in practice they seek to belittle, I must say to their great discredit. Another matter to be taken into account in connection with this tax in Ireland is that Ireland is a poor country. It is 1527 like England. The licences in Ireland are probably greater in proportion to the population than they are in England. If you increase this licence duty you will drive many men out of their business who have no other means of earning their livelihood, and do away with a lot of small houses in the country. In Dublin, the capital of Ireland, you propose to increase the taxes more than double in some cases, and in some cases you propose to treble them. If you do that in a struggling community, where already they are hardly able to live, you cannot do it without driving them into embarrassed circumstances.
I only ask you to act up to the principles you enunciated many times when on this side of the House before you came to office with the aid of Irish votes. Another reason why Ireland is entitled to special consideration in this matter is that the revenue from Ireland is, as is well known, from whisky, and not from beer. The amount of revenue contributed by Ireland on account of the increased duty will be as one is to twelve, while her capacity is as one is to twenty, so that out of her poverty she will be contributing more in the increased duty on spirits than she is entitled to do reasonably, honestly, or fairly. These are considerations which ought to weigh well with any Government which takes into account every aspect of the situation. I was reading the other day—I think in Mr. Morley's "Life of Gladstone"—that when Mr. Gladstone introduced his first Budget into this House he had to recast it and remodel it at the instance of a Member of the Cabinet, who was a Noble Lord, and the reason that Mr. Gladstone had to remodel it was that it pressed too severely on Ireland. This Budget also presses too severely on Ireland. I am sorry that even some Noble Lord was not there to take the part of Ireland and to tell the Chancellor that it pressed too severely upon the poorer country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland may have been there, but I am afraid he forgot his duty to the country which he is supposed to govern. I am afraid his sympathy is only expressed in words, and that when he comes to consider the real vital interests of the country he is as callous as many of those who went before him, and he does not hesitate to place upon Ireland a burden which her shoulders are unable to bear.
I know some cases in Ireland at the present time where the holder of an off-licence pays something like £20 a year for that off- 1528 licence. Under the new scale it would be raised to £120. The result to that individual will be that he will be unable to continue in trade, and he will have to abandon the calling to which he devoted the greater portion of his life. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts those licences on Ireland for the sake of revenue he may, like many of his predecessors, be disappointed, and instead of realising an increased revenue he may, by putting people out of trade and by diminishing the number of licensed houses, and by the poverty created by men being thrown out of employment in consequence of the decrease of the manufacture of whisky, which gives a good deal of employment in Ireland, defeat the very object that he himself has in view. What principles have the right hon. Gentlemen to guide them in this matter? Have they inquired into the capacity of Ireland, or has it given them a moment's consideration? Why do they apply a similar law in Ireland and England without inquiring into the analogy between the two countries? There is no analogy whatever in the licensing laws of Ireland and England. If they were on the same basis, why did the right hon. Gentleman last year seek to promote temperance by proposing legislation for the beer-drinking country, England, and why do they now favour the beer-drinking country at the expense of Ireland, which, it is well known, favours the national wine of the country—the splendid whisky that they make? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider those points, and to deal with Ireland as a separate entity in this matter, having regard not so much to the amount that he is going to realise, but to the poverty which will ensue if he perseveres in imposing the taxes which are given in this statement. Ireland cannot bear them; they will create disappointment, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably be known in the history of Ireland as the worst Chancellor that ever dealt with Irish finance.
You cannot extract from the country this increased revenue without seriously impairing the comfort of the people. According to the calculations in the Budget statement the licence duties are to be 2½ times what they are now; that would mean that Ireland will make an increased contribution to the Imperial Exchequer of a quarter of a million of money. What do you propose to give Ireland in return for that money? Absolutely nothing! For this one item alone, the licence duty alone, 1529 you propose, without consulting the country, to add a quarter of a million to the burden of Ireland. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite used to declare that the majority of the people of Ireland have the right to be consulted on Irish affairs. If they act up to that dictum in this matter, is there a man in Ireland asks for this tax? Does not every man in Ireland say it is unfair, unjust and inequitable, and that the majority of the people, through my colleagues sitting on those benches, ought to be consulted on the government of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are now in office, and it lies with them to deal fairly or unfairly with the country they are called on to govern. They ignore the opinion of those who are sent from Ireland in persevering in this unfair, inequitable, and unjust course. I think, at all events, the right hon. Gentlemen might try to be consistent, especially in dealing with the poor country, a country as to which they have over and over again given specific pledges, whose poverty the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has had to admit, and about which they have cried so often. Yet, when it comes to levying a tax which will kill one of the few industries which have survived in Ireland, the right hon. Gentlemen have no compunction in strangling it to death. I would ask hon. Gentlemen to pause before they uphold this tax. Anyone who knows Ireland or is associated with that country knows very well that the people cannot possibly pay it. On whose authority is this tax being imposed, because the Government are following a path which has previously led to failure and which will eventually lead them to failure? The right hon. Gentleman should have inquired before proposing this tax in order to ascertain whether there was any analogy between this country and Ireland which would justify his proposing taxation of a similar character in respect of both countries. I say there is no analogy. Time and again it has been admitted in this House that there is none. It was admitted last year when the Government introduced the Licensing Bill. Why should they depart from that admission this year? The right hon. Gentlemen opposite have no anchor to which they can hold; they are drifting along from day to day without any fixed principle of equity or justice to guide them in coming to a decision. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I notice the thinness of the attendance, and I would like to ask even the empty 1530 benches to have some pity on Ireland. You are increasing the charges on that country, though you know the poverty of its condition. In Ireland there is no tied house system; there is no huge monopoly, and it is the individual who will suffer. You do not consider the fact that in England the duty will be passed on from the publican to the brewer, but in Ireland who can they pass it on to? You cannot pass it on to the bankers, who hold mortgages on the houses, and you must crush the man who has to pay. I believe it is of little use appealing for justice to Ireland. As between the two sides of the House, on this side they give us coercion, and on the other side they take more of our money. The party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs never treat Ireland generously; they take more and more of our money from us, and if this is an example of Liberal administration and Liberal principles, then I say save my country from those principles and such administration.
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSThe hon. Member who spoke last, in putting his case has mixed up the demand for the exemption of Ireland from the whisky tax with his national case for the abatement of Irish over-taxation. I do not very much believe in what I think is called the "saving grace of cheap whisky," even for Ireland; but quite apart from that, I should say that this scheme of taxation has differentiated in favour of Ireland as against England. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] I will show the hon. Member in a minute. We have heard from the other side that this scheme of taxation is vindictive, unjust, and oppressive, but they have not noticed, or have not explained to the House, that this new scheme of taxation on publicans' licences does not increase the licence duty payable on houses rated under £50 per annum, except under the provisions for the minimum charge. On the contrary, it lowers the duty in several cases. The £10 house, the £15 house, the £25 house, and the £30 house will not have their licence duty raised, but lowered.
§ Mr. BARNARDWhat does a £50 house pay now?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSIt pays 25 per cent. now, and therefore the £50 house will not have to pay any extra taxation. The fact is that in Ireland there are very few houses indeed the annual value of which is above £50. Out of 17,000 houses, apart from 236 hotels, which will come under the special duty, there are only 855 which are 1531 above £50 annual value, and consequently this scheme is so framed as to throw the whole weight of the extra taxation on England and to let Ireland off. If the hon. Member will look at the figures he will see that is so. It is quite true that in the case of the licensed grocer in Ireland there is an increase. The duty on the grocer in Ireland is now graduated, and it is not graduated in England. There, again, the addition to the English licensed grocer is very much more heavy than to the Irish licensed grocer. So whatever the hon. Member may say about the increase of the whisky duty bearing upon his country, this scheme of licence duties which we are now discussing is a scheme which hits England, but lets Ireland off exceedingly lightly indeed. The hon. Member looked at the matter with jaundiced and prejudiced eyes, but if he really looks at the facts as they are he will see that the real burden of this particular Resolution falls on England and not on Ireland. But, quite apart from that, I should like to notice that this Debate has not seriously challenged the main principle that we are discussing. We have been discussing on this Resolution principles rather than details. For the details I imagine we must wait until we see the Finance Bill. But we are dealing with the main principle, and I have not heard the principle on which this Resolution really rests seriously challenged. I have already been described as "the sea-green incorruptible, or as a Robespierre full of sanguinary animosity against the trade." My character, of course, is desperate, and beyond defence in this House, but that is a matter of comparatively minor importance, except that I would make my disavowal of any vindictive feelings. Hon. Members seem to think that we want more money out of their trade. The hon. Member knows me better. The hon. Member does not think that I see in this new fiscal treatment of the country any consolation whatever for the loss of that great measure of temperance reform which we lost last year. We do not want to get more money out of the liquor trade. I am glad to think that the dependence of this country on the liquor trade is a declining dependence. Thirty years ago we raised 50 per cent. of our revenue from the drink traffic. Before the war it had sunk to 40 per cent.; now we only receive 28 per cent. I hope that diminution will continue. I should regret 1532 that we, in a great country like this, should depend upon the revenue drawn from a demoralising source. Hon. Members opposite this afternoon have said that we still get 38 millions from this trade. Yes, but at what cost? Our crime, our pauperism, our lunacy costs us 25 millions, and how much of that great cost is really due to this trade, which is called upon to make, out of its valuable and lucrative monopoly, some partial compensation for damage done? Apart from that, I say that the main principle on which this Resolution has been advanced has not really been seriously challenged. The principle, of course, is that during recent years the restrictive policy of the State has increased the monopoly, has added to the wealth of licence-holders, brewers, and distillers. The Leader of the Opposition appealed to the authority of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone and the reforming efforts of the previous generation are always dragged in as a stick to belabour the reforming efforts of the present. We are strictly proceeding along the line laid down by Mr. Gladstone in 1880, when he was revising the duties. Mr. Gladstone said in 1880 that the principle on which he proceeded was:—
That the value of public-houses throughout the country had been largely augmented of late owing to public legislation, and that that Parliamentary revision ought to be accompanied with augmentation of the taxes. Parliament should lay some taxes upon the additional value which by legislation the property had acquired.And he quoted a still higher authority in the estimation of hon. Members opposite, a Report of the Committee of the House of Lords, which sat just before his revision started. He quoted it as a considerable authority to enforce his own principle of the higher duty. He pointed out that that Committee of the House of Lords had justly observed that much value had been added to drinking houses in the course of the last 10 or 12 years by the direct action of Parliament, and that in respect of this large augmentation of value so brought about by legislation no tax whatever was imposed.That is exactly what is repeating itself. Since 1880 we have had no revision of this licence duty, and the Government of today is strictly proceeding upon the lines laid down by Mr. Gladstone, and which he based upon the Committee of the House of Lords, which reported in favour of higher licence duties, based upon the principle I have mentioned. There is one point which follows quite logically from it. We have had in the course of this Debate 1533 a number of hon. Members saying that if additional taxation is imposed to the extent of £2,600,000 per year the brewers and distillers can easily make it up out of the consumer. I do not think that that follows at all, and I do not think that it should. The whisky tax I admit is a tax on consumers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that there should be additional taxation of 6d. per glass on spirits. That was to be paid by the consumers and collected from the consumers by the trade, probably making a tolerably high profit on the way. If it is really true that they are putting all over the country an additional price of 1d. on a glass instead of ½d., then they will make colossal profit on the transaction. But in this particular case of the licence duties I think that it is a tax of a totally different order. It ought not to be paid by the consumer, it ought to be paid by those in whose hands the monopoly value rests. If the monopoly values in the case of free houses are in the hands of the tenant or of the owner, then let him pay taxation. In the vast majority of cases, in 90 per cent. of the cases in England at all events, they are in the hands, those monopoly values, of the owners of tied houses, the brewers and distillers. It is on them this tax fairly ought to fall. For that reason I welcome the statement in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech that he is going to give power to detract from the rent any extra licence duty that will be imposed under the new scheme, and so from the brewer or distiller, because then it really falls on the men into whose hands the action of Parliament has driven the additional monopoly value. For that reason we may defend the brewers' distillers licence duty. It is true it works out at 2¾d. per barrel. It is to be a licence duty, payable by the brewer or distiller, I imagine, to mark the fact that it is not a direct tax on the consumer, not to be thrown on him, but to be a tax which is to be paid strictly by the owners of those monopoly values who have been benefited by the legislation and the restrictive policy of Parliament.
I am bound to refer, although I do not think I need labour the point, to the really extraordinary way in which this tax, 2¾d. per barrel, is said to work out. To represent it as a monstrous proposal, a crushing burden, and an altogether overwhelming weight falling on the unfortunate brewers, is rather ridiculous in itself. We had the statement that one firm would pay £9,500 additional in consequence of this tax. 1534 That means that that eminent firm is producing 800,000 barrels per year. I have made a rough calculation, and I imagine that that means about 500 miles of beer barrels produced in the year by one firm. Just get a mental picture of this firm spreading those beer barrels in one line, and they would reach from here somewhere to the Highlands. You can imagine that that 2¾d. per barrel will work out to the tolerable sum of even £9,500, but I confess my sympathies are not very much wrung by the prospect of their paying the extra 2¾d. If it be such a crushing tax, if they are so weighed down by it, how grateful must they have been to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. I have been trying in various ways to get at expressions of their gratitude for the reduction of the sugar duty last year. The use of sugar in brewing is very considerable, and the reduction of the sugar duty last year meant a saving to the brewers of £330,000, or almost exactly the same as this, which is represented as a great and additional burden this year. They expressed no gratitude last year for an equivalent abatement, but this year they fill the air with their outcry against the imposition of a similar sum. Then we are told that at all events there ought to have been an export duty by way of set off; in fact this has been represented as a dereliction from the strict principles of Free Trade. It works out into a preference of foreign beer of the one-hundredth part of a penny per glass.
It has been set right, and all I can say is that if hon. Members opposite never, in thought, word, or deed, make a more serious lapse from the principles of Free Trade than that, this country will not do very badly. We have been told that this is going to be the death-knell of the free house. I do not think it will be anything of the kind. If the fate of the free house is to be deplored, we have wept over it in the past, it is pretty well dead already. I imagine that 90 per cent. of the houses in the country at the present time are tied—not in Scotland, and perhaps not in Ireland, but in England I believe that at least 90 per cent. are tied. Those that are left are either the free hotels or the small country houses which it is scarcely worth the while of the brewer to buy up. The hotels are to be dealt with specially, and these country houses will not have their duty raised; consequently I do not believe that this extra duty will have any effect whatever on free houses—at all events, in England. The additional licence 1535 duty is imposed upon the highly-rated houses—upon houses above £50 in annual value. Do hon. Members really say that there is not a case for taxing these houses more highly? It is a tax which spares the country house and falls heavily upon the gin palace. Why is it that these houses were not taxed more highly by Mr. Gladstone in 1880? The explanation of the anomalies in the 1880 scale, which no one in this House defends, is merely historical. Mr. Gladstone wanted only a certain amount of money; he got it by graduating up to £100; he did not intend to go any higher; but when it was pointed out that there were houses going up to £700 he graduated the scale, and got a little more revenue without attempting to base that graduation on any logical system whatever. What has happened since that time? Owing to the elimination of the small houses, the concentration of the monopoly, and the ever-growing value of these public-houses, houses have been moving up from the lower scales into the higher scales, and escaping in consequence the fair amount of taxation which they ought to have paid. That anomaly is going to be redressed. I really do not believe that hon. Members opposite can think that the gin palace of the great towns ought to be let off with paying something like 20 per cent. or 11 per cent., and in some cases 8 per cent. of its annual value. Do they really think that even the big palatial hotels, running up in annual value to £10,000 or £15,000, are fairly taxed with a licence duty of sometimes £20, sometimes £60? That is the real matter which we are discussing on this Resolution.
I think the only point where the attack has really got home is in the case of the hotels, some hard figures of which have been brought forward; but I believe that those figures of the new licence duties are thoroughly untrustworthy, and that they have been very much exaggerated. The hon. Member for Hammersmith brought forward the case of a house of which the liquor taxation was between five per cent. and six per cent., with an assessable value of £4,725; and he seemed to think that that house was going to pay £2,300, or something of that sort. I have worked it out according to the general principle laid down in the Budget speech, and I make it that the licence duty of that house will be £276. We have not the Finance Bill before us, consequently I am not quite 1536 clear as to what principle is really going to be adopted in dealing with hotels; but I understand that one principle is laid down, viz., that in the case of hotels and restaurants the taxation is to be based on the liquor consumed far more than on annual value. That, I imagine, we shall see more clearly when we get the text of the Finance Bill. This Resolution does not even mention the case of hotels and restaurants. All we have is the principle that in reference to the ordinary public-house, the gin palace, 50 per cent. of the annual value is to be taken, and that there is to be another principle for dealing with hotels and restaurants, more upon the basis of the alcoholic trade done than on the basis of annual value. If that is so—and I think that follows from the Budget statement—I think we must take these alarmist figures as to the licence duties running up to £3,000 or £4,000 as really unfounded. Hon. Members have pressed the case of the Public House Trust, and of those houses which have developed a trade other than alcoholic—the proper business of hotel accommodation as distinct from the mere sale of intoxicating liquors. These houses have enormously gained by the new principles which are being laid down, as I understand, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHWhich principles?
