§ There shall be a minimum duty payable on the publican's licence and the beerhouse licence respectively, as shown in
|Publican's Licence.||Beerhouse Licence.|
|In areas which are not urban areas, and in urban areas with a population of less than 2,000||5||3||10|
|In urban areas with a population of—|
|2,000 and less than 5,000||10||6||10|
|5,000 and less than 10,000||15||10||0|
|10,000 and less than 50,000||20||13||0|
|50,000 and less than 100,000||30||20||0|
|100,000 or above||35||23||10|
§ For the purposes of this scale an urban area means any county borough, borough, or other urban district; and the administrative county of London shall be deemed to be a single urban area; and population shall be calculated according to the last published census for the time being.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved to insert as a new line below "Population" the words "In Great Britain."
§ This Amendment, to use an Irishism, is consequential upon something which is to2032
§ the following scale and where the annual value of any licensed premises is less than the annual value to which the minimum duty corresponds, duty shall be charged as if the premises were of that annual value.
§ follow," and I will make a short statement to the Committee on the Amendment which appears later.
The effect of inserting these words would be that there would be no scale at all for Ireland until we come to the consequential Amendments, and I think, therefore, it would be quite in order to discuss the matter on the later Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 69.2035
|Division No. 774.]||AYES.||[5.17 p.m.|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Gulland, John W.||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Nuttall, Harry|
|Alden, Percy||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Ambrose, Robert||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||O'Shee, James John|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Partington, Oswald|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Harrington, Timothy||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Hart-Davies, T.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Philips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Barker, Sir John||Healy, Timothy Michael||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Hedges, A. Paget||Pointer, J.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Helme, Norval Watson||Pollard, Dr. G. H.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Henry, Charles S.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Higham, John Sharp||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Beale, W. P.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Rainy, A. Holland|
|Benn, w. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Hodge, John||Reddy, M.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hogan, Michael||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Boland, John||Horniman, Emslie John||Rees, J. D.|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Brigg, John||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Robinson, S.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Jenkins, J.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Joyce, Michael||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Byles, William Pollard||Kavanagh, Walter M.||Rowlands, J.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Kekewich, Sir George||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Kelley, George D.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Clough, William||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Laldlaw, Robert||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Lament, Norman||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Sears, J. E.|
|Cooper, G. J.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Seddon, J.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lewis, John Herbert||Seely, Colonel|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Shackleton, David James|
|Crossley, William J.||Lundon, T.||Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Duckworth, Sir James||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||M'Callum, John M.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Erskine, David C.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Essex, R. W.||Marnham, F. J.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Summerbell, T.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Middlebrook, William||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Mond, A.||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Mooney, J. J.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Field, William||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Findlay, Alexander||Morse, L. L.||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Muldoon, John||Toulmin, George|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Murnaghan, George||Verney, F. W.|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Gill, A. H.||Myer, Horatio||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Ginnell, H.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Napier, T. B.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Nicholls, George||Weir, James Galloway|
|White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)||Williamson, Sir A.||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Wiles, Thomas||Wilson, W. T. (Wetthoughton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain|
|Wilkie, Alexander||Young, Samuel||Norton and Sir E. Strachey.|
|Arstruther-Gray, Major||Fletcher, J. S.||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Glendinning, R. G.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Renwick, George|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hamilton, Marquess of||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Heaton, John Henniker||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Helmsley, Viscount||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hill, Sir Clement||Stanier, Beville|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Hills, J. W.||Starkey, John R.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Clark, George Smith||Kerry, Earl of||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Kimber, Sir Henry||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Winterton, Earl|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Fell, Arthur||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Moore.|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||M'Arthur, Charles|
§ Mr. GIBBS moved, in the table (Scale 3), after the line ["5,000 and less than 10,000, etc.], to insert:—
§ "10,000 and less than 30,000… £17 10s.…. £11 10s.,"
§ and in the succeeding line ["10,000 and less than 50,000, etc"], to leave out "10,000," and to insert instead thereof "30,000."
§ If the Schedule remains as it is there are going to be a great many hard cases in towns which have just over 10,000 in population. It is a great jump from 10,000 to 50,000, and it seems to me the Government would do well to insert the Amendment I suggest, and make the duty in towns between 10,000 and 30,000 £17 10s. for a publican's licence and £11 10s. for a beerhouse licence. It would be very hard upon smaller towns if they are put upon the same footing as towns of 50,000 inhabitants. After all, there as a great difference between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, and I cannot help thinking the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The Government would, of course, be happy to consider any proposals backed up by cogent arguments for any modifications in such a scale as is now proposed for the first time, but I cannot admit that the hon. Member has advanced any considerations why the uniformity of the scale should be broken in the case of these towns. The scale goes up by steps of £5 all through, and the hon. Member proposes to interpolate in the middle the anomalous sum of £17 10s., 2036 whilst the only reason he advances is that in towns of a population between 10,000 and 30,000 publicans of low-value houses would prefer to pay £17 10s. than £20, which is obvious. If that concession were made, I am afraid the Government would be unable to resist similar Amendments making stages by £2 10s. instead of £5, which is a more far-reaching proposition than the hon. Gentleman has advanced. His Amendment is not one that the Government can possibly accept.
Mr. G. D. FABER
My hon. Friend's point is that the step between 10,000 and 50,000 is too steep. You ought not to go from 10,000 to 50,000 at one jump. You ought to go from 10,000 to 30,000, and then from 30,000 to 50,000. My hon. Friend desires that where the population is between 10,000 and less than 30,000 the duty shall be £17 10s. in the case of full on-licences and £11 10s. in the case of beerhouses. I understand that to be the object of the Amendment—to alter the graduation. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself exactly to that argument. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall think it my duty to support him.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
May I point out that actual symmetry is not carried out even now, as there is a jump in regard to the publican's licences, from £20 to £30, and, when you come to the beerhouse scale you have still greater anomalies. I think in almost every case the limit is 2037 drawn at the population of 20,000 inhabitants. It certainly was done in the case of the Education Act, and it has also been applied in Local Government Acts. There is always a difference made between small and important towns, and I hope the theory of the Government is that the position of these houses becomes more valuable accordingly as the population increases. Still, I think there ought to be some step between £10 and £50.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I quite agree that it may be advisable before the Report stage to consider as to introducing an intermediate step. The newest analogy
§ for this scale is to be found in the Act of 1872, but the steps there are much greater. If the population is less than 10,000 the minimum is £15, but then it jumps from 10,000 to 100,000, with a minimum of £30, and a minimum value of £50 for over 100,000 of population. That is very much steeper, and it should be remembered that the beerhouses duties are two-thirds of the public-house duties.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 67.2039
|Division No. 775.]||AYES.||[5.35 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Everett, R. Lacey||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Middlebrook, William|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Findlay, Alexander||Mond, A.|
|Alden, Percy||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Fullerton, Hugh||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Morse, L. L.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Gill, A. H.||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Myer, Horatio|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Glendinning, R. G.||Napier, T. B.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Nicholls, George|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Barker, Sir John||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Gulland, John W.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Partington, Oswald|
|Barnes, G. N.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Beale, W. P.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Pointer, J.|
|Bonn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Pollard, Dr. G. H.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hedges, A. Paget||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Helme, Norval Watson-||Rainy, A. Holland|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Henry, Charles S.||Rees, J. D.|
|Brigg, John||Higham, John Sharp||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Brodie, H. C.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Robinson, S.|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Hodge, John||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Horniman, Emslie John||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Rowlands, J.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Illingworth, Percy H.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Clough, William||Jackson, R. S.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Jardine, Sir J.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Jenkins, J.||Sears, J. E.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Seddon, J.|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Seely, Colonel|
|Cooper, G. J.||Kekewich, Sir George||Shackleton, David James|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Kelley, George D.||Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Laidlaw, Robert||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Lamont, Norman||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Cowan, W. H.||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Crossley, William J.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Steadman, W. C.|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lewis, John Herbert||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Summerbell, T.|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Duckworth, Sir James||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||M'Callum, John M.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Erskine, David C.||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Essex, R. W.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Toulmin, George|
|Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Weir, James Galloway||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Verney, F. W.||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)||Wilkie, Alexander||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Williamson, Sir A.||Norton and Sir E. Strachey.|
|Waterlow, D. S.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Fletcher, J. S.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Forster, Henry William||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Hamilton, Marquess of||Renwick, George|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Heaton, John Henniker||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Helmsley, Viscount||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hill, Sir Clement||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Carlile, E. Mildred||Hills, J. W.||Stanier, Beville|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Starkey, John R.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Kerry, Earl of||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Kimber, Sir Henry||Valentia, Viscount|