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSHe told us in his Budget statement that he was going to get away from the principle of annual value as soon as he could. I understood that he could not do that this year, simply because he could not get the valuation in time. If you get on to the basis of the compensation value of the licence—at all events, on to the basis of the liquor sold— you eliminate all the difficulties of site value and of structural value; you encourage the hotels which are building up a genuine hotel business for the accommodation of visitors and guests; you encourage the experiments of the Public House Trust; and you penalise only that part of the trade which is the trade in intoxicating liquors, which I do not in the least mind—
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhere in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech does the hon. Member find all this?
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSI have certainly read the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech with some care, but I am not certain that I could find the passage immediately. I am quite clear, however, 1537 that in his Budget statement he said that he was going to introduce a different method of assessment.
Yes, here it is:—
We have therefore come to the conclusion that it is essential, in order to ensure fair treatment as between one publican and another, that there should be a valuation based upon the principles on which publicans for the time being receive compensation, and therefore generally accepted by the trade as an equitable basis for appraising the value of their monopoly. This assessment, when it is complete, will be translated into terms of annual value, and the licence will be levied accordingly. The burdens of some publicans may be lightened, that of others may be increased, but on the whole justice will be done.That is exactly what I said. At all events he is going to commence at the earliest possible date to levy on a new basis, for the present basis cannot be fair in all cases. He is going to go upon the new principle of basing the licence duty according to the alcoholic trade done. I think that is a great advance. I do not wish to dwell more upon the principles of this new Resolution. I quite admit that we have got to look at it primarily from the fiscal point of view, and as a mere means of raising revenue. I think it is a just and equitable thing to charge these licence duties as suggested, but the House must excuse me if I, as a temperance reformer, interested in temperance reform, do look at this matter, and see whether it will have any real value to temperance reform. I know in the past—we all know—how, for instance, the fiscal changes in reference to the liquor trade—in 1830 the Repeal of the beer tax, later Mr. Gladstone's introduction of grocers' licences—had most serious results on temperance, and looking at this matter we see that the old scale of licence duty in those days had an indirect social effect of some real value to temperance reform. I think we have to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for overhauling the whole of the off-licences. They could not have been left out. If they had been the Opposition would have blazed with indignation at the unfair treatment of the off-licence holder as compared with the grocers' licence. At all events anyone who knows the absurd anomalies and unjust treatment as compared with different parts of the country—the anomalies connected with grocers' licences in Ireland, Scotland, and England, must, feel that this scheme of duties introduces an equitable and, it seems to me, a fair revision, thus getting rid of a vast number of "hugger-mugger" anomalies which have grown up in the past years, and are now swept away. The whole scheme of duties have been put 1538 upon a logical basis. Incidentally, I think that this general revision of licence duties will have some real value for temperance reform. I do not think it will be more than incidental. It does not, as I say, console me for a moment for the loss of the legislation last year; but I think it will not do any harm from the point of view of temperance. On the contrary, its indirect social effect will be of real value to temperance reform.
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERThe hon. Member, who has just sat down, in one important part of his speech, said that the principle upon which these taxes are supposed to have been levied has not been challenged as far as we on this side of the House were concerned. The principle has been challenged over and over again. The majority sent to this House at the beginning of this Parliament, 354, did not represent that proportion of the outside public, and against it we have always had to contend here. We protested when the Government said: "Either we will have a Licensing Bill of our own fashion, or we will pay the trade out for it, and make them pay for the lost Bill." That is the principle upon which the tax is levied. I admit that the Government of the Day in every country has a right to, at least justly and fairly—for there is always a difficulty in levying—levy taxation for revenue. I admit their right to the full, to tax either the licensing trade or any other trade reasonably, but I submit that this is not taxation. It is expropriation absolutely. It is annihilation of the trade. I am not a brewer, nor yet a distiller. I never had any shares in either during the whole of my life, but I want to know the principle of this taxation, and I take the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He commences his dealing with the licences to this effect: "That the trade belonged originally to the State; the State granted it." That is a very important point of view. But unless you come to sheer communism, the State is not entitled to take property from its own subjects, except that which it pays for. The State is a machine erected—a human machine no doubt—erected for the administration of the common affairs of the people. In no sense is the State entitled to expropriate an owner of property for the benefit of a communistic theory. All it has to do is to see whether the trade is lawfully carried on. If it is taxed, if you must, if it is necessary, for the purposes of revenue to tax it, then it should be done considerately and fairly, 1539 similarly to every trade and interest which professes to have a taxable material. Nobody else has challenged it? I say it has been challenged time out of mind by our party, and I believe by a great many more on the opposite side of the House, because I do not believe that many who sit there are communists. Until you come to communism the State has no more right to deal harshly with the liquor trade than any other trade. But what does the Chancellor of the Exchequer do? He does not proceed to call it taxation. But what does it do? It proceeds apparently from a principle which they say is directed to the inculcation of temperance. We know that it does not. We can never make a man sober by Act of Parliament. That has become stale as an axiom. We know it too well. This proceeds by expropriating the profits of a particular trade, not in endeavouring to get rid of the profits that are made by this unholy traffic, but by using the trade. "Oh," you say, "be partners with us; you shall give us some of your profits, and shall come with us. Even if you make no more than sufficient to pay us we will take that, though we declare the trade is an unholy traffic, and ought to be exterminated." That is the principle upon which this tax has been founded. That is the principle against which I protest. But now I am coming to concrete cases upon a particular part of this Bill. I do not observe the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting there. I gave him a hint that I was going to say something. I have always found him courteous to me personally, and I had ventured to think that he would, as he promised, give attention to the matters that I have put before him. He has an able representative on the bench. We shall meet with courtesy, as we always do, from that Gentleman, but it is not exactly the same thing; for I should have liked to have called the attention of the Committee to certain matters not for the sake of the representative of the right hon. Gentleman, but for his own sake.
One part of the Resolution, which deals with retailers' licences, deals not only with public-houses, but also with hotels. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his great speech that there were cases for consideration, and that consideration would be shown to the hotel. I do not see any reference to that in this Resolution, so far as the terms of the Resolution go. The Chancellor of the Exchequer most cer- 1540 tainly admitted, in his opening speech, that the hotels of the country must be preserved for the conduct of life, commercial and private, and for the convenience of the general public, and he admitted that they were deserving of special consideration. But there is nothing like that in this Resolution. The hon. Member for York, in his speech, mentioned four or five London hotels that would be badly affected. I would like in a few words to quote the Resolution, which says there shall be imposed upon those retail paid "a duty equal to half the annual value of the licensed premises subject to a minimum," which is mentioned afterwards. Now, there is no consideration of any reduction mentioned there.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELWill the hon. Member say where the word hotel appears?
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERIt does not appear, but is it not included in the words "the retail licences"? Is it, or is it not? I am entitled to an answer after that challenge.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe hon. Member read from the Paper retail licences and hotels are to pay half the licence duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained hotels would get special consideration in the Bill. Conditions such as these cannot possibly be set out in a Resolution. It would be quite contrary to practice. If hon. Members will wait for the Bill they will find the conditions as to hotels are set out, and they will see the terms under which they are to be dealt.
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERThe right hon. Gentleman has taken up a different point. The right hon. Gentleman took up the point that I was not speaking pertinently in saying that this applied to hotels. Hotels, in common with all other retailers, are subject to a particular scale of duty—that is, one half of the rateable value. I will come to the deduction. It amounts to a very small matter when you come to analyse it. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say? He said a distinction would be drawn in cases where the regular receipts in an hotel were less than one-third, but where the hotel receipts are more than one-third of the total receipts this impost of fully half of the annual rateable value would be imposed. He said provided the receipts are less than one-third we shall only tax them, not with 1541 the full half, but such a proportion of the half as the actual liquor receipts show. That is to say, if the liquor receipts are one-fourth of the total receipts of the establishment it will only bear one-fourth of the half—that is, one eighth. He said if it is over one-third they get nothing in the way of reduction. They will pay the full half of the rateable value. Not one word of these abatements are in the Resolution as it comes before us, and we are asked to pass it now on the faith of what may or may not be done some time afterwards. We shall inflict this penalty upon all the great hotels of London and all over the country.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYOn a point of order, Mr. Caldwell, may I ask whether it is in order to propose a Resolution to the House which imposes certain conditions upon certain people when we are told by the Government that in the Bill which is to follow they do not intend to propose these taxes?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThey do.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThen the hon. Member differs from his own colleagues. We have only the privilege of having two Members of the Government here to-night, and one differs from the other upon a very important point. Is it in order to propose a Resolution to the House when it is stated that by a proposal which will come up later on this Resolution will be altered?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)There is really no difficulty about the matter. Any modifications that may be made will appear in the Finance Bill when it is presented.
§ Mr. MOONEYOn the point of order, may I ask you whether it has ever been the practice of this House to put down a Resolution in general terms saying a certain licence duty is to be applicable to a certain trade and then for the Minister in charge to specifically state that the preparation for the rebate will be made by a Bill that follows later, but which is not in the Resolution?
§ Mr. MOONEYMy point is this, that the Minister in charge, dealing with a certain specific promise, brings forward a Resolution and says the duty for this particular matter shall be 50 per cent. He has already stated to the House that the 1542 duty will be varied in a specific manner, and therefore I put it to you that the Resolution now before the House is in disagreement with the Minister's own statement.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat has nothing to do with the Resolution.
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERI submit to you that we ought not to be asked to pass a law relying on the faith of what is said in a speech on a former occasion by a Minister of the Crown. I should tell you that in an earlier part of the afternoon I saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was good enough to say he would set the matter right. Why is he not there?
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt is absolutely necessary that the House should agree with the Resolution which has been moved. We have had an object lesson this evening as to what is going to happen. The Government are proposing the greatest change in our principles of taxation that has ever been brought before the House of Commons, and the only Members of the Government present are two Under-Secretaries who disagree with each other on the most important point. I am pleased to notice that now we have the pleasure of the attendance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is evident that when a crisis arises the right hon. Gentleman is ready to come back. In the meantime we are left to discuss without his presence and assistance a most momentous question, while the right hon. Gentleman is interviewing certain people outside. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's place is here in this House, and we have nothing to do with deputations outside. His duty is to the House of Commons, and I venture to say he has treated the House of Commons with the greatest disrespect.
§ Mr. W. R. W. PEELI rise to say a few words, and they will be temperate words. I am one of the last to use strong language, either in this House or in any other place, but I support this Motion because I have been here uninterruptedly since six o'clock, and, during the whole of that time, I have not seen the Chancellor 1543 of the Exchequer in the House of Commons. I have the very greatest respect for those newspapers to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives his interviews, but I think we are entitled to have some previous knowledge of his views before they appear in the "Daily Mail." We have been taught very early in these Debates that there is one way, and one only, of getting the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the House, and that is to move the adjournment. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."] We cannot get the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the House except by this drastic method, and I shall support the Motion.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI apologise to the Committee and to hon. Members for not being present. I do not complain even of the very excited language I heard on coming into the House. I am very much afraid that I have indulged in language of the same kind under similar provocation when I sat below the Gangway. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: "Under less provocation."] I can assure hon. Members that I meant no disrespect to the Committee or to hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate. The hon. Member who has just spoken is wrong m one respect, because I have heard two or three of the speeches, although I was not here the whole of the time. I have been absent on Budget business and not interviewing. There is a good deal of work connected with the Budget which only the Chancellor of the Exchequer can attend to, and I have only been attending to what was absolutely essential during the time the discussion has been going on in the House of Commons. I trust the Committee will now enable us to proceed. I was very anxious to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, who was courteous enough to intimate to me that he meant to raise this Question, and I am very sorry I was not present. I have, however, been informed on the point, and I hope to deal with it later on. I trust we shall be able now to proceed with the discussion.
§ Mr. E. G. PRETYMANI think we on this side of the House have no desire to press this Motion. We are perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman has an arduous task, and we do not wish to add to his labours. This, however, is a point of the greatest importance.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI quite agree.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite aware of the reason for this Motion. The adjournment was moved not because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, but because a point of great difficulty arose, and the right hon. Gentleman was not here to answer to it. The point is that here we are being asked in explicit language to pass a definite Resolution under which the licence charge upon every retailer will be 50 per cent. of the annual value of his premises. That is the financial Resolution, and we have been informed that that Resolution is not to be acted upon.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now going into the merits of that Question. I think we had better dispose of this Motion first.
§ Sir H. KIMBERAfter what has passed I think we might act considerately to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we want him also to act considerately to us in this matter.
§ Mr. MOONEYWhat is the Question before the Chair.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Question before the Chair is to report progress.
§ Sir H. KIMBERI beg to withdraw my Motion to report progress.
§ Mr. MOONEYCan that motion be withdrawn without taking the sense of the House upon it?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANNo.
§ Mr. MOONEYIt is true the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to leave the House for the purposes of the Budget, but I do not think the hon. Member for Chelmsford accurately stated the position we were placed in. Our complaint was not that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place; our difficulty was that the Government was represented by two undersecretaries, and they gave two different versions of the point raised. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be in the interests of getting his Budget through if when two undersecretaries are left in charge one should be placed under the obligation of silence. The two responsible officials sitting on the Treasury Bench gave two different versions of this matter.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The House divided:—Ayes,90;Noes,224.
1547| Division No. 89.] | AYES. | [9.40 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gretton, John | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hayden, John Patrick | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Heaton, John Henniker | Renton, Leslie |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Helmsley, Viscount | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hill, Sir Clement | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hills, J. W. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hunt, Rowland | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Cave, George | Joynson-Hicks, William | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Stanier, Beville |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Magnus, Sir Philip | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Morpeth, Viscount | Winterton, Earl |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Young, Samuel |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Newdegate, F. A. N. | Younger, George |
| Fell, Arthur | Nolan, Joseph | |
| Fletcher, J. S. | O'Dowd, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. G. D. Faber. |
| Forster, Henry William | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hudson, Walter |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Hyde, Clarendon G. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Jackson, R. S. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Crooks, William | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Jowett, F. W. |
| Barker, Sir John | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Kilbride, Denis |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Duckworth, Sir James | Lamont, Norman |
| Barnes, G. N. | Duffy, William J. | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Beale, W. p. | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Bell, Richard | Erskine, David C. | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bena, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Benn. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Everett, R. Lacey | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Fenwick, Charles | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Ferens, T. R. | Lupton, Arnold |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Fuller, John Michael F. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Fullerton, Hugh | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Glover, Thomas | Maclean, Donald |
| Branch, James | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Brigg, John | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Maddison, Frederick |
| Bright, J. A. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Mallett, Charles E. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Massie, J. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Middlebrook, William |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hedges, A. Paget | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Buxton. Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Helme, Norval Watson | Mond, A. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hemmerde, Edward George | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Cameron, Robert | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Henry, Charles S. | Morrell, Philip |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Morse, L. L. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hobart, Sir Robert | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Napier, T. B. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hogan, Michael | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Clough, William | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Nicholls, George |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Horniman, Emslie John | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Vivian, Henry |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Sears, J. E. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Seaverns, J. H. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Nuttall, Harry | Seddon, J. | Walton, Joseph |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Seely, Colonel | Wardle, George J. |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Waring, Walter |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Pointer, J. | Spicer, Sir Albert | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Steadman, W. C. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Summerbell, T. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Sutherland, J. E. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Robinson, S. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Winfrey, R. |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Thomasson, Franklin | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Thorne, William (West Ham) | |
| Rose, Charles Day | Tomkinson, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank. |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Toulmin, George | |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | |
| Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Verney, F. W. |
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERMr. Caldwell, at the moment when this incident occurred I was making one or two preliminary observations before I came to what I said then, and say now, will be a few concrete cases, which will be a better illustration of what this Resolution will do than any general observations. I pointed out that this Resolution, under the head of "Retailers' Licences," will include every hotel in the Kingdom. All the large hotels in London and in the country will have a duty levied upon them of one-half of their rateable value. In his speech in which he introduced the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to say that he recognised there was a great difference between ordinary public-house property and hotels in many respects. He was quite right, but he did not say in what respect there was a difference. He did not say that hotels would never be bought out from the Compensation Fund, although they paid heavily towards it, in addition to their licence duties. I challenge that as a ground upon which this tax is levied, and upon which this procedure is based. I have been taunted from the opposite Benches that we have never challenged that basis, but I venture to point out we have always had a factitious majority against us in this House, although not outside. It is no use labouring that point. It is like flogging a dead horse. The Chancellor of the Exchequer laid it down that originally the liquor trade was the property of the State. I venture to say that the State has no inherent property in it. The State is there simply as 1548 an administrating force of the community, and unless we arrive at pure Communism, the State ought to have no property which individuals could have and could work. But, passing from that, I wish to come to a concrete case. We are well aware of the principle of taxation, and I venture to repeat that this really is not a tax-—it is expropriation. The State, while condemning in moral tones intemperance, is not asking us to pass measures to suppress the trade, but it is seeking to expropriate the trade and take into its own pockets the proceeds. It wishes to keep the trade on for the benefit of those who handle the reins of the Legislature, and for the purpose of producing a surplus. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to one of the elements of this Budget as a "windfall." Outside it was called a "hen-roost," and I think I shall be able to show in the course of discussion on the different parts of this Budget dealing with these successive hen-roosts that the difference between an ordinary hen-roost and a robbery is that one kills the hen and the other leaves the hen alive. This Budget will kill the hen, and the concrete case I will give will prove that.
The hon. Member for the City of York instanced the case of five large hotels in London in order to show what will be the effect of this proposal of this Resolution, or what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends by that. If that is not the case, I venture to suggest it is very desirable we should have a most emphatic Amendment to emphasise the present position and to safeguard that which we understand we have been promised. We want it clearly defined what the hotels are to pay. In 1549 the case of the Carlton Hotel the hon. Member for York said he was giving credit for a valuation of £15,000, on which £3,750 would have to be paid. In the case of the Ritz Hotel the valuation was £17,000, and the rate £4,250—a quarter in each case. The Budget Resolution states that the payment should be one-half except for the qualification which the right hon. Gentleman in his speech stated he would make out. I want a definition of his words which have been variously translated. I have taken the trouble to get the figures from the various hotel companies, and I know they are accurate. The right hon. Gentleman said, if I understood him rightly, that where the proportion of the receipts from liquor in the hotel is less than one-third of the whole of the receipts there will be an abatement. I want to deal with that proportion of one-third, and I would like to point out that if the one-third is exceeded by £1 then the hotel company pays on half the rateable value, and in the case of the Carlton it would be £7,500 instead of £3,750; in the case of the Ritz it would be £8,500, in the case of the Savoy £12,500, in the case of the Waldorf £7,500, and in the case of the Piccadilly £15,000. Let me suggest that this is not taxation, it is expropriation, in the case of one or two of these hotels. I do not mention them because I do not desire to say anything which would discredit or perhaps annihilate either one of them. The cruelty of the thing is this, that two of these hotels have only just come up for the new licence, as it is called, which means paying the monopoly value, and I am told on good authority that they had to pay as part of the terms of getting the licence at all, £1,000 a year. That is said to be equitable taxation, considerate taxation of the whole of the people. I will give you one other case, which I happen to know of and in which I happen to be personally interested, and that is the case of the Cecil. I can give you the figures, and know they are accurate. The rateable value in that case is just over £21,000. It happens in a year now and in a year then, but not every year, that the proportion of their receipts for wines and spirits exceeds one-third by a few pounds. A few pounds in their case would subject them to £10,000 instead of £5,000, without allowing them to come under the line and allowing the abatement which I understood the right hon. Gentleman to make, and which I understood him to say was this: that as long as it is under a third, or it is a quar- 1550 ter, then they would pay only the difference between the proportion which that bears to the full half, and that would be one-eighth on the full year—that is, one-quarter of the half. If that be so, even then the amounts would come to those which the hon. Member for York worked out, giving credit for the allowance. Pursuing the case of the Cecil, the rate would be, giving credit for the concession, which I assume the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes, over £5,000, but supposing it exceeded by £1 the one-third, it is £10,000. The total net profits which the Hotel Cecil made last year on half a million of share capital, the only half a million on which it paid a dividend at all, was £17,000, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going by this Bill, which he says is only a tax Bill, to tax £10,000 out of £17,000, or at the very best, to tax £5,000, which is 30 per cent. of the whole of the profit of the company. I have done with the cases and I think I have said enough, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do what he promised me he would, and will make it clear to the House that, in passing this Resolution, if we do so at all, it is only passed under the safeguards that fair treatment will be dealt out to these institutions. Even then I would ask him whether he considers that this reduction is fair and equal treatment, whether it is equitable treatment, whether it is honest treatment, or whether it is not hen-roost treatment. This Budget will go down to posterity as the Hen-roost Budget, and we will do our best to rub it in, indoors and out of doors, and when I say out of doors I do so for this reason: Do not let the right hon. Gentlemen on that Front Bench think that in another place there will be any want of courage to grapple with the question as to whether or not they can throw out the Bill. You know they can throw out the Bill, and I will give you a very good reason why.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)I think the hon. Member had better confine himself to the Resolution.
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERI will do so, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to pass his Resolution in this House, and he may think that he has won all that he wishes, but let him be considerate if he wishes to pass it with the goodwill of this House and not by the mere votes of his majority. I appeal to him before it has to go to any other tribunal to be considerate, 1551 and to re-examine the effect of the Resolution upon the trade with which he is dealing, and to see whether it does not do more harm than good, and that the destruction which he will bring upon numerous households and numerous communities by the step which he is about to take will not be very great. I could if time permitted show by an analysis of the shareholders' registers of these companies how many hundreds and thousands of small holders will be affected. The Committee would be surprised to find how small is the average of the holding in these shares—in some cases less than £100. In some cases they have a list of widows, and in one case positively two-thirds of the whole shareholders' list consisted of women and trustees. I might enlarge and amplify cases for personal consideration, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on the ground of sheer honesty.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI should like to assure the hon. Baronet that this Resolution is simply an enabling Resolution, just like any other Resolution on the Finance Bill or any Resolution which involves finance. It is a purely general Resolution to enable us to found a Bill upon. It is by no means comprehensive. It does not include all the provisions of the Bill or anything like them, and certainly does not include exceptions. All you have to do in a Resolution is to provide a maximum. You cannot go beyond the powers of a Resolution, but you can minimise, limit, and restrict, and we intend doing so. This is not the Bill; on the contrary, the Bill will contain a good many clauses involving a good many exceptions, but we cannot put them in the Resolution, and it would be contrary to precedent if we attempted to do so. This is purely a formal stage, which enables us, in accordance with the rules of the House, to introduce a Bill which involves finance, but no one knows better than the hon. Member himself that Resolutions of that kind are very compressed and do not even indicate except in the most general way, what the nature of the Bill will be. I assure him he will find when the Bill is tabled that there is no foundation at all for his alarming figures. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite come to frame the Resolutions with which they have threatened us to-day they will have to frame them in exactly the same way. I should be very surprised in any Finance Bill if there was a full discussion on the whole tax upon a Resolution. For instance, in the great Budget of 1552 1894, which took about six weeks of Parliamentary time, I believe the Resolution was passed in the course of a single night.
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERMay I put this query, whether if the Resolution is passed as at present it will not preclude the right hon. Gentleman from taking into consideration other plans which may be proposed for altering the method of imposition by imposing taxes upon the total receipts upon the consumption, as you do in the case of clubs? Would not the terms of the Resolution which relate to rateable value only preclude you from adopting the plan of putting a tax upon consumption?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENo, I think the hon. Baronet is wrong there. I do not think it would preclude us from doing anything of the kind. Quite the reverse. We could not after a Resolution of this kind increase the duty, and we do not intend doing it, but I am considering at the present moment representations which are made to me by these hotels, and one reason why I do not want to go into it fully at the present time is that I do not want to make any declaration which will prevent me from giving full consideration to the representations which have been made to me.
§ Mr. S. ROBERTSIs it not the fact that the words of the Resolution are that on and after 1st July a duty shall be charged?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat is purely the usual form of procedure. In questions of form I have to take the advice of the expert advisers of the Government, and this is purely an enabling Resolution, and it is not a disabling one. You cannot increase, but you can within the four walls of the Resolution diminish, and I say again the only reason why we do not want to make a full declaration in regard to hotels now—I hope to do it on Report stage—is that I am considering at the present moment an alternative suggestion made by some of the very hotels mentioned by the hon. Baronet. I do not think it is desirable that I should, but I could, if necessary, point out that even under the proposals which I foreshadowed last week figures of this kind would not be charged; but there is an alternative even to the proposals which I formulated which has been suggested to me, and I am considering it at present. I could repeat, if necessary, the statement I made when I brought my Budget before the House, but I do not think it desirable at the present moment to enter into that. All I ask now is a 1553 general enabling Resolution on the basis of increasing the licence for all the public-houses and hotels and grocers' licences of the Kingdom, and the other incidental licences. I think I am following precedent. I went very carefully through the Debates on Resolutions of this kind, notably the Budget of 1894, and I find my predecessor took exactly the same line. He did not enter into details with regard to his proposals, but simply defended generally the principles upon which he was proceeding, and then appealed for the Resolution with a view to introducing the Bill, and the then leader of the Opposition responded to that appeal, and said it was a perfectly reasonable course. There was a general Debate upon it, but there was no discussion on these minute details.
The observation I make to the hon. Baronet I would also make to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. He has made certain appeals to me with regard to grocers. All these will have to be considered. I have had representations made to me by the grocers, and they have suggested alternatives. I am perfectly prepared to consider them, and I think it is the absolutely right attitude for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take. Any Minister who shows willingness to listen to representations after producing a Bill is liable to the taunt that he did not consider everything before he brought his Bill in. That is a perfectly absurd taunt, and it is not conducive to the best legislation. I am certain the best thing any Minister could do is, after producing a Bill, to listen to the representation of every interest that is affected. He cannot possibly foresee every contingency, and naturally men who are engaged in these businesses must know a thousand different things which Ministers with the best advisers in the world may have overlooked. I think the proper attitude for Ministers is to listen to all representations of this kind in time to consider them, and that is what I propose doing. I am at present in communication with the representatives of the very interests which the bon. Member has so very ably advocated. I shall be in a better position to tell the House on the Report stage whether the alternative which they suggest to me commends itself to the Government as being the best way. They have displayed every willingness to assist the Government, and I think they are perfectly willing to accept the position that the trade should contribute to a certain extent. I cannot enter at present on any 1554 further details. All I say is that there is nothing in this Resolution which will prevent us from introducing into our Bill all necessary limitations to protect hotels and restaurant keepers and the grocery licence-holders from all these impositions which terrify them so much.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONI do not think the House of Commons ought to allow this question to rest with the statement which the Chancellor of Exchequer has made. The procedure on the Budget, as I understand it, is very distinct procedure. It is to bring before the country at the earliest possible moment the Government proposals first by general discussion, and next by the Resolutions which we are to have before us during this and the following days, so that the country may have a clear view of what the proposals in fact are, and what the general justification for the policy so disclosed to us is. Now, I think the position which has been taken up by my hon. Friend behind me is a most reasonable one. I quite accord to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is some reason in his view that he must keep an open mind upon certain details with regard to this question and the other questions of the Budget throughout the discussion. That is only reasonable, but the question raised by my hon. Friend, which is now before the Committee, is a question of principle. It is a question upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us very definite views in his Budget speech, and it throws a most important and a most lurid light, I venture to say, upon the whole of the proposals of the Budget if we find that this particular proposal with regard to the great hotels of this country is absolutely ill-considered, and if it has upon it what may be called a first coating of thought. Let me assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right in saying that he has drawn his Resolutions as wide as possible, and that he takes all reasonable power to limit those Resolutions when he comes to discuss the Finance Bill. I make every assumption in his favour, that every abatement with regard to these hotels which he adumbrated in his Budget speech, though not in any way shown in the Resolutions, will be made, but even then a case of the most monstrous injustice, and I think unworkable injustice, will be entailed on the face of the Finance Bill. Let me glance for a few moments at the principles upon which these taxes upon licensed property are supported. I think they were again 1555 enforced by the hon. Member for Huddersfield this afternoon in the earlier part of his speech, before he got into some tangled discussion of the various aspects of the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the person, after all, to whom we have to look. At page 518 of his Budget speech he set forth the general principles upon which he justified these very severe, and, in fact, ruinous licence taxes. He justifies this enormous burden on the ground that:—
Land and licences have this in common, that where they have a value at all it is a monopoly value. No one would pay rent for a plot of land if he could secure an equally valuable piece of ground in the same neighbourhood for nothing; nor would anyone give the slightest consideration for an existing licence if a new licence could be got for the asking.That is his first reason. I ask the House to consider the point with regard to large hotels. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that by being licensed they have the power of restricting trade which is of immense value, and which justifies him in resuming or taking a large portion of the value to the State. Then his next general principle is the poisonous or pernicious influence of the drink traffic in the country. That he puts forward at page 520, in which he enumerates, enforces, and establishes, as he thinks, that general line. His general case has often been put in this House, and I need not do more than summarise it. It is that licensed property deteriorates the property in its neighbourhood, and that it deteriorates the district, and that on these grounds it is a fair object for more taxation, I will not say of a vindictive, but of a penal character. But that is the case that has been made over and over again by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can quote from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches passages showing that he has taken up that position.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI have not taken up that position.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONI say with regard to such great hotels as those at Paddington, Euston, St. Pancras, or the Savoy, the Cecil, and the Ritz, that though they do not flinch from paying a fair and reasonable tax, as all citizens must at the present time, they wholly object to being taxed on the basis of their having a monopoly value, and for this plain reason, that the licences to such institutions as these are granted as a matter of course. I have endeavoured to get the facts as far as I possibly could, and I am perfectly satisfied 1556 that there is not a single case where the licensing justices, no matter how strict their temperance views, have refused a licence to such institutions to carry on their business.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIs the position of the right hon. Gentleman that the hotels object to being taxed on their monopoly value? He says that the monopoly value is low, and I quite agree with him, but if the monopoly value is low then the tax will be low.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONI have no alternative but to answer that definite question by inviting the right hon. Gentleman to consider his own words in his own Budget speech, which, I presume, is a considered speech. He says that the value of the licences depends upon their exclusive nature, and upon their nature which confines trading in this particular commodity to certain persons having licences. A corollary from that is that it is a matter of difficulty to get these licences. I traverse that position entirely. I say that it goes to the root of the matter. The facts must be known to someone among the serried ranks on the opposite side. I challenge any of the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side to mention a bench of licensing justices in the whole country that has refused a licence to institutions such as I have named—I mean very large hotels in London. That challenge is not accepted. A single instance cannot be adduced. If that is so the whole value of the licence, which is given as a matter of course, should be ignored with this, or almost the whole of it. They must pay taxes, but they must not pay upon the basis on which an ordinary publican pays. That is perfectly clear. If that be so with regard to licences for these great institutions, let me consider for a moment the second plea. I will show in a moment how crushing is the burden to be placed on these hotels.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAm I to understand the right hon. Gentleman to protest against the duty on hotels being imposed on the monopoly value? If so, he is arguing against the hotels. The monopoly value of the hotel I believe is very low, for the very reason that is pointed out—that there really is no difficulty in the hotel getting a licence, and, therefore, the monopoly value of the hotel, according to the definition in the Act of the right hon. Gentleman of 1904—the definition which I have accepted in my Budget speech— 1557 would be very low, and, therefore, if you tax hotels on their monopoly value the licence is very low.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONThe criticisms I make upon the right hon. Gentleman's proposal are that he, by the reasons he gave in his Budget speech, definitely formulated the application of an extraordinarily burdensome tax, which is inapplicable to hotels, because there is no monopoly value in licensed hotels. On the contrary there has been for years past absolute free trade in the licensed business of hotels. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can wholly misunderstand or challenge that principle. The principle adopted by him as justifying this harsh measure is one, I say, which does not apply, because for years the licences have been granted to hotels in the ordinary way, and there has been in substance free trade among them. The right hon. Gentleman will permit me to draw this inference, which I think is absolutely sound. The fact that hotels have been conducted on a free trade basis is an economic fact. There are not large profits made in these great hotels. Five of the largest hotels in London pay a dividend of only 5 per cent. The result of free trade competition has been to reduce their profits to the very reasonable limit of 5 per cent. I submit, therefore, that the case for taxing them in this extravagant and burdensome way entirely falls to the ground. What is the next point of justification? It was practically admitted by some of his supporters—especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Northwich Division—that a penal tax on licences was justified, because licensed property had a damaging effect on the surrounding locality. Can that really be seriously maintained? Can it be seriously maintained that the great hotels of London, without going to great cities like Birmingham or Manchester, to which these remarks apply, are really a danger to public morality or to the public sobriety? I am perfectly certain no one can say so. Can it be contended for a moment that they are detrimental to the property amidst which they are situated? The Coburg Hotel, the Paddington Hotel, the Claridge Hotel, are welcomed in the best and most residential quarters of May-fair, and the West End and the Strand have been made by the big hotels. The Hotel Metropole has oreated—I will not say created, but has added to the character of the National Liberal Club. 1558 I will not for a moment pursue the inquiry whether there is a greater consumption of alcoholic liquor at one or the other. I gave this conspicuous instance, where I am certain the Metropole Hotel has been welcomed by the National Liberal Club. I gave it, too, as an instance to show that not merely can it not be alleged against those hotels that they have any malicious influence on public sobriety, but they are an actual gain to the residential value of the district.
Their merits, and I think the right hon. Gentleman who has been at the Board of Trade will admit it, have even further scope than this. I am told that both the Germans and the French have most undoubtedly recognised that those very splendid hotels are an actual inducement to commerce to go to the places where they are situate. I am told also that the Germans have discovered, and have met the difficulty by erecting most attractive inducements of this kind, and that very often business depends upon there being good comfortable hotels. In certain cities they have had a very considerable effect in aiding commerce. I have the best information from my own experience in Birmingham, and also the experience very lately achieved by the erection of the great Midland Hotel at Manchester, and that thus very much has been done for the advancement of commerce in that direction. I would put this also to the right hon. Gentleman, that in a district like the Strand, which we all know and of which we are all entitled to speak, no better means of diffusing the very best possible customers to the traders of the neighbourhood could be conceived than exists in a first-class hotel. I do not think the House will doubt for a moment that after receiving a man into a hotel such as the Savoy or Cecil and turning him or her into the Strand after being well entertained in the course of the morning that such customers are a source of very great profit to the tradesmen in the Strand, and furnish a very useful service in collecting and diffusing customers. I promised the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I would draw attention to figures which have been brought before me by a gentleman whom I can rely on in my Constituency, and which bear out, and more than bear out, the figures submitted by my hon. Friend behind me.