|Clark, George Smith||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Winterton, Earl|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||M'Arthur, Charles|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Moore, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel|
|Fell, Arthur||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Walker and Mr. G. A. Gibbs.|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved, at the end of Scale 3 [Minimum Duty payable for Publican's and Beerhouse Licences], to add the following:—
§ "In Ireland—
|In areas which are not urban areas, and in urban areas with a population of less than 10,000||5||0||3||10|
|In urban areas with a population of 10,000 or above||7||10||4||0."|
§ This is the Amendment foreshadowed by the Government yesterday afternoon, and it applies a different minimum to Ireland as compared with the scale already passed for Great Britain. The matter was dealt with pretty fully by the Prime Minister yesterday, and there was considerable debate on it; therefore, it will not be necessary for me to go into very great detail, or even to deal at length with the principle. I desire to put before the House some facts additional to those stated yesterday by the Prime Minister, in order to show that the case of Ireland is peculiar and special, and differs substantially from the case of Great Britain. The normal increase of Licence Duties under this Bill is 50 per cent. of the annual value, and the minimum is only brought in in order to have an addition to that 50 per cent. where the circumstances make it justifiable. Everybody knows that the proportion of 2040 low-value public-houses in Ireland is very much higher than in England, Scotland, or Wales, and I need hardly say that it is in the case of the lower value public-houses that the minimum charge applies. It has no effect on the houses as they ascend the scale of annual value. Taking houses under £20 annual value in Ireland, and comparing them with similar houses in England and Scotland, we find this extraordinary fact: that the percentage of houses, the annual value of which is under £20, is in England 12 per cent., in Scotland 8 per cent;., and in Ireland 75 per cent. Again, the proportion of houses the annual value of which is £50 works out: England, 49 per cent.: Scotland, 42 per cent.; and Ireland 95 per cent. The Prime Minister gave figures yesterday to show that in the urban areas of Ireland particularly there was a greater proportion of these smaller houses than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The figures which can be established as showing the extra amount which would be contributed under these duties over and above the 50 per cent. by reason of the application of the minimum, are very significant when you compare the case of Ireland with circumstances as they exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. In towns like Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny and Galway the effect of the minimum, as it existed according to the original scale, would be to increase by 100 per cent. or more the duty payable for licences in those towns.2041
§ If that is translated into figures the House will see their significance. I have had given me some figures comparing towns in Ireland, with reference to the amount of the increased duty which would be leviable by reason of the minimum charge over and above the 50 per cent., compared with towns in England. I want the Committee to bear in mind that this does not alter the 50 per cent. at all, and that these are the amounts which would have been contributed by these Irish towns if the same minimum charge was applicable to Ireland over and above the 50 per cent.
§ Clonmel has a population of only 10,000, and the amount of duty to be paid if a minimum charge is made over and above the 50 per cent. would be as much as London would contribute. Athlone, with a population of 6,000, would contribute in that way twice as much as Leeds. Ennis, with a population of 5,000, would pay more than the city of Edinburgh. Galway, with a population of 13,000, would pay four times as much as Birmingham, Limerick, with a population of 35,000, would pay half as much again as the City of Liverpool. I think the Committee will agree that those are very significant figures indeed, and they illustrate that there is a very special case in Ireland when we compare it with the rest of the United Kingdom. The additional duty by reason of the minimum attaching over and above the 50 per cent. normal, which is contributed in London, is £1,000; in Bristol, £2,000; in Liverpool, £2,000; in Southampton, £1,500. In Scotland, £3,700, Glasgow being much the biggest figure. In Edinburgh the additional duty would be £700. Look at what would be contributed in Ireland, between 50 per cent. and the minimum charge. Belfast would contribute £5,500; Dublin would contribute £8,000; Cork, which is the worst case of all, would contribute £9,800; Limerick, £3,200; Galway, £1,600; and so forth. Of course, the reason for that is that the number of houses, particularly in the urban areas, of small annual value is very much greater in Ireland than either in England or Scotland. Take England and Wales. I will not give the scale, but the number of public-houses fully licensed whose valuation is £20 and under is only 54 out of a total number of 14,254. Take the Metropolis and county boroughs in England and Wales having a population of 100,000 or more. The number of beerhouses with a valuation of £20 and under is only 53 out of a total of 8,979. In Scotland practically the same state of things 2042 exists. I will take a few of the biggest cities with a population of over 100,000 and