Even if the reductions were made which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in his Budget speech, the effect upon the Savoy Hotel and Claridge's Hotel with it 1559 would be such as I will state. On the Savoy Hotel at present there is a licence duty of £20 per year. Neither those who own the hotel nor I contend for a moment that that is adequate. They are quite prepared that it should be substantially increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals, even as modified, would bring up that amount from £20 to £5,418. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Those are figures given to me by the general manager of the company. That hotel pays five per cent. dividend on its ordinary shares—the effect of this tax would be to obliterate 50 per cent. of the net profits of the hotel, and would reduce that dividend to 2½ per cent. If there is any genuineness in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's promise it cannot be to tax an industry such as this, which cannot be pretended to be based on monopoly, which cannot be pretended to be noxious to the public interest and damage to the public character, it cannot be pretended this industry should be based 50 per cent. on its net profits any more than shipowners or any other traders in the community should be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer assents to that. That being so, I ask him, with great respect, why he has alarmed the whole country by putting forward intentions which cannot help being construed in this manner by everybody affected? If he shrinks from answering that question, I beg him to refer the Committee to any part of his Budget speech in reference to this subject which can mitigate or explain away the conclusions which I have drawn.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer forgets another circumstance. The present taxation of a hotel is based upon the annual value of the house itself. As it is easier to follow a concrete case, I will again take the Savoy Hotel. The assessable value is £25,000 a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in the most precise terms (column 521 of the Official Report), given a series of perfectly true and unanswerable reasons to show that this basis of assessment is absolutely unjust. The right hon. Gentleman assents; therefore I need not enumerate them. But what is his proposal? It is that for many months hence, for nearly six months, during which, I suppose, we shall sit here disputing the proposal—at any rate, until 1st October—hotels shall be taxed upon this very basis of assessment, which he himself has pronounced to be untenable and unjust. Is that a very creditable position for the 1560 British Government to take up towards its subjects? This Government, as represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is asking for very important sacrifices to be made by the community; it is asking men to submit to tremendous taxation upon their own voluntary declarations as to what their incomes are; it is asking what we in the law call uberrima fides from the whole nation, and, I presume, expects to get it. Ought he not, therefore, to be the first to set an example of good faith and just dealing with the community? It cannot be pretended that he is setting the example when, for six months, he taxes these institutions upon a basis which, on his own showing, is grossly onerous, utterly unjust, and untenable. The old honourable tradition of this country is, and, I hope, always will be, that the State should treat its subjects with scrupulous fairness, and that when there is doubt between a subject of the King and the British Government, that doubt should be resolved in favour of the subject, and not of the State. Not for the first time, in this Budget, by loose ill-considered thinking, I dare say, rather than by express malignity, is this seen. They cannot get out of this, as I have just proved, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just assented to. The assessment basis in this particular matter is admittedly unjust. Yet it is to be continued by this Government for five or six months. On the Chancellor's own admission the tax will be on institutions far more onerous and oppressive than the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits to be just.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI rise to a point of older. We are dealing with new taxes. [Cries of "Order."]
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not a point of order.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe right hon. Gentleman has devoted the whole of his speech, not to the large proposals of taxation, which are embodied in this Resolution, but to one comparatively small and insignificant part of it. He has dealt only with the case of the larger hotels, and almost solely with the case of the larger hotels of the metropolis—
§ Mr. LYTTELTONThat was the only case the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI was surprised to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman pretend that because licenses 1561 had been freely granted to hotels of the character he had in mind that therefore there was no monopoly value in a hotel. It was impossible to impose any taxation on the principle that licensed premises should pay in proportion to their monopoly. I gather that that was his argument. [Cries of dissent.] I must have been very dull if I failed to apprehend what the right hon. Gentleman developed at very great length; first that there was free trade in licences so far as hotels are concerned, and that therefore there was no monopoly; and, secondly, that there was nothing in the nature of monopoly value. Therefore, any attempt to tax an hotel for the reason that it had a monopoly value must be plainly, in principle, unjust.
Last year we derived on many occasions in Debate much solace from the precedent of the Act of 1904, and here again when we come to the practice that prevails under the Act of 1904, we find that under the legislation of the late Government, these great hotels do now, as a matter of fact, have to pay a monopoly value—a very considerable value under the provisions of Clause 4. The Waldorf Hotel pays, I believe, £1,000 a year in monopoly value. The Piccadilly Hotel has been charged an equal amount. Consequently, it is clear that if monopoly, liquor monopoly, has to be taken into account in relation to the question of taxation, it applies to hotels—in different measure I agree, but not in principle—as well as to the case of ordinary public-houses. The right hon. Gentleman said, and his friends admitted, that the present duty on hotels of £20, on a great hotel like the Savoy or the Carlton, was absurdly inadequate. I do not think really that there is any fundamental difference between the two sides of the House on this question. My right hon. Friend has no desire to impose any burdensome or crushing taxation on hotels. He has no intention whatever to exact from a place like the Savoy a sum approaching the amount of £5,000, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned—
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINHow much will it be?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELFigures have been quoted that I cannot in any way reconcile with the proposals as they were foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend. He further distinctly stated in his Budget speech that these provisions based upon rateable value were, both for hotels and public-houses, merely temporary provi- 1562 sions, and he said—I will quote the words:—
We have therefore come to the conclusion that it is essential, in order to ensure fair treatment as between one publican and another—the sme argument applies to hotels:—that there should be a valuation based upon the principles on which publicans for the time being receive compensation, and therefore generally accepted by the trade as an equitable basis for appraising the value of their monopoly. This assessment, when it is complete, will be translated into terms of annual value, and the licence will be levied accordingly.So that in any case these proposals, based upon assessable value, both for public-houses and hotels, are merely temporary, pending the creation of a new valuation and a review of the rates of taxation in the light of that new valuation. Of course, in the case of all public-houses it will be a matter of some time to effect that new valuation, but with regard to hotels I think it will be found when the Bill is introduced that they will not for a moment be subject to the enormous charge which the right hon. Gentleman opposite contemplated, and that it will be found that temporary provisions have been made to meet any brief delay that may take place in the formation of this new valuation. So far with regard to hotels. I trust that my right hon. Friend in what he said has removed from the mind of the Committee, and made it quite clear, that those exorbitant and ruinous rates on hotels, as they would be, will not be applied, and exist only in the somewhat timorous imaginations of hon. Members who have spoken. The Debate, of course, previous to its concentration by those hon. Gentlemen on hotels, wandered over a good many of the larger questions raised by this Resolution. We have this significant fact that not one hon. Member who spoke from the other side of the House said it was unjust to ask the liquor trade to contribute to the necessities of the nation. Not one hon. Member of this House, not one opponent or critic of the Budget outside this House, said it was in any degree wrong to require the liquor trade to make some contribution to the needs of the Treasury. I remember last year, when the agitation was proceeding throughout the country against the Licensing Bill, the hoardings were placarded with posters in which the liquor trade apprised the nation of the fact that through it the entire cost of the British Navy was being paid. The legend under these posters was:—The Trade pays the entire cost of the British navy and £7,000,000 towards the Army. Oppose the Licensing Bill.1563 I think the trade will recognise that it is only natural that when the Navy requires further help their patriotic claims should be taken into consideration, and that some further sums should be required from them—[An HON. MEMBER: "You are not building the ships"]—and that this is an occasion for action such as that. When the rejection of this Bill was moved in "another place" by Lord Lansdown he began by saying, so far as taxation was concerned, that undoubtedly there was a case for the readjustment of the taxation upon the liquor trade, and the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs—and no one represents more fully and, if I may say so, more ably the interests of that trade in this House—said he admitted that the present scale of licensed duties was anomalous, that he could not defend them, and that it was perfectly right and fair to readjust them. I think it is admitted, therefore, on all hands that there should be a contribution towards this Budget from this trade. Are the contributions asked for fair and equitable? We have asserted again and again that the equity of these duties must be established. Many of us hold that the consequences of the conduct of this trade are to a great extent evil, but although, of course, many of us hold that some of the greatest social evils of our time arise from the misuse of alcoholic liquor, that fact does not in any degree affect the necessity of imposing taxation upon that trade which can be defended upon grounds purely of fiscal justice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a judge imposing fines, but a Minister collecting revenues. In that spirit these duties have been framed, and on that basis they must be defended. I will point out a few considerations to which the notice of the Committee has not yet been drawn which affect to a great extent the whole of this Question, and which must be taken into account in viewing the increased burdens imposed upon the trade. Up to the present moment this Budget has been very profitable to the trade, because over a very large part of the country the price of spirits has been raised by a penny per glass. There are 64 glasses in a gallon, and one penny per glass means an increased charge to the community of 5s. 4d. per gallon. The duty imposed is 45d. per proof gallon, but spirits are not sold at proof but at about 20 under proof, and therefore the duty on the gallon as sold is 36d. per gallon, or 3s. Therefore, against a duty of 3s. a gallon 1564 an increased charge is made to the consumer of 5s. 4d. per gallon, or 2s. 4d. extra profit.I have had a careful estimate made of what this means in round figures, and I find that of 20 under-proof spirits each year about 47,000,000 gallons are consumed. An extra profit of 2s. 4d. per gallon on that means an increased revenue over and above the duty charged to the publicans of no less than £2,776,000 a year. I would mention that that is calculated on only one-half of the spirits consumed in the country, because it is assumed by the authorities of the Inland Revenue that only one-half of the spirits consumed in this country are consumed in the public-house. Therefore, on one-half alone of the spirit consumption of this country there would be, if there is no reduction of consumption—I must make that qualification—an increased revenue to the liquor trade of over £2,750,000 a year. In addition to that, before the Budget was introduced, there was a forestalment of revenue to the extent of the duty on 3,700,000 gallons of spirits, on all of which, so far as it is sold in public-houses, there is a profit not of 2s. 4d., but of 5s. 4d. per gallon; so that for the moment on this large forestalment the liquor trade is reaping an exceedingly large and unexpected profit. Not content with raising the duty on spirits by 5s. 4d. per gallon, they are also endeavouring to raise the price of beer. What would be in pounds, shillings and pence the revenue to the trade of the smallest possible increase in the price of beer—that is to say, even of one halfpenny per pint? Last year over 33,000,000 barrels of beer were consumed, and two-thirds were sold in public-houses. This additional profit of a halfpenny a pint would mean £13,540,074 a year—that is on two-thirds of the consumption of beer. If the sellers of the other one-third put up their price by as little as half the amount I mentioned there would be an additional profit of over £3,000,000, or a total of nearly £17,000,000 extra charge to the public on beer. If you add to that total the increase on the charges of spirits you will find that the trade are asking from the public to meet an increased charge of £4,000,000, an increased price of over £20,000,000, a step which I think will hardly be approved by the public.
It should be borne in mind also that although a duty of 50 per cent. on rateable value sounds a formidable tax, it by no means corresponds in this case to a duty of 50 per cent. on the real value as esti- 1565 mated by the trade. We heard last year a great deal about the "Coach and Horses" public-house. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to a public-house in Bermondsey which bears the significant name of the "Golden Fleece." It was a fully-licensed house, assessed at £67 a year, and paid a duty of £25. It was reported for compensation under the Act of 1904, and has been compensated. The compensation paid, apart from the value of the building—paid merely for the licence value—was £8,598, or 128 years' purchase. What we propose under our taxation to levy on that house is £33 10s. a year, which I am sure is no exorbitant rate. That is an extreme case; but if you take the average of all the houses compensated last year in London you will find that the number of years compensation was 34 years' purchase. It is obvious that the rateable value is far below what the trade regards as the real value of the premises. Another consideration not hitherto brought to the notice of the Committee relates to the licence duties on brewers. A statement was made by the Allied Brewers' Association as to the increase in the taxation imposed upon the trade in recent years, and amongst the increased taxation is mentioned the effect of the new duty on sugar imposed upon the brewing industry and on other consumers as well. This organisation estimated that the sugar duty imposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was equivalent to a tax on the brewers averaging 2½d. per barrel. We have reduced that by more than one-half. We have relieved the trade of taxation representing rather more than 1¼d. per barrel, and that is equal almost exactly to one-half of the new brewer's duty imposed by my right hon. Friend and so vigorously denounced by hon. Members opposite. I do not propose to detain the Committee by going into details of the various taxes we are proposing.
§ Mr. H. SAMUELI think my right hon. Friend has shown conclusively that the proportion of revenue to be derived from Ireland is distinctly lower than that demanded from the rest of the United Kingdom. I would like to point out that hon. Members will have the opportunity of going over the same ground no fewer than seven times. There is the general discussion on the Budget Resolutions, the Committee and the Report stage, the second reading of the Finance Bill, the Committee 1566 and the Report stages, and the third reading. This is not an occasion on which it is usual to enter into detail. The House will not be bound when it reaches the Finance Bill by the precise terms of the Budget Resolutions, and I am sure any questions which may be raised will receive at the hands of my right hon. Friend careful and patient consideration, that is, so far as he is able he will deal with the requirements of any hard cases which may be brought to his notice.
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHThe right hon. Gentleman has been singularly successful in his speech in avoiding almost every considerable objection raised in the course of our Debate. It has been stated that the result of these proposals will be a net gain to the trade of 13 million pounds sterling. It is extraordinary that the trade should not appreciate the golden shower which is falling into its hands. The right hon. Gentleman did not point out that in that sum is included a tax on beer, which may not be imposed. I think the Committee should be given some information as to what is to be the real relation between the Resolutions and the Bill to be formulated on them. I gather the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it does not particularly matter what is in the Resolution so long as it will enable him to do something, but we have no guidance as to what that something is to be or what will be the principle of taxation on hotels—whether it is to be on rateable value or the basis of consumption; neither do we know what is to be the result of the tax on clubs on the basis of consumption. The only consolation which the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken gives to the House—he does not challenge, no one has challenged, a single one of the figures given to the House either by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, or by the hon. Baronet or by any of the other speakers—but he says that if that is really the position it depends upon a misunderstanding, and the injustice will be temporary in its incidence. If the figures are accurate a very temporary and occasional incidence will be sufficient for those who have to pay. Another point was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for York, who made a very cogent speech. He quoted to the Government a speech made by the Prime Minister so short a time ago as two years. I am dealing with the propriety of the manufacturers' licence, and this was the quotation my hon. Friend read to the House, and in respect of which I 1567 think that we should have been favoured with some explanation. The Prime Minister said:—
The principle of a graduated ad valorem duty does not apply, nor, in my opinion, is it applicable to licences which confer no monopoly privilege, and which are issued principally for registration purposes.Why is that principle of graduated ad valorem duties which did not apply, and which, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, was not applicable to licences which confer no monopoly privilege—why has it become applicable since? If there is an explanation of a very striking piece of inconsistency by a prominent Minister of His Majesty's Government how is it we are not favoured with it? Passing on from that there are far more serious charges which have been made against the right hon. Gentleman in reference to his proposals that have not received an answer of any kind in the course of this Debate. Let me call the attention of the Committee to one case which has been referred to by more than one speaker, but of which no one has even attempted to offer an explanation. My right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, in dealing with the case of a particular brewery mentioned a figure which has been developed by the case of two other firms alluded to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield in his speech, and those are the representative firms of Mr. Buxton and Mr. Whitbread. I do not desire for a single moment to ask the Committee to accept implicitly the figures which have been quoted by those two gentlemen. Whether they are precisely accurate I neither know nor care, but that they have a very real correspondence to the incidence of these new taxes has not been challenged by a single speaker in the whole course of this Debate. What did these gentlemen say in a letter they wrote to "The Times," that the new licence duty for "on" licences will amount to £120,000? The present licence duty is £30,000, so that the increase of licence duty on their houses is £89,000 to them. They add to the manufacturer's licence £15,000, showing that additional taxation will be imposed upon them to the extent of £104,745. Those figures have not been challenged, and the only comment which was made upon them by the hon Member for Lincoln with a triviality that is unworthy of the case made against him was that he believed that the beer barrels made by these two firms would reach from London to the Highlands—a very valuable contribution to the discussion.
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSI imagine the two firms together would produce 1,200,000 barrels?
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHThat is the spirit in which these proposals are discussed. Now let me ask the attention of the House to another branch of the case to which the Government has offered no comment at all—that is on the effect of the Government's proposals upon off-licences. It has been said in the course of this Debate, as if it was a successful taunt at myself and my hon. Friend, that when the Government omitted to deal with the case of off-licences at the time of the Licensing Bill, we complained of them, and it is now made a grievance that when they do deal with them in these proposals we complain also. Because we complained of them for not including them in the Licensing Bill, it can hardly be reasonably said that we are to concur in every predatory proposal which may be made in relation to that for all time. Let the Committee consider whether the language I use is too strong. I have a letter from the well-known firm of Pink and Sons, very large grocers carrying on business at Portsmouth. I forget to which party in politics the hon. Member for Portsmouth belongs. They say:—
We have eight licences for the sale of alcoholic liquors The new licence duties will increase our cost by over £400 per annum, bringing the total cost to within a few pounds of the net profit in this department of our business, and making our total payment for taxes, including income tax, equal to 2s. 3d. in the £ of our net income. It will be almost impossible to give up any of these licences without seriously inconveniencing our customers. Our trade in alcholic liquor is estimated at one-twelfth only of our total trade, and yet it is proposed to base the new charges on the total assessment of our premises.Could this financial insanity go further than making the charges upon off-licences bear any relation at all to the total trade, which has nothing whatever to do with the sale of alcohol of any kind? Apply that principle to the Army and Navy Stores, Harrod's, or Whiteley's, or 100 other illustrations which could be given. The gross and flagrant inequalities which will be produced will, I suppose, make it necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get up again and remind the Committee that after all the Resolutions can be altered, and that it does not matter if they are not carried out. I was also sorry that no explanation was forthcoming from the Government as to the extraordinary difference of taxation which they think proper to apply in the case of licensed premises and in the case of clubs. We know what the method of the Government is in dealing with clubs. They have a 1569 poundage of 3d. in the £. We have here this advantage, that we do not affect to be discussing now, as at the time of the licensing debates, small questions. We are discussing on the comparison between licensed premises and clubs, purely a fiscal question, and I should be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain why clubs should pay a tax which is infinitesimally small when compared with the tax which is imposed upon licensed premises according to the provisions of the Resolution. Let the Committee consider for a moment. Hon. Members from Ireland have spoken with great force, and told us how large a percentage of licensed premises must disappear in Ireland. Is it suggested that these small public-houses can compete with clubs under the differentiation of taxation which is introduced now by these proposals? Is it the desire of the Government that a place in which there is no regulation, no real supervision, no real contribution to the Exchequer, should be placed in a position of advantage as compared with licensed premises? As far as I am concerned, I speak on this subject with an indifference which I think can be claimed by very few hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and certainly by no London Liberal Member, because, although I have many political clubs and many working men's clubs in my Constituency, there is not one in which drink is sold. There are very few London Liberal clubs of which that can be said. I would also like to call attention to a point upon which perhaps some explanation might have been of value, and that is as to what was the reason why, for the first time, so far as I am aware, for many years, charges so excessive are to be imposed upon a shrinking revenue. In the old days when Chancellors of the Exchequer were economists as well as politicians, it was an axiom that you should not increase your taxation on a shrinking revenue. That has been laid down by Chancellors of the Exchequer without a break since the days of Mr. Gladstone. What is the position now when you are imposing this enormous, fresh taxation? Since the year 1899 there has been a fall in the sale of beer of over 3,000,000 standard barrels, and if you take the consumption per head it was in 1899–1900 32.29 gallons, as against 26.47 gallons in 1908–9. In the case of spirits, the figures are even more striking. Taking British-made spirits retained for consumption and imported spirits for consumption, there has been a decrease of nearly 1570 10 million gallons if you compare the same years. Taking the consumption per head in 1899–1900, it was 1.18 gallons, and in 1908–9 it was 87. At the same time, although taxing a shrinking source of revenue, so excessive has been the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman has formed that, even on this shrinking consumption, it has become notorious that he will get more than he has budgetted for. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deny that he has underestimated the revenue he expects from the taxes in order to have a considerable surplus for the purpose of social reform, because I observe that the right hon. Gentleman was interviewed by a representative of the "Daily News" only last Friday.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI told the House there would be a surplus.
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHThe right hon. Gentleman put it in rather a different way to the interviewer. The report of the interview says:—
After all," said Mr. Lloyd-George, with a shrewd glance, "it would have been foolish to bring in a Budget without leaving oneself something to play with.The truth is that while the right hon. Gentleman is leaving something to play with at a period of time which is not likely to be very far from a general election, the brewers and the hotel keepers will have very little encouragement to take part in the pleasantries. The hon. Member for Huddersfield made, as he always does, an interesting and extremely well-informed contribution to our discussion on this point, but he made an observation which somewhat startled me. He was dealing with the question of the comparative licence duties in the United States and in this country, and I was astonished at the enthusiasm with which the instance cited to the House with so much clearness by the hon. Gentleman was received. It surprises me that a nation which is guilty, as hon. Gentlemen opposite say, of insane folly in one department of its fiscal legislation, should be held up as a monument for imitation in another department. Of course it is quite clear if one considers the relative existence of taxation in the two countries, that the only way in which the Committee can derive any guidance is by taking the whole liquor taxation—not one branch of it which is irrelevant to the whole question—but the whole liquor taxation of the two countries, and saying: Is it higher here or there?1571 Suppose, as I am satisfied it will be found, that the licence duties are admittedly very much higher in the United States, but that taking the taxation as a whole we pay more in this country, then the argument becomes irrelevant. The hon. Member for Huddersfield thinks that a comparison of the whole taxation is irrelevant to the consideration; I do not follow him in that observation. I read his book extremely carefully—as I am sure many Members of the Committee have done, as it is an able presentation of the case—and in the whole book, from beginning to end, I do not find that the author succeeded in showing that the total taxation in the United States exceeds the total taxation in this country. If it could have been shown I think he would have done so. He makes an attempt at one point by reference to a standard which I believe to be utterly fallacious, the standard of the absolute amount of alcohol, which entirely ignores the ancient policy of our country to encourage people to consume drinks in which the proportion of alcohol relatively to the whole is small. By adopting a table 13 years old, by adopting this fallacious standard, he puts forward tentatively the view that the total taxation may be higher in the United States than here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has information, I am sure, on the point, and I venture to ask him whether he will, in this Debate or at some later stage, or if not convenient to do it in debate, whether he will circulate some paper showing what is the relative total taxation imposed upon the liquor trade in the United States and in other great countries; and I venture to make this prediction that if the right hon. Gentleman will take all the countries of Europe together with the United States of America he will find that the liquor trade in this country pays a greater proportion of the burden of the country than is paid by the liquor trade in any other country in the world. If that is so of course it is futile to talk of the high licence duties in the United States of America. I may point out also that no one who has informed the Committee of the existence and extent of those duties in the United States has ever contended that they approach the duties which are to be placed by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman on hotels in this country.
The real truth crept out inadvertently in a speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln. He said he supported this Bill not only as 1572 a fiscal reformer, but also as a social reformer. The truth is that this part of the proposals of the Budget is simply a reflection—and a vindictive reflection—of the Licensing Bill, which was destroyed a year ago, and was destroyed merely because hon. Gentlemen opposite realised that those proposals failed to commend themselves to the electors of the country. I say deliberately, and I will prove what I say very shortly, that these proposals simply have been introduced as a vindictive punishment of the trade because they inconvenienced the Government by destroying the Licensing Bill last year. They do not make speeches on the Front Bench, but they make speeches in the country. What did the Lord Advocate say?
he hoped, if the Licensing Bill were thrown out or mutilated by the House of Lords, that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the courage, since they had the people of the country at their back, to lay on the members of the trade not a small paltry fee, but a swinging licencing duty, which would have the effect of closing not one third, but one fourth of the licensed public-houses, and thus bring the trade to a sense of their moral obligation, and which would enable the country, not fourteen years hence, but within the present financial year, to recover what was its own property.The First Lord of the Admiralty has not lagged very far behind his legal colleague. He said at Manchester in December, 1908:—Their hearts are filled with rage at the loss of the Licensing Bill. If the Lords would not let them deal with the subject in the ordinary way, the Commons were justified in dealing with the same subject in such a way that the Lords cannot refuse their assent.Let us not, therefore, have the pretence that these proposals are introduced on their merits. I dare say hon. Gentlemen will cheer what the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—As the Chancellor of the Exchequer hail stated, it, was open to them, through the means of taxation, not only to raise a great deal of money on taxation of licences, but to effect one of the main objects of the Bill, namely, the reduction of superfluous licensed premises.At any rate, it is not a fiscal proposal. It is a revival for political purposes of the proposals of a year ago. The hon. Member for Westmorland said:—He was inclined to think that while the Licensing Bill chastised the Trade with whips, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had chastised them with scorpions.Again the same gentleman said:—He regretted that the House of Lords threw out the Licensing Bill.It is very fortunate that at this early stage of our discussions the country should know it. There is no doubt that while one considers the amount of the duties which are imposed upon licensed premises, there are those in the country and those below 1573 the Gangway who are saying that these license proposals are purely Socialistic in their character. I read only last week in the Socialist "New Age" that they are delighted with the proposals. They say:—Mr. Lloyd-George's Budget is splendid, almost as much as we should have expected from a Socialist Chancellor in his first year of office. We cannot deny that the author of the present Budget is good enough Statesman for a Socialist support, during the next five or ten years at any rate. The Budget is not merely a Budget, but a programme; consequently, it is to be regarded as Mr Lloyd-George's bid for the Premiership.I do not see anything about the intentions of the President of the Board of Trade. It goes on:—We do not care who carries out the programme, if only we are allowed to make it.We concur in the justice of that view of the Budget, and upon that issue we upon this side of the House ask nothing better than to join battle either in this House or elsewhere with all the forces that may be brought against us in support of proposals which we conceive to be predatory in their character.
§ Mr. T. M. KETTLEWe on these Benches have both, in the general discussion and in the Resolutions which have come before the House, made a special case upon special grounds for Ireland. I heard with great attention and with some interest the sentence accorded to this subject of Irish taxation by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Office in his speech this evening. I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon that fact. What does he say—what is the position of the Government? We have objected to certain of those special duties, at least of their application to Ireland upon special grounds. We object to all the duties upon the general ground that they increase the total volume of taxation of Ireland beyond her taxable capacity. That is our general position. What is the answer? The answer is this—the Under-Secretary says to-night and the Chancellor said the other day: "Yes, but under the previous plans Ireland had been paying something like 6¼ per cent. of the total revenue of the United Kingdom, and by the increased taxation she will only be paying 4¼ per cent." I suppose that is a mitigation, but it is a mitigation of this kind—of a shop manager who has been robbing a till, let us say, of £2 per week, and who would say, "Yes, but under the new plan I am going to rob somebody else of £2 10s. per week." I would advise the Under-Secretary to secure some particulars from the Treasury on the point.
1574 The whole principle of the Act of Union—an Act which has not been read by anybody in this House but myself—in pursuing some private studies amongst ancient but almost forgotten documents of recent times. The Act of Union says most distinctly, the interpretation given to it by speeches at that time, the interpretation both in the English and the Irish House of Commons, was in the letter as well as in the spirit that you should not introduce a Budget into this Union Parliament, without having first determined what is the relative taxable capacity of Ireland to Great Britain. That is the whole principle I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have they got the least idea at present as to what is the taxable capacity of Ireland? That is our case, our whole case, not indeed now a popular case in this House, nor ever likely to be a popular case. This House represents a country that has always been ready to break treaties of the most solemn kind with small nations, and we have committed the unpardonable offence of being in a minority. There has been no attempt at a case on the Government Bench with regard to Irish taxation. Of course, we had the reference, the eternal reference, to the operation of the Old Age Pensions Act in Ireland.
If the Chancellor has followed the Irish papers of every political colour, if he has followed recent events in Ireland, he knows that his proposals, however they may commend themselves to the people in this country, have awakened in every class in Ireland a storm of indignation and of protest. This Budget and these special duties have been welcomed by many hon. Members on the opposite of the House as constituting a Budget of temperance. So far as they affect Ireland, they constitute not a Budget of temperance, but a Budget of theft. The phrase "vindictive" has been used on these Benches, and we have been told by the Government that their motives in framing the Budget were of the loftiest character. I have noticed in my reading and superficial acquaintance with history that nearly all the serious mischief in the world has been done by gentlemen with very high motives. Passing that by, whatever be the inner state of mind of the Government, whose motives are doubtless as high as their majority is large, this Budget in its outer effect as it concerns Ireland, is a Budget for the purposes not of revenue, but of revenge. That is the opinion formed by every political section in Ireland. In 1575 regard to the increase of licence duties, there are points which tend to reinforce that general case. In the first place it is proposed to apply a uniform scale of licence duties to Ireland and to Great Britain. A system of uniform taxation applied to any interest as between a rich country and a poor country must necessarily be an unfair system. We have heard many references to statements made and things done by Mr. Gladstone in 1880. One statement made at that period, when the licence duties were being revised, was substantially to this effect. The minimum then established was explained by the fact that special regard had to be paid to circumstances in Ireland. But in this scale you are not differentiating between property of that character in Ireland and property in Great Britain, although property of every kind in Ireland naturally moves upon a somewhat lower financial level than in this country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, earlier in the evening, that he was ready to hear representations as to possible modifications in this scale or in any part of it. We have a definite suggestion to make. One special case has been put by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool; I will ask the right hon. Gentleman this: Does he think it perfectly fair to adopt the same maximum and minimum, and the same intermediate scales, for licensed property in Ireland as in Great Britain? The beerhouse, which is the stable and standard house in this country, is a thing practically unknown in Ireland. Every licence there is a publican's licence. In the case of the beer-house licences—the usual licence in this country—you have reduced the minimum from £4 10s. to £3 10s.; but in the case of Ireland, which is affected almost exclusively by publicans' licences, you have raised the minimum from £4 10s. to £5. That is a typical instance of the fashion in which a uniform system of taxation becomes and must become unfair. The plea I want to make is this: On the grounds of justice and reason, there ought to be differential treatment in these scales of duties as between Ireland and Great Britain. For my part, I am not much concerned as to the increase of duties upon either liquor or licences. I certainly do not find myself in much sympathy with the abundant sea of tears shed over that unhappy person, the hotel keeper. I think it very 1576 proper that a considerable revenue should be derived from the licensed trade in any country. I have mentioned these points of detail on special grounds. If hon. Members above the Gangway would read the Act of Union—it would be an unfortunate thing if they did, because they would not be able to support it—if they were to consider this matter from the point of view and perspective from which we have to regard it, they would see that we have a special case to put forward on very special grounds. What I am protesting against is this: It has been said that the opposition of the Irish Members is because it taxes the liquor trade. That is not so. The opposition is because of increased taxation on Ireland.
You cannot specialise and polarise the effect of the taxes on special articles or trades, or persons engaged in that trade. Any taxation imposed on any interest in the country tends to diffuse itself among; other classes. What is going to happen in regard to these increased duties? They are going to hit and hurt very much the small house; consequently Ireland is going, to suffer specially. They are going to hit the free house against the tied house; consequently Ireland is again going to suffer. They are going to hit the mixed trading house against the specialised public-house. As the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool pointed out, the mixed trade house is really the typical situation you have to deal with in Ireland. Ninety-five per cent, of the houses in which alcohol is sold in Ireland, I understand, are engaged in the mixed trade, and derive the greater part of their income from other sources beside the sale of alcohol. We do not propose at this stage to move an Amendment, but I shall certainly do so upon Report. I hope, then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to meet our claims, or make something like a respectable case for opposing them. I propose to move that these duties be confined to Great Britain, and that another table, moving upon a lower level—and consequently more in keeping with the taxable capacity of the value of this property in Ireland—shall be applied to Ireland.
That will establish a differential system as between Great Britain and Ireland. It will do something to keep the total volume of Irish taxation in something like proper relation of the ability of the people of Ireland to pay. I am told that this Budget is filled with blessings so far as the people of 1577 Great Britain are concerned—is overflowing with benedictions. We have no intention of trying to prevent the "shower of manna" which it contains from falling upon Great Britain. Great Britain is perfectly welcome to this Budget. But all sections and classes in Ireland are united, from the extreme Nationalist to the stately Tory journalist, and have joined in the protest, and have pointed out the cruelty of the position in which we are placed. I have stated the principles upon which we object to the increased taxation. It has been reported by Liberal newspapers and responsible leaders of Liberal opinion that our sole and only interest in this matter was to play the game of the liquor interest and to prevent an increase of taxation upon that. I can conclude with a suggestion that will enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to concede some of our views, and at the same time meet this objection. I will consent to the increasd duty upon spirits, but to the increased licence duty, without even asking for a reduction of the scale, if, when it comes to the tea tax, which is to be imposed upon a necessity of life, he will differentiate his treatment between Great Britain and Ireland, and will give us our tea duty free! I know the thing sounds a paradox, but it is the Act of Union; it is the solemn treaty under which you profess to govern Ireland; it is perfectly typical of the condition of this House that any provision quoted from an Act of that character sounds like a paradox. I only console myself with the thought that Budgets like this are possible and have been possible for the last 100 years, simply because convenience has prevailed over the matter of conscience, because House of Commons after House of Commons has gone on lightly devising Budgets for Ireland without informing themselves of the elementary principles on which those Budgets should be based.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed—
Mr. BALFOURI beg to call the attention of the Committee to the really amazing proposition advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He suggested that the Question should be now put; he has not offered to the Committee a single word of reply to the speeches which have been made during the course of this evening. I am quite certain that neither he nor any- 1578 body else who heard these speeches, whether they came from the Irish benches or from my hon. Friends on this side of the House or from some hon. Members on the other side, will pretend that they have been devoid of matter which emphatically requires a reply from the Minister in charge of the Bill. What has that Minister done? He has got up, and in a speech of a few moments avowedly and explicitly confined himself to dealing with one particular point in one particular speech, and he announced he would reserve his reply to some later stage of the discussion. That has been his solitary contribution to this Debate on the night, and one of the nights, which is to be devoted to part of a Budget which in Scotland, in Ireland, and in England, partly from different reasons, partly from the same set of reasons, has excited the profoundest interest, the greatest alarm, possibly approval in some quarters, but certainly criticism which no Chancellor of the Exchequer could venture to ignore. He goes further, and meets all that with absolute silence. It is not as if the Chancellor was not endowed—and very amply endowed—with powers of speaking. We knew him as a ready debater in this House upon all sorts of topics. We are beginning to know him also as an indefatigable interviewer—no, not as an interviewer. What is the converse of interviewer? At any rate, as a Minister absolutely indefatigable in communicating to newspapers of all shades of opinion his views upon the Budget that he is going to conduct in this House in the next few months; but to us in the House of Commons, he is the most reticent Minister we have ever known.