a few between 10,000 and 100,000 by way of illustration. In Aberdeen the number under £20 is 3 out of 219 public-houses; in Dundee, 5 out of 128; in Edinburgh, 1 out of 318; and in Glasgow, not a single one out of 1,342 licensed premises. In Greenock, they number 2 out of 127; in Ayr, 1 out of 75; in Dumfries, 1 out of 48; in Inverness, 3 out of 48; and in Kilmarnock, 6 out of 72. When we take the case of Ireland we have these startling figures. The number from £25 down annual value is in Dublin 101, out of 719; in Cork, 368, out of 516; in Limerick, 229, out of 288; in Waterford, 146, out of 198; and in Galway, 109, out of 134. Those are houses of £25 and under annual value, and it holds good all over Ireland and over Scotland, except in one or two exceptional cases. The general result, again having regard only to the additional duty paid over and above the normal 50 per cent., is that between that and the minimum charge the total is illustrated by these figures. In England and Wales the additional duty above this normal 50 per cent. will be £30,000, or only 2 per cent. of the present duty. In Scotland the amount will be £6,000, or only 4½ per cent. of the present duty. In Ireland the amount of extra, duty will be £39,600 a year, a percentage of 28.2. Those figures are not exceptional figures. They are taken at random from many towns, and they show, I think, that Ireland in this matter of minimum charge, by reason of these special circumstances, has a right to be separately treated from Scotland or England. I have therefore pleasure in moving the scale which appears on the Paper in my name, which will fix the same minimum duty in areas with a population under 10,000 as the minimum scale in England, with a difference, of course, of population. The minimum is £5 in both cases. In urban areas in Ireland with a population of 10,000 and above the minimum duty will be £7 10s. Those are the duties for double licences. There is a corresponding licence with regard to beerhouses, with which I need not trouble the House. The scale has been carefully considered, and we think it meets the case of Ireland.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
We had this matter very fully discussed yesterday. I do not propose to go over the found I attempted to travel yesterday afternoon, but at the same time I think it would have been a material matter if the hon. Gentleman the 2043 Solicitor-General, in telling us what the Committee already all know, namely, that public-houses in Ireland were happy enough for years to have enjoyed an excessively low valuation as compared with public-houses in Scotland and in England, had gone on to tell the Committee what the origin and explanation of that fact was. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly Well that the explanation of the fact is to be found in the law which enables the public-houses in Ireland to be valued on a wholly different principle to what they have been valued in Scotland and England, and the result of the principle as applied to Ireland in the concession in 1880 in order to compensate what was supposed to be an inequality by reason of carrying on a mixed trade, was an average assessment figure far below that for similar premises in this country and Scotland. Of course they have had it ever since. They have had the tremendous advantage of living under a system of valuation on which their Licence Duty is assessed far below England and Scotland, their assessment being so far below England and Scotland as to enable them to escape up to the present with duties comparatively small as compared with those of their brethren in the other countries. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman might have taken the trouble to inform the Committee that that was the origin of this permanent low valuation in Ireland. What has been the result? The result has been that the public-houses in Ireland have increased beyond all reasonable bounds of moderation, and the Government to-day are doing their best to perpetuate it by placing a premium upon the existence of those public-houses. The fact remains that as a result of the very peculiar advantages they possess there are to-day in Ireland over 17,000 public-houses, whereas in Scotland there are only something between 6,000 and 7,000. Those public-houses that exist in Ireland are not the small and miserable houses that their valuation would appear to represent. It is ridiculous to make this contrast of valuation as between England and Scotland for the purpose of making a poor mouth for the Irish publican, because the valuation does not represent at all the equivalent difference in the position and prosperity of the traders who carry on business. I have already pointed out that the Irish publican has had up to the present a very substantial advantage over the 2044 publican either in this country or in Scotland, because of the comparative freehold tenure he has in his licence. He has a licence of which he cannot be deprived except for misconduct, and which he can sell or transfer in the open market, and he can go before a magistrate, and, if of good character, insist on getting his licence. Therefore, he has got a real property and a real monopoly. The value of the monopoly in Ireland is largely in excess of any monopoly that exists in this country. The Member for East Mayo said yesterday—I hardly thought the retort was worthy of him, and I think he must have regretted that he uttered it—that what I said on this subject was entirely untrue. I challenged him to state in what respect it was untrue, and he replied by the vague statement that it was generally untrue. I challenge him or anyone to say that in any single particular any statement I have made as to the low valuation or position of the publican in Ireland is incorrect. I speak of what is notorious to anybody who knows anything of the position and tenure of licences in Ireland. It is rather a contemptible way to meet my arguments to retort that the statement is untrue.
§ Mr. DILLON
I say the statement he has just made is untrue, that the value of monopoly in Ireland is greater than the value of monopoly in Great Britain or Scotland. It must be obvious that the value of the monopoly of one out of 17,000 public-houses in Ireland, with its poor population of 4,000,000, cannot be greater than the value of the monopoly of one of 6,000 public-houses in Scotland, with its greater population.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
It is perfectly obvious to anyone who wants to reason this matter that the interruption affords no answer whatever. The observation has been cheered by hon. Members below the Gangway, who are strong supporters of the Licensing Bill of last Session, that the publicans in this country have no property in the licence. What is the value of a monopoly if there is no property in the licence? The whole theory of this legislation as applied to this country is that owing to the fact that the State is continuously reasserting its ownership to the licence, and power to recall and cancel it at any moment there is no monopoly value.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
I am not to be put off my line of argument by these interruptions. If you give a man a privilege in one country which cannot be taken away from him as long as he behaves himself, and which he is entitled to transfer to a purchaser who is entitled to take it up for him and carry on the same business under the same licence, I say that must be a more valuable privilege than a similar concession given to a man under the condition that it can be revoked at any moment. The thing is too obvious for argument. I quite agree that it does not bring the same price in the market, but that is owing to the extravagant and ridiculous number of houses which exist in Ireland. Is that any reason why the individual who has got property under this protection of the law is to be placed in a better position than an individual carrying on the same trade in England or Scotland under a more penalising system of valuation, under heavier duties, and without the same rights and the same property in the licence? That is the point. Up to the present I have heard nothing whatever which in any shape or form justifies this discrimination that it is sought to make between the case of the English or Scotch publican and the Irish trader. In respect of his low valuation, he is obtaining an advantage, and has enjoyed that advantage ever since 1880, which is denied to the man in England or Scotland. You are going over and above that by reason of the existence of that very advantage to give him another advantage, and it was probably just as well that the hon. and learned Member did not to-night, as was done yesterday, largely base this concession upon the suggestion that the Irish publican was entitled to it for carrying on a mixed trade. That was the ground on which it was put mainly by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the hon. and learned Gentleman very wisely did not refer to it for this reason. The very existence of this system of mixed trading has been condemned root and branch by everyone who has taken any interest in the temperance question, because it is obvious that if you have a system under which every man, woman, and child can go into a shop to buy groceries where drink is also sold the temptation is enormously increased. It was in consequence of the existence of that very system that in 1880 Mr. Gladstone gave to the Irish trade a concession which they have ever since enjoyed, and which has put them in a position of 2046 great superiority as compared with their competitors in this country or Scotland. It is a perfectly ludicrous position for any responsible Minister to take up to say that because you have enjoyed these advantages, because, as the result of the benefit which we gave you 29 years ago, which has enabled you to carry on your business under more favourable conditions than a man in England or Scotland, your valuations have been low, we will now take the existence of these low valuations as an additional ground for giving you the concession which we refuse to confer upon your competitor in England or in Scotland. That is illogical and absurd, and will deceive no one, and it will certainly become notorious in the country, if it is not notorious already, that this whole thing is a mere arrangement for giving some show of a pretence of justice and of discrimination, and a system of preferential treatment which is really the outcome of political considerations and of political alliance. And no one who knows what is going on in my own country is in the least deceived by what has occurred in this House in the last couple of days. The trade in Ireland have placed their case in the hands of Gentlemen below the Gangway. They did that because the trade has always assisted them with their money and their votes.
§ Mr. JOSEPH DEVLIN
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nearly £10,000 was subscribed by the distillers of Ireland to the anti-Home Rule campaign?
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
I am not talking of the distillers of Ireland. I thought the Clause applied to the publicans of Ireland. There is no one in Ireland who is not perfectly well aware of what has gone on in the last fortnight. What happened was that the publicans, naturally, having given their votes and their money to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway for so many years, put their defence in their hands, and, up to a few days ago, they had an uneasy feeling that they were not getting value for their money. In a good many cases they suggested that they were being betrayed, and they came over and put on the screw, and they were assured that something could be done, and as a result, this concession now appears on the Paper, and on Friday last the "Irish News," the leading Nationalist organ which circulates in Belfast, was posted all over the city with a placard containing, in immense letters: "Tremendous gains for the trade in Ireland brought 2047 about by pressure by the Irish Nationalist Party on the Government." Then it proceeded to enumerate what those concessions were, including the one which was foreshadowed here a day or two ago. The other was the mystery of the vanishing small bottle.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
A concession as to which was promised publicly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 14th June to a deputation of the trade.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