"Silence is golden." He does not reply to our arguments; he replies to arguments which have appeared in the Press and he replies in the Press, but to arguments advanced in the House of Commons he does not reply to in the House of Commons. Those are arguments which he cannot leave unanswered. He has laid down one doctrine with which I do not quarrel. He has laid down the proposition that it is not upon the Budget Resolutions that you can be asked to discuss the many details of proposals which are to find their embodiment in the Budget Bill. Of course I grant that, but while that is admitted, or ought to be admitted by those acquainted with the traditions of this House, those very same persons must equally admit that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to embody in these Resolutions a 1579 general scheme which he is subsequently going to put into the Bill, he is bound to give us a financial estimate of the result and the general character of the proposals themselves. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny either of those two propositions. May I ask has he carried either of them out? Has he told us the general character of the propositions which he wishes to embody, or has he given us the least idea of what the financial results of those proposals will be? I will take the second proposition first. What is the actual amount of money which is to be obtained? I think the right hon. Gentleman estimates it at £1,600,000. We had a speech—the only speech from the Treasury Bench—from the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, who is one of the syndicate of Ministers in charge of this Bill. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office developed quite a new kind of attack upon the adversaries of this Bill. He said to my hon. Friends behind me: "You accuse the Government of being unjust to the brewers and the publicans; don't you see that the Government have already endowed the publicans and the brewers with a sum of money amounting to £2,000,000 on spirits alone, quite apart from all collateral endowments which may be expected to be given to them on the Government proposals for beer." If the publicans and the brewers are getting all this money out of the taxes which the Government propose, let the Government give us an equally definite estimate of how much they expect to get out of the brewers. At present I gather that the tax which was represented to us in the Budget speech as a tax on the trade is in reality not merely a tax upon the consumer, but a great deal more. According to the Under-Secretary to the Home Office you get on spirits alone £2,000,000 out of the taxpayers' pockets, you put £1,600,000 of that into the Treasury, and the difference you give to the brewer. Are those the financial proposals of the Government? Is that the financial scheme by which they mean to stand or fall? If it is, I venture to say it is one which should be defended; and it should not be merely stated casually by the Under-Secretary in reply to certain hon. Friends of mine on this side of the House, but it should be seriously defended by the Minister in charge of the Bill. Confining our attention to spirits alone, I understand all Scotch Members think these proposals 1580 press unequally upon Scotland, the hon. Member for Huddersfield thinks it presses unequally upon England, and the Irish Members think it presses unequally upon Ireland. According to the Government themselves the financial result of their proposal in regard to spirits is that the Treasury get £1,600,000, the public pay £3,600,000, and those concerned in the manufacture or sale of spirits pocket the difference. I am not going into the matter at present, but it should be defended. We have on this critical Question had no speech from the Minister in charge of the Budget. He has adopted a course which is contrary to the whole of the traditions of this House in dealing with great financial proposals which touch great industries in different parts of the United Kingdom, and he makes no defence on behalf of his proposals. In these circumstances, without going myself into the complicated questions, I beg to move, Sir, that you now report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
§ Question put: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, has moved to report Progress on the ground that I have only replied to questions, and not delivered a speech. I have spoken three times on this financial Resolution and a colleague of mine has also spoken. I thought that I had spoken too long. I answered all the questions put to me. A complaint was made that I had not defended an estimate; but that estimate was never attacked. When it comes on I shall defend it, but this is not the proper occasion to defend an estimate which is of a totally different character from the Resolution under discussion. Questions were put to me with regard to hotels, manufacturers' licences, and grocers' licences, but apart from those there was only general abuse of the position of the Government.
The hon. Member, who spoke with his usual incisiveness, charged the Government with being vindictive and punitive. That may be his opinion, but it is not the kind of complaint the right hon. Gentleman wanted me to get up and answer. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not want me to get up and defend the Government in general terms. Any question put on a specific point is bound to be answered by the Minister in charge, and I have replied with regard to the hotel licences, grocers' licences, and those affecting 1581 brewers and manufacturers. Now for the first time the right hon. Gentleman has asked me for a further estimate about a Resolution not yet before the House. That shows what attention the right hon. Gentleman has paid to the Debate.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEMy right hon. Friend was simply answering the criticisms from the other side as to the brewers being ruined by this particular licence duty, and he proved that they are making not £2,000,000, but £2,700,000 by raising prices. When the right hon. Gentleman asks me to give an estimate of how the whisky duty will work out, my reply is that I shall be prepared to give him an estimate at the proper time. But no one has challenged an estimate with regard to licensing, and I still say that the estimate of £2,600,000, when we take into account the allowances to hotels and restaurants is a perfectly fair one, yet the right hon. Gentleman says it must be wrong. I really think we have had a very exhaustive discussion—so exhaustive that when the. right hon. Gentleman rose there was no one on his side who got up to continue the Debate. After all, these are in the nature of formal Resolutions, which have to be carried to enable the Government to bring in the Finance Bill. We have defended every position assailed. The right hon. Gentleman may think the defence inadequate, but the fact remains that there is not a single position which has been challenged which we have not defended. I do trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to withdraw the Motion. He has not been present during the whole of the Debate.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI never heard a more amazing description of what has been going on than that given by the right hon. Gentleman. It certainly does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to reproach my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for not being present during the whole of the Debate.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI did not reproach the right hon. Gentleman. I simply mentioned the fact as accounting for my having been asked for an estimate which I am certain I should not have been asked for had the right hon. Gentleman been present.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt will account for the Chancellor of the Exche- 1582 quer's ignorance of what has occurred to-day if I say he left the House at the commencement of the Debate, and did not reappear till about half-past nine. I believe that is a record for a Minister in charge of a first-class Bill, even in the present Government.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI was here at 8 o'clock.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman was not sitting here.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI was here at 8 o'clock.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI beg the right hon. Gentlemn's pardon. I was here at 8 o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman left the House at 4 o'clock, and according to his recollection he was back at 8 o'clock; according to the recollection of myself and my hon. Friends it was nearer half-past nine when he returned. I do not say that he did not make incursions for a moment just to see how affairs were going on in his absence, but before he attended the Debate it was nearer half-past nine. Really, however, it does not matter much whether it was eight o'clock or half-past nine. The fact is that from the whole of the before-dinner hours the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absent. I know that a Chancellor of the Exchequer having a Budget in hand has very heavy work, that he cannot avoid having engagements which conflict with the meeting of the House, and that the hours of the morning for his other work are insufficient for him to see the people he has to see, and to hold the consultations he has to, but I do say, when he is obliged to seek the indulgence of the House to that extent—and I think it is inconvenient that he should seek it to such an extent—that he ought not to make the observation he did on hon. Gentlemen on this side about their attendance. There is not the same necessity for their attendance as for his. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claims that he has answered all the points that have been raised. I claim that he has not attempted to answer any of the principal points let alone the minor, and so much is that the case, that he himself when he rose after my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth sat down, said that he had intended to make a general reply later on, but in courtesy to my hon. Friend he would at once answer the principal remarks which my hon. Friend made. That is really the only attempt at reply, the only pretence at reply, to any- 1583 thing that has been said in Debate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. He says he has spoken three times. He has risen at the box three times, but he has made no general reply to the very serious points which have been raised. He has made no attempt to answer the case which has been made. Take the case of the hotels. Has he answered? Not a bit. Take the case of the grocers' licences. Has he answered? Not a bit. What he has said is that the Resolution does not bind him, that it does not express the matters which he had in his mind when he made his Budget statement, that he does not know at this moment whether the meaning he expressed in his Budget statement is still his meaning; he had been in conference with hotel-keepers and representatives of grocers' and other interests; he is considering whether he can arrive at his end by other means; whether he can avoid injustices which are permitted by his present proposal, and possibly on the Report stage he may be in a position to state what his proposals are.
I am the last man to complain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for preserving an open mind about such large, and, as we think, ill-considered proposals as he has laid before the House. I should be very sorry, indeed, to think that because he adumbrated certain proposals in his Budget speech, he felt bound as a matter of pride or honour to carry these proposals without amendment or alteration through all their stages in this House. But we cannot discuss proposals of which we have no knowledge. We cannot discuss the future mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we are entitled to know what his present proposals are. Until he has substituted others for them the only proposals with which the Committee can deal are those which he presented to them in his Budget statement. As to those proposals, he has not given a word of explanation. Case after case substantiated by figures and supported by argument has been brought up and all the Chancellor of the Exchequer says is, in the first place, you misconceive my proposals and they will not have these results, and in the second place I do not know whether I am going to stand by my proposals or not. We do not know either, but we rather think not. But in the meantime, we have a right to require from the Government a defence of the proposals which they have laid before us and an answer to the 1584 questions which have been raised. To pretend that he had fully and fairly met the arguments used in debate, or had answered the hard cases or disproved the facts alleged by my hon. Friend is to give the wildest travesty of the proceedings of the evening.
§ Mr. J. J. MOONEYI should not vote for the Motion if it were not for the extraordinary statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made, that he has answered every case which has been brought forward against his proposition. I have not heard any answer to the case put by my hon. Friends around me as regards the special claim of Ireland to exemption. I am not prepared to accept the hon. Member for Lincoln as a substitute for the Chancellor, and while I recognise the full authority of the Under-Secretary to deal with the question of the smoking of cigarettes, I cannot take an answer from him as to whether Ireland is or is not being unjustly treated. There was one very curious thing in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said he had not been challenged on his estimates as to the revenue to be derived from the licence duty. That is quite true. But why? There has been no opportunity. It is my intention to give the right hon. Gentleman a little information which he has not yet given the House, but there are so many propositions entailed in this series of Resolutions which have been put as one that we have never had time to reach that question. The President of the Board of Trade last Tuesday said the Treasury Bench were quite prepared to listen to the special cases which could be brought forward and to give them every consideration.
The only special case I have heard brought forward was that brought forward by the hon. Members for Huddersfield and Lincoln, and the answer given was that the right hon. Gentleman got up to move the closure. That may be the right hon. Gentleman's idea of giving a definite answer to a definite question, but I would venture to suggest to him that he might cast his mind back to the time when he sat below the Gangway on this side of the House. I would ask him whether his experience was that any responsible Minister who took action of that kind ever expedited business in this House. I think you will find that business was got through a great deal quicker when the Minister stated to the House why he could not accept the arguments brought forward against the pro- 1585 posals made. It has been said over and over again that when we have brought forward amendments we have been voted down. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that on any occasion when Resolutions of this kind are closured you are kept up late. In this way you will create a spirit which will not lead to a businesslike measure. Instead of expediting business, you will be kept up considerably longer than you would have been if you had not taken the course which you now propose to take.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI wish to refer to one point which has been raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, the statement that the Debate on this side has flagged, and that no one rose to speak. I sat in this House during last week's Debates, and again to-day, and when I have risen to speak have been drowned out by the eloquence of Ministers. I have at least something to say on behalf of the not unimportant constituency I represent in regard to the questions raised by this Resolution. I know also that several other Members came down to the House desiring to speak on this subject, and when discussing it in the Lobbies they announced their intention to speak. But the right hon. Gentleman at the end of a Debate which has only lasted a few hours, moves the closure upon it. If it is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to get the Resolutions through the House without undue heat or feeling, I beg leave to tell him that by moving the closure when private Members desire to speak he is adopting a mode of procedure which is not likely to create and maintain friendly relations between himself and private Members sitting around me. I think I may say the same on behalf of hon. Members below the Gangway. It is quite true that nobody has discussed in detail the figures relating to the proposed licence duties. Many of us have figures which we desire to place before the Committee. I represent a commercial constituency, and a great number of my Constituents connected with big hotels and a large number of licensed houses have provided me unasked with a mass of figures dealing with the effect which this Resolution will have in that one constituency. The figures in my possession relating to that constituency show that the right hon. Gentleman's figures relating to the whole of the country are utterly and entirely fallacious. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Motion to report Progress in order that there may be oppor- 1586 tunity afforded for placing before the Committee the details and figures which many of us desire to submit, and which show how the Budget proposals are regarded from the point of view of our constituents.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThere is one matter, very concrete and very important, on which the right hon. Gentleman has given no answer whatever. I allude to the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth. He complained that this Resolution was so drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be impossible for him or those who sympathised with him to move the Amendment he desired when the Bill was introduced. The point he raised was he objected to the whole system of taxation by assessment, and the Chancellor said his Resolution was so drawn that any reduction could be made in Committee. But this was not a case of reduction, but of an alternative proposal. As far as he read the Resolution it would not be possible to raise this alternative Resolution when we get the Bill if this Resolution is carried. If this Resolution were merely that certain duties were to be proposed that would be a summary of the Chancellor's intention, but it is so drawn with all these elaborate tables that we shall not be able to raise the Amendment we want. It is so drawn as to restrict our freedom of debate afterwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth gave me a definite and concrete instance of this, and I ask the Chancellor to deal with that: Whether it will or will not be possible to move an Amendment in favour of a poundage assessment rather than an annual assessment? If it is not so, we can only say we shall have to debate this question on the Resolution, and not upon the Bill. I put that specific point to the right hon. Gentleman, and unless he can answer it I intend to vote for the progress.
§ Mr. H. C. LEAI desire to support the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I do so for the simple reason that I have sat through the discussion on these Budget proposals, and I noticed the first day that there was no opportunity for a private Member to speak on the Resolution as regards the imposition of the spirit duty, which is a most serious thing, affecting the wine and spirit trade of this country. The discussion on the first day seemed to me to be a kind of duel between the two Front Benches, and, as usual, the 1587 private Members were ignored; and I think that it is the duty of private Members who are interested, directly or in directly, in the working of the liquor trade, to put their views before this House. My views are that the proposals are of a most vindictive character, and that they are trying to carry through by their Budget what they were unable to pass by legislation. For the last 14 or 15 years of my life I have been connected with the wine and spirit trade in a journalistic capacity. When the Budget proposals were enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was anxious to get the observations of the leading members of the trade on the Budget proposals. I sent a circular out to some of the leading firms in the wine and spirit trade. Those opinions I published on last Saturday. One of the most remarkable replies came from a firm of leading wine merchants of old standing in the City—
§ The CHAIRMANThe Question before the House is to report Progress. The hon. Member is not addressing himself to that Question.
§ Mr. LEAI was alluding to the acts of the Government. I have been debarred from making any comment on the Resolution, and to prove that a similar opinion was held by leading members of the trade who are affected by these Budget Resolutions. I think it is worth while for the House to know that they wrote to me, saying that they had too much regard for my spiritual views, but that they would quote Shakespeare, "Macbeth," Act II., to this effect: "This is a most bloody business."
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member appears to be disregarding my ruling. I must warn him that he is irrelevant.
§ Mr. LEAI have very much pleasure in supporting the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
§ Earl WINTERTONI rise to deal with an accusation made by the right hon. Gentleman against Members on this side of the House, namely, that our opposition was rapidly dying down, and that there was no one on this side who wished to take part in the Debate. I assure the Committee that there are many of us who wish to take part in the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt, made his accusation unintentionally, for I can assure him 1588 that my hon. Friends have not risen for a frivolous purpose, and that since four o'clock the number of hon. Gentlemen on this side who have indicated their desire to speak has never been less than five or six at a time, excepting when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Walton Division rose, and then out of courtesy to him we remained seated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the statement he made. It is a serious accusation to make against us, because if we did not wish to take part in the Debate we should be deliberately failing in our duty towards our Constituents and towards our party. If it is allowed to go out to the country unchallenged it will give rise to a false impression. I think the right hon. Gentleman's having been misinformed arises from the fact that he has not been present during the major part of the Debate. In this matter I think the Committee generally, and especially hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, have a distinct grievance against the Government. It is not the first time it has occurred. Exactly the same thing occurred—and it is in the memory of my hon. Friends on this side of the House—in the course of the Licensing Bill last Session. The right hon. Gentleman says "No." I believe there never has been a Government which, while important business has been under discussion, are so in the habit of leaving the direction of the House in the hands of their Under - Secretaries as are the present Government. They may have a reason for doing it. It may be that they are not willing to trust the Home Secretary or the Board of Trade with the delicate duty of getting those proposals through the House. It may be that; but whatever the reason, business is constantly left in the hands of Under-Secretaries, who unfortunately do not always beforehand agree in what they are going to say, and that results in the inextricable confusion which we have constantly in Committee. I know the right hon. Gentleman is very busy, but I would respectfully suggest to him that if it is not convenient for him to be in the House he should approach the Prime Minister or some Cabinet Minister and ask them to be present in the House. It is not fair to the Committee that the discussion should be left in the hands of Under-Secretaries in this way.