I suppose that is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repudiated having given any such promise, and I suppose it is in consequence of that promise, so far back as June, that we have had so many different phases in the mystery of the disappearing small bottle. I am not so sure even yet that we know, or that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) knows, the intentions of the Government in regard to the small bottle. They change every week.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
Their Amendments on the Paper are a wholly different thing from their intentions. Because of this very point of the small bottle their Amendments have appeared and disappeared with kaleidoscopic rapidity. I do not think even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will tell us that he yet knows the intentions of the Government with regard to the small bottle. I have not the slightest objection to this concession if it applies all round. I consider that, as compared with the English or the Scotch publican, he has been treated more fairly and with less imposition of taxation, and while I do not at all regret that, and make no attack upon it, I say that under a Budget of this kind, speaking for myself, I would be no party to any attempt to discriminate in favour of the Irish publican as against the publican of England or Scotland, unless it can be shown to me, what has never yet been shown, that he is suffering as compared with the man in Scotland or in England. It will certainly not be shown by pointing out that he has been for the last 30 years allowed to enjoy, under a rating system, or a system of valuation, an immunity from the heavy taxation which falls upon the publican in this country and in Scotland. Therefore I am opposed to this Amendment.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
The right hon. Gentleman made a very violent speech last night and he has given us another violent contribution to this Debate. I suppose he did not read the "Irish Times" yesterday, in which an attack, almost as furious as his own, was delivered against the Irish party because they have not with sufficient intensity pandered to the interests of the trade in Ireland. The "Irish Times" represents Irish trade interests in its higher branches. Its constituency is to a large extent made up of distillers and supported by distillers, and of course it has to attack the Irish party in order that it may show to them that it takes an interest in their case. The right hon. Gentleman comes here not to represent Irish, but English interests. I do not think there could be a finer commentary on the extraordinary attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues of the Unionist party from Ulster than to find that wherever Irish and English interests are at stake they inevitably take up their stand to defend English interests as against Irish. Of course we understand his position perfectly well. He attacks the publicans because the publicans are Nationalists. He, of course, is not dependent on the Protestant publicans in Ireland. He represents the great intellectual Constituency of Trinity College. He is immune from criticism from his constituents, and he therefore can afford to take up the extraordinary position which he has taken up to-day in complaining that a Liberal Government and a British party make an honest and an equitable concession to an irresistible demand made by the general body of their Representatives. He made the extraordinary statement a moment ago that the goodwill of a public-house in Ireland was equal, if not better, than the goodwill of a public-house in England. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the City of Belfast alone dozens of publicans have closed their houses within the last five years? Is it an indication of increased value in public-houses that the publicans turn the key of the door, give up their licences, and allow their property to disappear? I would like to know on what data the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking. Who supplied him with his brief? His speech was simply and solely for the purpose, of robbing the publicans of Ireland of what the Solicitor-General has proved not to be a great concession, but simply an act of justice. The hon. and learned Gentleman has done this because the publicans are Catholics and 2049 Nationalists. He also stated that the Nationalist Members are the representatives of the trade. Who headed the deputation that waited on the Irish party? It was Mr. Andrew Jameson, of the great firm of Jameson and Sons, whisky distillers. Who subscribed £500 or £1,000 to the Unionist party funds? [An HON. MEMBER: "And £300 a year."] Yes; and £300 a year to pay the expenses of the unpaid political agitators who sit on the benches above the Gangway? Is no one to get any direct advantage from British legislation in this House but the lawyers who were sent from the North of Ireland, and the lawyers from Trinity College, who do not object to draw large salaries when their party is in office, and who sit in a position of expectation of again receiving large salaries when their party return to office. These are the Gentlemen who tell us that they are vitally concerned in the welfare and prosperity of their own country.
I pass to another aspect of this case. I noticed with very great interest that at a 12th of July demonstration in Ulster, next to a resolution affirming the principle of the union between this country and Ireland was a strongly-worded denunciation of the present Budget. The proposals contained in this Budget, according to that resolution, were unfair and inequitable, and they pressed heavily on Ireland. In order to bolster up reaction, privilege, and Toryism in Ireland hon. Members from Ulster go to 12th of July meetings and denounce the Budget on the ground that it presses un-justly and vexatiously on Irish interests, and then they come here and assail the Government when they make a concession—not, mark you, an adequate concession which honestly meets the case—not a concession which does full and complete justice to the interests involved—but a concession which has been justified by the Solicitor-General on broad, general lines I hope that at the next Twelfth of July demonstration the hon. and learned Member will tell the people of Portadown what his party when they come into power will do to relieve Ireland of the new imposts that have been put upon her.
I raised last night the particular case of Belfast, which is hit very hard by this Budget, and I hope the Government will carefully consider that case. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a concession in the case of Stoke, and I do not see why a similar exception could not be made in the case of Belfast. Nine years ago Belfast was revalued. A new 2050 system of valuation was introduced. The monopoly value for the first time was counted in the valuation, and in consequence the local rates and Licence Duties were increased to an enormous extent. The valuation commissioner has declared on oath that when he was laying on the valuation he raised it on public-house property to an extent which he would not now justify. That valuation took place in 1900, when in Belfast public-houses were selling at high prices, largely owing to the fact that English brewers came over to Belfast and bought at prices which raised them to such an abnormal extent that the whole of the trade of the city was disturbed. I know a case where Allsopps' firm bought a public-house for £8,000. They have sold that house since for £800, and subsequently the house has been closed altogether. In another instance either Allsopps or another firm bought a house at £12,000, and it has been offered since at £1,200.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANS
On a point of Order. The point which the hon. Gentleman is urging will not be affected by the Amendment.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
No, I am not. I was showing that Allsopps or other supporters of the Tory party in this House came over to Ireland and bought houses at ridiculous prices, and that the Commissioner stated that the valuations put on public-house property could not be justified, though these are the valuations on which Licence Duty is assessed. I feel that Belfast is going to be hit to an extent which will render the carrying on of the trade practically impossible there.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
The hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Mr. James Campbell) was allowed to wander very much over the entire question. The hon. Member for Belfast is only endeavouring to reply.
I did not hear the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Trinity College. I was only dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
The hon. and learned Member laid it down that the valuations are too low all over Ireland.
§ Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL
I did not say they were too low. I said they were low because they were made on a different system from that in this country, and that the system there is beneficial to the Irish publican.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
I am pointing out that the values are not made on another system. In the case of Belfast it was the English system that was introduced, and the Valuation Commissioner declared in his evidence before the House of Lords that it could not be justified. That principle which has been introduced in Belfast is about to be introduced in Dublin. I say the fact that there is no monopoly value, and that houses are being closed up by publicans in Belfast is a proof that they are practically valueless, and yet this is the moment the Government selects for putting a fresh and almost intolerable impost on the publicans. I could give figures to prove that there are publicans who are not clearing £300 a year on their business, and who will now be called to pay an additional £150 a year in the shape of duty.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
I will raise it on another Amendment. I trust that I have said sufficient to commend this matter to the consideration of the Government.
§ Mr. MOORE
I do not intend to deal in detail with the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). The hon. Member thinks he disposes at once of all the Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament when he makes, as he invariably does, most offensive commentaries on their private life. I do not intend to go into the personal references of the hon. Member. I think hon. Members below the Gangway may well be jubilant and satisfied with the result of their Parliamentary work. But, perhaps, the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) deserves the greater share of the credit, because for many days it was his voice which was heard in these Debates. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth consistently urged the case of the Irish publicans. I differ entirely from him, but he at least defended them, and fought his colleagues. Although the hon. Member for West Belfast is very eloquent now, I think he will recognise that he and his colleagues come into the field rather late in the day. They are now tumbling over each other in putting forward the case of the Irish publicans, 2052 but the concession made by the Government is really due to the lash of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. I do not think that hon. Members below the Gangway, however they may apportion the credit amongst themselves, have all the same measure of pride in this transaction. But they have made the strongest Government of modern times—a Government returned on temperance principles, either by threats or by blandishments, I care not which—listen to the case of the Irish publicans. I remember how bitterly Radicals attacked us in the North of Ireland because we had so far forgotten ourselves as to support the Licensing Bill of 1904. The charge made against us was that we had endowed the brewers. What would have been said of us by those gentlemen if a case could have been made out that we had by our action secured a special exemption in favour of Irish publicans, and yet that is what the Liberal Government is doing now. I can understand that the policy of the Government is to keep burdens on people at home in order to give benefits to those abroad. From their point of view, perhaps, the Irish people live far enough away to be treated as foreigners. You give the Irish publican an exemption which you will have to justify to the English publican and the Scotch publican. They are still permitted to bear the burden, and all they will have to fall back upon is the additional reason given by the Solicitor-General for granting this concession to Ireland. What is the additional reason? It is that the bulk of the duties are derived from high licences in England, and that the bulk of the duties are derived from low licences in Ireland. Therefore, the Government give this concession to Ireland. That is what it comes to. We had an appalling contrast read out with respect to the low licences in Cork as compared with the licences in London. I do not dispute the figures, but is that any reason why you should alter the limit in Cork? If the figures had been the other way, the Solicitor-General could have got up and said that the Government were going to give the same concession to Ireland. I pity hon. Members when they come to explain to English and Scotch publicans that this was the reason why the Government hauled down the temperance flag in response to an appeal from hon. Members below the Gangway.