I now come to what I regard as a very serious, no doubt unintentional, misstatement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, 1589 in the course of the speech which he made about half-past ten, replying to the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth, distinctly said he rose at that time because he wished to reply to the special point put by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman, in words which I defy anybody in the House to twist or distort in any way, with the clearest possible unambiguous language, said he intended to deal with other points later on in the evening. The right hon. Gentleman is apparently so overwhelmed with this Budget, I certainly do not blame him, it might puzzle even the cleverest statesman that was ever in this House; he is so apparently overwhelmed by the enormous number of proposals in this Budget that he has quite forgotten what time it is. About five minutes past twelve he forgets a speech made about half-past ten, and he never made any attempt to reply to those points which he said earlier in the evening he intended to reply to. He got up then and moved the Closure, and apparently thought the Debate was there to end.
§ I am sure we on this side of the House are most anxious to have the discussion in a proper way, and without any more party spirit than is necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Gentlemen believe-they are going to get these proposals through the House by the rushing methods conducted by the right hon. Gentleman tonight they are vastly mistaken. The Under-Secretary was good enough to say in the course of his speech that no doubt the Noble Lord, meaning myself, would be glad of having an opportunity of speaking on the many proposals that came before the House. I hope to have an opportunity of speaking on them on next New Year's Day.
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGErose in his place and claimed to move: "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put: "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 130.
1591| Division No. 90.] | AYES. | [12.35 a.m. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Crooks, William | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Crosfield, A. H. | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Agnew, George William | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hudson, Walter |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Hyde, Clarendon G. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Armitage, R. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Duckworth, Sir James | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Jowett, F. W. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Beale, W. P | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lambert, George |
| Beauchamp, E. | Erskine, David C. | Lamont, Norman |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Essex, R. W. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis |
| Bennett, E. N. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Lehmann, R. C |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Fenwick, Charles | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Ferens, T. R. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Brodie, H. C. | Fullerton, Hugh | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lupton, Arnold |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Glover, Thomas | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Griffith, Ellis J | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Gulland, John W. | Maclean, Donald |
| Byles, William Pollard | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Channing, Sir Frederick Allston | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Maddison, Frederick |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Manfieid, Harry (Northants) |
| Cleland, J. W | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) |
| Clough, William | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Haworth, A. A. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hedges, A. Paget | Mason, A. E. W (Coventry) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Helme, Norval Watson | Massie, J. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Corbett, C H. (Sussex, E Grinstead) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Menzies, Walter |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Henderson, J. McD. (A'deen, W.) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Cotton, Sir H. J S | Henry, Charles S. | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Cowan, W. H. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Mond, A. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Higham, John Sharp | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Tomkinson, James |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Robinson, S. | Toulmin, George |
| Morrell, Philip | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Morse, L. L | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Rose, Charles Day | Verney, F. W. |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Rowlands, J | Vivian, Henry |
| Nicholls, George | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Walsh, Stephen |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Rutherford, V H. (Brentford) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Samuel, Rt Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Waring, Walter |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Seaverns, J. H. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Seddon, J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Seely, Colonel | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Sherwell, Arthur James | Watt, Henry A. |
| Pointer, J. | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Simon, John Allsebrook | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Soares, Ernest J. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Radford, G. H. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Summerbell, T. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Sutherland, J. E. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Winfrey, R. |
| Richardson, A. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank. |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Gretton, John | Nolan, Joseph |
| Ambrose, Robert | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Oddy, John James |
| Ashley, W. W. | Haddock, George B. | O'Dowd, John |
| Balcarres, Lord | Halpin, J. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Baldwin, Starley | Hamilton, Marquess of | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | O'Malley, William |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonerry, N.) | Hayden, John Patrick | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hazleton, Richard | Percy, Earl |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Helmsley, Viscount | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Boland, John | Hill, Sir Clement | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hills, J. W. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Bull, Sir William | Hogan, Michael | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hunt, Rowland | Renton, Leslie |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kerry, Earl of | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cave, George | Keswick, William | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kettle, Thomas Michael | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Kilbride, Denis | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Smith, F. E (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col A. R. | Stanier, Beville |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Starkey, John R. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Du Cros, Arthur | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Warde Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Duffy, William J. | M'Kean, John | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Meagher, Michael | Winterton, Earl |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fell, Arthur | Mooney, J. J. | Younger, George |
| Ffrench, Peter | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Morrison-Bell, Capt. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Foster. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Murphy John (Kerry, East) | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
§ Question put accordingly: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
1592§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 218.
1595| Division No. 91.] | AYES. | [12.45 a.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Gretton, John | Nolan, Joseph |
| Ambrose, Robert | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Oddy, John James |
| Ashley, W. W. | Haddock, George B. | O'Dowd, John |
| Balcarres, Lord | Halpin, J. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hamilton, Marquess of | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | O'Malley, William |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hayden, John Patrick | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hazleton, Richard | Percy, Earl |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Helmsley, Viscount | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Boland, John | Hill, Sir Clement | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hills, J. W. | Ratcliffe, Major R F. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hogan, Michael | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hunt, Rowland | Renton, Leslie |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kerry, Earl of | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cave, George | Keswick, William | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kettle, Thomas Michael | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Kilbride, Denis | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Stanier, Beville |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Starkey, John R. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Doughty, Sir George | MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Du Cros, Arthur | M'Kean, John | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Duffy, William J. | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Meagher, Michael | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Winterton, Earl |
| Fell, Arthur | Mooney, J. J. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Ffrench, Peter | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster. |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Gulland, John W. |
| Agnew, George William | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cooper, G. J. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Hardie, J. Kelr (Merthyr Tdyvil) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) |
| Armitage, R. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Cowan, W. H. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Crooks, William | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Crosfield, A. H. | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Beale, W. P. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Beauchamp, E. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Henry, Charles S. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Duckworth, Sir James | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Brodie, H. C. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Hudson, Walter |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Erskine, David C. | Hyde, Clarendon G. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Essex, R. W. | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Evans, Sir S. T. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Fenwick, Charles | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Ferens, T. R. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Fuller, John Michael F. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Fullerton, Hugh | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lambert, George |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Glover, Thomas | Lamont, Norman |
| Cleland, J. W. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis |
| Clough, William | Griffith, Ellis J. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Pointer, J. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Lupton, Arnold | Radford, G. H. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Rainy, A. Rolland | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Raphael, Herbert H. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Tomkinson, James |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Toulmin, George |
| Maclean, Donald | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| M'Callum, John M. | Richardson, A. | Verney, F. W. |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Vivian, Henry |
| Maddison, Frederick | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Waring, Walter |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Robinson, S. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Massie, J. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Menzies, Walter | Rose, Charles Day | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Rowlands, J. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Middlebrook, William | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Mond, A. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Seaverns, J. H. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Morrell, Philip | Seddon, J. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Morse, L. L. | Seely, Colonel | Wiles, Thomas |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Nicholls, George | Simon, John Alisebrook | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Soares, Ernest J. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.) | Winfrey, R. |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Strachey, Sir Edward | |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank. |
| Phllipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Summerbell, T. | |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Sutherland, J. E. |
§ When the result of the Division was announced: OPPOSITION cries of "Where's your majority?" and "Withdraw the Budget."
§ Mr. R. DUNCAN (Lanark, Govan)I desire to say a few words upon the conduct of the Government. Serious statements have been made from this side of the House as to the effect of these proposals upon very important industries. One cannot have the privilege of living in this big city of London, in this the capital of the United Kingdom, the capital of the Empire—["Question"]—without seeing how much it is a city that depends upon hotels. To-night there has been a most serious indictment of the policy of the Government, and we have not the chance of a satisfactory reply. When these Debates are resumed to-morrow—[Cries of "To-day"]—I trust that a different spirit will be shown by the Government then than they have shown. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has disappointed some of his friends. They had expected from the way in which he discharged his duties as President of the Board of Trade, that he would have acted better than he has done as Chancellor of the Exchequer. We how come to the question of licensing clubs.
§ The CHAIRMANThe question of clubs does not arise.
§ Mr. YOUNGERI do not intend to repeat what I said earlier as to brewers and distillers, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has deliberately refused to discuss the distinct question of principle which I put to him. The point which the hon. Member for Huddersfield raised is after all a side issue, and is not a justification for the proposal of the Government, a proposal which involves in many cases the raising of money to the extent of £13,000, £16,000, and £18,000 a year. The hon. Member for Huddersfield argued that the brewers themselves had somewhat changed the position in recent times, because they now sold largely in the smallest wholesale quantities under their licence—that was to say, they sold largely in 4½ gallon casks and in bottles. Possibly some brewers do that, but there are certainly many who do not, and I am one. We have no demand for that sort of thing. But how is it an argument for raising my duty from one guinea to £2,500 a year, even if I sold in the manner referred to? Let the right hon. Gentleman make the duty 10 guineas, and I do not suppose I shall complain, but do not let him add £2,500 for a privilege which I may enjoy 1597 but make no use of. That, I think, is a very important point, and I was very much surprised that so acute and well-informed a Member on this subject as the hon. Member for Huddersfield should have made such an extraordinary statement and tried to support an argument for this proposal on such a flimsy basis. But one of the most, if not the most, important of the proposals we are dealing with now is the change of the scale of full and beerhouse licences. That is really a very serious question. I am bound to confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I have not been able, from want of information And from want of time, to estimate what that addition to the licence really means. It is extremely difficult to do so, unless we have the figures which are at the right hon. Gentleman's disposal. As the House knows perfectly well, the total product of licence duties at the present moment in the United Kingdom is £2,250,000. If the right hon. Gentleman were to double that and add the £400,000 he is going to charge the brewers for their licences, without even including the distillers and the other advances he is making, he would at once get infinitely more than the £2,600,000 he is estimating. I do not know how far he is under-estimating the product of these taxes, but I give the House these facts to show that there must be an under-estimate somehow, considering the enormous addition he is making by charging the rate of valuation. In answering a speech I made last Monday the right hon. Gentleman very cleverly shifted his ground by stating to the House that he rather proposed—indeed, he did me the honour of saying that he was considering the propriety of accepting a suggestion I myself had made—to base this licence on a different kind of rating from that on which it was based at the present moment. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman cannot ride off on that horse.
If he will take the trouble to look at the Official Report of his speech, which I suppose is probably the type-written paper from which he read, he will find a cross-heading on page 521, at the top of the paragraph, about assessments which is entirely condemnatory of his new-found theory. The cross-heading is "Inadequate Assessments," and the House sees perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind not the taxing of 50 per cent. of the existing rateable value under Schedule A, but the taxing of a new valuation which will yield him 1598 a great deal more than the existing taxation. That, I think, is perfectly obvious from his speech. Then the right hon. Gentleman said he was going to base it on the Kennedy Judgment. What has that to do with rating? It has to do with profits and goodwill, but has nothing whatever to do with rating. It cannot be applied to rating with any fairness or anything else. I am really sorry for the position in which the Prime Minister finds himself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone away altogether from the Prime Minister on the question of brewers' licences. The Prime Minister said there was no monopoly value, and, therefore, it was not a proper thing to tax. He laboured last year to tell us what monopoly consisted of. He said it did not include this, that, and the other thing, and all these things it did not include were things the State had no right to tax. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes forward, and in the name of licence duties proposes to tax a great deal more than the Prime Minister proposed to take from the licence-holder in the shape of monopoly value in 21 years.
But there are many other serious points which I would like to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice. Under this scale there will be very grave inequalities as between the various bodies of traders. There will be an accentuation of the existing great inequality between public-houses and clubs, and if the right hon. Gentleman carries out his proposals, it is certain that within a short time the channels of distribution will be entirely changed. At the present moment liquor is largely retailed by on-licensed houses. They are already highly rated, and, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, they will be still more highly rated. The club, which has not a heavy licence duty to pay, will undersell the regular house, and yet make a large profit. Thus the channel through which the article is at present distributed will be changed, and, I think, to the grave social disadvantage of the community, and most certainly to the grave disadvantage of the revenue. I think the House will be interested to hear a comparison between the drawings of various houses and the cost of carrying on their trade under the new proposal. I have received the following figures from Mr. Edward Buxton of actual cases. I give one case as being very much to the point. A beer-shop with £500 worth of drawings a year will pay £30 a year under the new scale. A fully-licensed house drawing the 1599 same amount in beer, but with the additional amount of spirits, will pay £135 a year.
A club with a trade of £500 will pay £8 10s. Now to equalise that state of things you will require to tax the club doing under £400 a year, or you will turn the whole of this trade into their channels, and your licence duty will fail, and we shall have a large portion of the liquor trade in their unregulated and very unsafe hands. The right hon. Gentleman said in his Budget speech that he proposed to make the brewer pay this increased taxation in the case of the tied houses. That, I think, he said. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the London brewers, for example, who will be asked or compelled by this clause to pay this new duty, have only a partial interest in these tied houses? Does he know that they have no interest in these houses except in the beer sold in them? Does he know that a large amount of their rateable value will depend upon the spirits sold in them, and that the tenant is free to buy spirits from whom be pleases? Dees he know that he is going to place on them a tax in order to provide distillers with a channel for selling whisky? If he does not, it is another commentary on the bad advice the right hon. Gentleman has got. I also took occasion to say when I last spoke that there were two ways of taxing monopolies—a direct and an indirect way. I pointed out that there was this initial tax of 3d. on beer in the shape of the brewer's licence, and that I was not aware of what the additional tax on the article would be owing to the new liability he placed on these brewers. Mr. Buxton tells me he has had it taken out, and that the two taxes on beer, so far as he is concerned, will amount to 2s. 6d. per barrel—that is to say, that the indirect tax under this scheme will be 2s. 6d., or one-third more than the present duty. It is exactly the same duty the right hon. Gentleman is placing on spirits, namely, one-third of 11s. That is a matter which I hope the House will bear in mind, and that they will not ride away in the belief that the right hon. Gentleman is wholly exempting beer from his scheme of taxation. I do not propose to enter into the question of hotels. Here, again, the right hon. Gentleman has been badly advised. What his advisers forgot to tell him was that at the present moment there is a maximum beyond which you cannot rate a hotel. Under his scheme there is no maximum, and that is the trouble. That is why these large figures 1600 have been brought forward by my hon. Friends and right hon. Friends. They are correct in their figures. In the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement there is no qualification, excepting the differential rating.
Therefore it is obvious that the extreme forgetfulness of his advisers has landed him in a mess, which he has realised from the fact that he says such figures were never in his mind. I do not believe they were for a moment. I venture to believe that it was bad advice that made the right hon. Gentleman commit that mistake, and that in no sense of the word did he intend to place these ridiculous charges on hotels. With regard to the mixed trader, I have received any amount of letters from these people complaining that they are going to be rated on their general business, and not merely on the liquor they sell. That is a question which the right hon. Gentleman will deal with later, and with which, in the interests of fairness, he will have to deal. He will also have to consider whether a small passenger vessel is to be charged at the same rate as a large ship. There is such a thing as tonnage and registered capacity. The right hon. Gentleman, if he is to be consistent, will have to rate ships at the same rates as he proposes in regard to public-houses, namely, by a graduated scale. I believe it can be done on the register or the tonnage. I have some Constituents who have written to me about it, and I mention it in order that the right hon. Gentleman may consider it. We are only now laying the foundation for the future struggle over this Budget. That it will be a long struggle, a hard struggle, and perhaps a bitter struggle, I think I can promise the right hon. Gentleman. I do hope that these discussions will show that there is not only room, but necessity, for some considerable change in almost the whole of these schemes. They are too high; they are exorbitant; they are more than the trade can afford. It is taxed almost to the death already. It is a declining trade and this is only giving it a shove further down the hill. If large additions are made to the retail price inevitably you must reduce consumption and to that extent you will heavily handicap a trade already none too profitable, and a trade that really needs a little assistance up the hill, rather than a push down the hill.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman has stated with his usual ability the case for the trade. Most of the points 1601 which he has put have already been dealt with, although undoubtedly he has dealt with them with considerable freshness and lucidity. I will just cover the points briefly. The first objection which he raised to my scale was one to the manufacturers' licence. I have already dealt with that specifically on the Amendment which he seconded earlier in the day. This, after all, is simply restoring an old licence which was in existence before 1880. It was a licence of 2d. a barrel—a licence paid by the brewers. The hon. Member objects to it, but the brewers paid it for a considerable number of years without complaint.
§ Mr. YOUNGEROh, yes, they did complain. They had a deputation every year to Mr. Gladstone. I was on one or two myself.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is an old tax which they were able to transfer to their customers with a considerable margin of profit. The hon. Gentleman talks as if the whole were to fall on the trade itself. As a matter of fact we know that so far from it falling on the trade, the trade is taking the occasion of these licences to make a very handsome profit out of the public on the transaction. The hon. Member has challenged me with regard to the estimates, but he has forgotten one matter, and that is the reduction, and a very substantial reduction, I am making—the one-third reduction.
§ Mr. YOUNGERWe do not know what it is.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI agree it is very difficult to estimate it. All we can do is to get a very rough estimate, for the simple reason that there are no returns for the present moment to enable the Government or any member of the trade to estimate it. No member of the trade can say how many licensees can claim under this one-third imposition. My own opinion is that there will be a very considerable number, and I admit a very considerable reduction on that assumption. That is a serious reduction in the gross amount, which I otherwise might claim, under these licence duties. Well, now, the hon. Member has alluded to the proposals which we have indicated with regard to hotels. If he refers to my Budget statement, he will find that I indicated clearly that it was the intention of the Governemnt, as soon as they could get an assessment, to proceed on 1602 the basis of monopoly value, and I said:—
This assessment, when it is complete, will be translated into terms of annual value, and the licence will be levied accordingly.And if the hon. Member will just look at the next sentence he will see that I pointed out that the result of the present system was that it inflicted injustice as between one licence holder and another. And I say that under the proposals now submitted: "The burdens of some publicans may be lightened, those of others may be increased, but on the whole justice will be done, as each man will be called upon to pay according to the value which he receives from the privilege which the State confers upon him." That is exactly what I pointed out. The hon. Gentleman took about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes to prove that to the Committee. He said the monopoly value in the case of the hotel licences was not comparable with the monopoly value in the case of the ordinary public-house. I agree, and for that reason our assessment upon hotels will be correspondingly light. He will find that in so many words in my Budget statement. He will find that the whole point is covered. That is a general principle for which I am not responsible. It was incorporated in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for. It is the principle of monopoly value. Reduce that to annual value, and you will find that all these fabulous figures with regard to the Carlton, the Ritz, and the Savoy have absolutely no basis except in the imagination of those who have been working at them. Now I come to the third point. He said there was inequality between public-houses and clubs. There have been nothing but inequalities up to the present moment. Clubs pay no licence at all, and I introduce for the first time the principle of charging the clubs a licence—I do not mean to say on the same basis as public-houses, because a club is not a public-house. I distinguish between hotels and restaurants and ordinary public-houses, and I also distinguish between clubs and public-houses. It is on totally different principles. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite would press me to charge an ordinary club on the same basis as they would charge a hotel or public-house where drink is sold for profit. I should like to know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite wish that to be done? We have adopted the principle of taxing clubs on the pro- 1603 portion of drink they sell. I thought that was agreed upon by all. It was constantly urged during the discussion of the Licensing Bill by hon. Gentlemen opposite. With regard to the figures as to beer licences, I cannot quite accept them. The hon. Member took the case of a beer-house with £500 takings. That is a small concern.
§ Mr. YOUNGERIt was a £30 licence.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI can hardly think that whoever supplied that information was giving the hon. Member a sample case. A £30 licence would be of £60 annual value, and he knows that £60 represents actual annual value of £120 a year. Does he mean to say it would only have a turnover of £500?
§ Mr. YOUNGERI can only say that those figures were given to me by a Mr. Buxton.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Member must give me more particulars. That cannot be a sample—a typical—case of a beer-house. He knows that an ordinary beer-house of £100 rent would have a bigger turnover than £500 in the course of the year. I do not know what the profits would be on that. Then I come to the hon. Member's other point. He made some small but undoubtedly very important points in regard to passenger vessels, and spoke of graduating the scale on what is the tonnage. But that is no criterion at all as to the quantity of drink that is sold. He might get a considerable-sized liner on which less drink is sold than on some of the smaller vessels that ply up and down some of our rivers. We thought that the best plan was to charge a uniform fee. It would be quite impossible to get a graduated fee. Now in regard to his suggestion that the brewers were charged unfairly. I think he said that the charges imposed on the traders in this Bill represented 2s. 6d. per barrel.
§ Mr. YOUNGERI said on the London brewers.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI take it that that means it would be less throughout the country. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that the charge in London is anything like a fair average throughout the whole country. It will probably be considerably less. Here in 1604 London we have a maximum charge of 2s. 6d. They are going to put the price of beer up so as to get 12s. per barrel. Then the hon. Gentleman complains that we are crushing those concerned. As a matter of fact, they get 10s. per barrel. I think I have now covered all the points of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Most of them are points that have been already dealt with; but I am very pleased to give the information.
§ The PRIME MINISTERrose in his place and claimed to move: "That the Question be now put."
§ Mr. ARTHUR S. WILSONOn a point of order, may I ask whether there is any precedent for a Resolution of this immense size and importance being closured when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been absent during the greater part of it, and when the Leader of the House has been absent practically the whole of it?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member in the question he has put is expressing doubt of my exercise of the discretion vested in me in the chair. If he desires to do that, he must do it on a substantive motion; I cannot answer the question now.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSOn a point of order, may I ask whether there is to be no possibility of the Amendments which have been handed in being moved. We have not had an opportunity of moving a single Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANAs a matter of courtesy, I will tell the hon. Member a considerable sheaf of Amendments were handed in after midnight. Most of those handed in at an earlier stage of the proceedings were not moved, hon. Members who proposed to do so stating in the speeches they made that it was not their intention to move.
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ The PRIME MINISTERrose in his place and claimed to move: "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put: "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 127.
1607| Division No. 92.] | AYES. | [1.30 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Agnew, George William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Hedges, A. Paget | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Armitage, R. | Helme, Norval Watson | Richardson, A. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Hemmerde, Edward George | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Henry, Charles S. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Higham, John Sharp | Robinson, S. |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Beale, W. P. | Horniman, Emslie John | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Beauchamp, E. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rose, Charles Day |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hudson, Walter | Rowlands, J. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Seddon, J. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Jowett, F. W. | Seely, Colonel |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | King, Alfred John (Knutstord) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Lambert, George | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Lamont, Norman | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lehmann, R. C. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lewis, John Herbert | Summerbell, T. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Clough, William | Lupton, Arnold | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grimstead | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Maclean, Donald | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Tomkinson, James |
| Cowan, W. H. | M'Callum, John M. | Toulmin, George |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Maddison, Frederick | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Crooks, William | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) | Verney, F. W. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Vivian, Henry |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Massie, J. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Waring, Walter |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Menzies, Walter | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Middlebrook, William | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Mond, A. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Watt, Henry A. |
| Erskine, David C. | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Essex, R. W. | Morrell, Philip | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Morse, L. L. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Fenwick, Charles | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Nicholls, George | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wiles, Thomas |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Glover, Thomas | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Winfrey, R. |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Pointer, J. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Gulland, John W. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tdyvil) | Radford, G. H. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Castlereagh, Viscount |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Cave, George |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Bignold, Sir Arthur | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Boland, John | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Bowles, G. Stewart | Clive, Percy Archer |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Bull, Sir William James | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Burke, E. Haviland- | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Carlile, E. Hildred | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Kerry, Earl of | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Kettle, Thomas Michael | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Kilbride, Denis | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Duffy, William J. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Renton, Leslie |
| Esmond, Sir Thomas | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Fell, Arthur | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Kean, John | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Meagher, Michael | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Gretton, John | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Stanier, Beville |
| Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Mooney, J. J. | Starkey, John R. |
| Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) | Morpeth, Viscount | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Haddock, George B. | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Halpin, J. | Newdegate, F. A. N. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Hamilton, Marquess of | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Nolan, Joseph | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Oddy, John James | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Hazleton, Richard | O'Dowd, John | Winterton, Earl |
| Helmsley, Viscount | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Hill, Sir Clement | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Younger, George |
| Hills, J. W. | O'Malley, William | |
| Hogan, Michael | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster. |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Hunt, Rowland | Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley | |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Percy, Earl |
§ Main Question put accordingly.
1608§ The committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 123.
1609| Division No. 93.] | AYES. | [1.45 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Crooks, William | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Agnew, George William | Crosfield, A. H. | Hudson, Walter |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hyde, Clarendon G. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Armitage, R. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Duckworth, Sir James | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Jowett, F. W. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Erskine, David C. | Lambert, George |
| Beale, W. P. | Essex, R. W. | Lamont, Norman |
| Beauchamp, E. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Evans, Sir S. T. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Fenwick, Charles | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Ferens, T. R. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Fullerton, Hugh | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Brodie, H. C. | Glover, Thomas | Lupton, Arnold |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gulland, John W. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Burns. Rt. Hon. John | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Maclean, Donald |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tdyvil) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Maddison, Frederick |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) |
| Clough, William | Hedges, A. Paget | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Helme, Norval Watson | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hemmerde, Edward George | Massie, J. |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Henderson, J. McD. (Ab'deen, W.) | Menzies, Walter |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Henry, Charles S. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Middlebrook, William |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Higham, John Sharp | Mond, A. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Horniman, Emslie John | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Morrell, Philip | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Toulmin, George |
| Morse, L. L. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Rose, Charles Day | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Rowlands, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Nicholls, George | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Vivian, Henry |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Waring, Walter |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Seaverns, J. H. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Seddon, J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Seely, Colonel | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Pointer, J. | Sherwell, Arthur James | Watt, Henry A. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A W. H. | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Simon, John Allsebrook | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Soares, Ernest J. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Radford, G. H. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Rea, Russell (Gloucester), | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Summerbell, T. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Sutherland, J. E. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Richardson, A. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Tennant, H. J. Berwickshire) | Winfrey, R. |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank. |
| Robinson, S. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | |
| Robson. Sir William Snowdon | Tomkinson, James | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Gretton, John | Oddy, John James |
| Ambrose, Robert | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | O'Dowd, John |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gwynn, Stephen Luclus | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Haddock, George B. | O'Malley, William |
| Balcarres, Lord | Halpin, J. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hamilton, Marquess of | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Percy, Earl |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hayden, John Patrick | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hazleton, Richard | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Helmsley, Viscount | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Boland, John | Hill, Sir Clement | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hills, J. W. | Remnant James Farquharson |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hogan, Michael | Renton, Leslie |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hunt, Rowland | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kerry, Earl of | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cave, George | Kettle, Thomas Michael | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kilbride, Denis | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Stanier, Beville |
| Craig. Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Starkey, John R. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Duffy, William J. | Meagher, Michael | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Mooney, J. J. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morpeth, Viscount | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Winterton, Earl |
| Fell, Arthur | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Ffrench, Peter | Newdegate, F. A. N. | Younger, George |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Nolan, Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster. |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
Motion made, and Question: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—[Mr. Austen Chamberlain]—put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI desire to move that you, Sir, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. It is now nearly 2 o'clock in the morning, and we are still at an early stage of the Budget discussion. I should hope that the Chancel- 1610 lor of the Exchequer is not going to begin by driving and straining the machine at its very hardest. Considering the complexity of the Resolution which we have been discussing, and the number of issues involved, we on these Benches feel that it 1611 has not had more consideration than is its due, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be well content to let Members go home to bed at this hour. It is not a good time to begin new business. It so happens that the next Resolution on the Paper, although, as the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of the sitting, it was put down in response to criticism made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is a Resolution which comes before us now for the first time, and therefore has had no examination at all. Though I need scarcely say that I am not going to lead an opposition to an Amendment put down in response to the request or demand of my right hon. Friend, there are some points which arise upon it, and which we must bring to the notice of the Committee, and to which we must ask for a response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it would be very inconvenient to begin this discussion at 2 o'clock in the morning, when no report of the proceedings could reach the public concerned. I think it is common knowledge that unless there is what the Press is pleased to call a scene—and then they describe that, and do not report the discussion—no report of our proceedings reaches the public. Under those circumstances I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be satisfied with the enormous mass of business which, under cover of one Resolution he has already secured at this sitting, and will not press the Committee to take fresh business at this hour.
§ Question proposed: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI hoped we might have been able to get not merely the Customs, but the clubs as well to-night. There is, however, much force in what the right hon. Gentleman says—at any rate, so far as clubs are concerned. But I think the Government are entitled to ask the Committee to pass what is really a formal Resolution with regard to Customs, and which is consequential upon the other Resolution. We put it down at the request of the Opposition. They suggested that unless there was a corresponding Customs duty there would be a preference for the foreign brewer. It was the Prime Minister, I think, who said, "Very well; if you take that view, though we thought it was rather too trivial a matter, we will put it down," and there was a general 1612 response from the Opposition. It is only a matter of £600 or £700 altogether, and that was why the Government did not in the first place put it down. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow this formal Resolution to go through now I will agree to report progress when we come to the clubs.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI appreciate the willingness of the right hon. Gentleman to meet me to some extent, but the right hon. Gentleman talks of all these proceedings as being formal—a word which he constantly makes use of. I never heard it from the Opposition when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer when we were discussing strip tobacco or anything else. In this case the point I want to raise can only be raised effectually in the Committee stage. It is argued—and I think rightly—that neither he nor the House are bound to charge by the Bill, which is going to be founded on the Resolution, the full duties printed in the Resolution. That is true; but the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that you cannot charge more than the Resolution authorises you to charge. I cannot raise my point here, but the point which I wish to make is that the duty which the right hon. Gentleman put down is not the equivalent of the Excise. That I can only raise effectually at the Committee stage. If I convinced the right hon. Gentleman he would need to have a new Committee stage to correct his error.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEDoes this mean merely altering a figure? If the right hon. Gentleman will give me the figure now—
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the figure. I have not the advice or information which would authorise me to suggest a figure. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his Resolution infringes a principle which he has recognised throughout the whole of our existing Customs duties, and if he intends to follow the existing practice in regard to Customs duties, his proposed scale is inadequate. I submit we ought not to have to begin a discussion of that matter at two o'clock in the morning, after the prolonged sitting.
§ Mr. YOUNGERMay I point out that it would be very advisable to take the advice of Somerset House on this point again? The right hon. Gentleman is not placing the equivalent duty on this article.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am very anxious to meet the Opposition on these points. I do not know whether the right 1613 hon. Gentleman can tell me this. It is difficult for me to meet him on the merits until he tells me exactly what his point is, then possibly I may be able to meet it. If he says the amount is inadequate, I shall be glad to meet him upon that. Will he give me an assurance, supposing that we postpone this, that the Debate on it will not take long? I do not want this Resolution, which, after all, is not very important—it is merely a matter of £600 or £700 to the revenue on the whole quantity of beer coming into this country—to take much of our time. If I assent, on behalf of the Government, to this Motion to report progress now, is it understood that the Debate will not be prolonged, otherwise I am afraid we shall have to go on to-night. If we get a Resolution of this kind in front of important business tomorrow it might delay it for hours, and I do not think that would be convenient, even from the point of view of the Opposition.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMy own opinion is that it would not last very long, but I am not able to give the right hon. Gentleman any pledge. If he requires any pledge we must go on.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI desire to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to report progress. This Resolution may raise important questions. The question of preference has been raised, and also the question of the fiscal relations between Great Britain and foreign powers. We do not want to raise these questions at this time of the evening. If the right hon. Gentleman leaves the Debate till to-morrow, and it is unduly prolonged, he has the remedy to his hand, and he has shown himself not at all chary of using it to-night. I venture to think that if a few moments are spent over this Resolution to-morrow, when, perhaps, all of us will be in a better temper than we are now, and when we shall have had an opportunity of thinking over the Amendments we propose to move unless the right hon. Gentleman meets us, it will not take any considerable time.
§ Mr. J. GRETTONIt really appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to carry out the best intentions. He has the matter entirely in his own hands. The point is a technical point, and many Members of the House cannot very well take part in the Debate upon it provided it is settled and agreed upon by those who understand it. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to meet this technical point 1614 in a fair spirit he will be consulting the interests of the House and of his own Resolution by agreeing to the Motion to report progress now. If he agrees that the point is a substantial one—and I believe it is—he will easily carry the Resolution by accepting a reasonable solution of the difficulty.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI paused a moment before getting up, in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to rise and accept the Motion. I am sure he will recognise that it is far wiser to do so in the interests of discussion. What is the desperate hurry about these Resolutions? Why are they pushed and bullied through the House in this way? A great deal of the time of the Session will be devoted to the discussion of the Budget, and why this preliminary stage should be rushed through in this indecent haste I cannot for my own part imagine. Surely the very valuable points made on a great many occasions already must have convinced the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the advisability of listening to some extent to the criticisms made upon his proposals, both on this side of the House and from the other side also. He must bear in mind that his proposals have not escaped criticism from the Benches opposite. That accounts for the very slender majorities the Government have rejoiced in this evening. I should think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have known by previous occurrences, both in this Parliament and in previous Parliaments, that things do not get through this House any quicker by being driven through ruthlessly and remorselessly under the belief that it is necessary for minorities to suffer. If he considers his own interests, the interests of the Government as a whole, and the interests of the Budget discussions generally, he will find it desirable to keep to the point and not to allow the Debate to degenerate into those early-morning discussions we have had on other subjects. If he bears in mind these considerations he will agree to the proposition made by my right hon. Friend and accept this Motion. There is no doubt in the minds of many Members sitting around me that, if we take this Resolution to-night, the discussion will be prolonged, not through any particular wish on our part to prolong it, but because there will not be a sufficient elucidation of the point on which the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench desires to move, and which the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs also has in mind. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer 1615 were to consider the point between now and to-morrow, he will then be in a position to say at once whether or not he will accede to it, and the probable event is that he would accept it, so that to-morrow there will be no necessity for any further Debate. That is a most important consideration, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Motion.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not want to remorselessly and ruthlessly press the Bill through without giving fair play to the Opposition. I have been too long in Opposition myself not to feel sympathy with the Opposition. I understand the hon. Member for Rutland that in his judgment the matter ought not to take long to discuss. What I am thinking is whether it will take long to-morrow. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Well, if that is the general view, I agree. I want to know if that is the view of the Opposition. [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes."] I agree that it is undesirable that we should enter upon a prolonged discussion, and I have no doubt that it may occasionally be heated. On the understanding that it will not take long, I agree to the suggestion
§ Resolution to be reported this day; Committee to sit again this day.