Will the learned Solicitor-General tell us what does this concession mean to the revenue? What was the original estimate to be derived from Ireland as included 2053 in the scope of the original Schedule, and what difference does this change make? I want to know what the consideration is for the surrender? When hon. Gentlemen go home and boast of their triumphs, let us have the money value of it. The learned Solicitor-General said that this was such a patent case of injustice to Ireland that everybody knew it. May I be allowed to remark that the Government did not seem to know it when they brought in their Finance Bill, nor was there any suggestion of this injustice until it was driven home to the Government by 80 votes below the Gangway. When the discovery is made under such conditions, the patent nature of the injustice seems rather far fetched. I do not recognise that there is any patent nature of the injustice; I do not recognise that there is any injustice at all. When hon. Gentlemen talk of Ireland in this matter, it is hardly fair to ignore the immense body of public opinion in Ireland which is directed against the harm the publicans do, and directed against any undue concession to Irish publicans. This is practically an endowment of the Irish publican. I regret that even at the eleventh hour the Government have seen their way to make this surrender, which is so grossly disloyal to one of their own colleagues, the Gentleman who poses as the chief spokesman of the temperance party in Ireland, the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Mr. T. W. Russell), who over and over again has described the Irish publican as the greatest enemy of the Irish race that walks the earth. How will the learned Solicitor-General's colleague, when he goes about the country saying that the Irish publican is an enemy of mankind, explain that the Government is so ready to give a concession to the Irish publicans at the instance of hon. Members below the Gangway? A dreadful thing might happen. The Vice-President to-morrow morning might resign, but the Government evidently know their man and take their chance. This policy is a direct reversal of everything that has been preached from every platform wherever Liberal candidates appeared on Ulster platforms, a reversal of this great doctrine of Liberal policy beside which we unfortunate Unionists and Conservatives are supposed to stand in a white sheet, not very much better than drunkards. It is a most disgraceful surrender, and I am very glad of the opportunity of registering my protest against it.
§ Mr. ARTHUR SHERWELL
It is somewhat remarkable that hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House who have been busy for months past informing hon. Members on this side of the House that it is a perfect abuse of Parliamentary principles to attempt to achieve moral reform in a Finance Bill, should now be urging inconsistency on the part of hon. Members on this side of the House because, although they are interested in the larger and totally distinct question of licensing reform, they are prepared, on the ground of strict fiscal equity, to support the proposal which the Government now announce. I may say quite frankly, so far as I personally am concerned, that I am not interested in any indictment of my sincerity as a licence reformer which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Mr. Campbell) may allege against me because of my support of this most entirely justifiable and irresistible Amendment, and in any remarks I may venture to address I would like to be understood as discussing this question solely and entirely on the broad principles of fiscal equity, and without regard to its temperance consequences or effects. In my judgment the principle of a minimum duty presupposes for its justification the existence of certain social and economic conditions and a certain distribution of population. In other words, that where you have a highly developed industrial community and great concentration of urban population you may justifiably advocate a principle of a minimum duty in regard to a subject of taxation such as this. But while that principle of a minimum duty may be relevant in regard to those highly-developed centres of population the principle is not relevant under the wholly different economic conditions and the wholly different distribution of population that obtain in Ireland. England, Wales, and Scotland are highly-developed industrial communities with a very considerable proportion of urban population. Ireland, on the other hand, with the exception of one or two centres, is a rural nation, and not an industrial population.
The density of population in Ireland is actually one-fifth of the density of population in England and Wales, and, moreover, the density in Ireland is a declining density, while in England, Wales, and Scotland it is a growing density. You have in England and Wales an urban population representing 77 per cent. of the entire population of the country. In Scotland 2055 you have an urban population representing 70 per cent. of the population, and in Ireland you have an urban population representing only 30 per cent. of the total population of that country. In England and Wales you have no fewer than 75 towns and urban districts with a population of over 50,000 inhabitants; in Ireland you have only three. In England and Wales you have 141 towns and urban districts with a population ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 inhabitants; in Ireland you have only five. In England and Wales there are 219 towns and urban districts with a population of from 10,000 to 20,000; in Ireland there are only 13. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, although admitting a great disparity in the conditions of Ireland as compared with Great Britain in respect of the rateable value of property rather discounted that difference and attributed it "entirely," to use his own phrase, to certain conditions of mixed trading which were taken into account when the separate method of valuation was adopted by Mr. Gladstone in 1880. I confess I did not follow that line of argument. It did not altogether convince me, because I have yet to learn that the different conditions which justified the separate basis or principle of valuation in 1880 and which still prevail should be operative in 1880 and cease to be operative in 1909. But will the right hon. Gentleman really seriously suggest—the average rateable value of public-houses in Ireland being only one-fifth of the average rateable value of public-houses in Scotland, and only one-seventh of the average rateable value in England and Wales—that that enormous disparity is entirely attributable to certain differences in principles of valuation which were adopted by Mr. Gladstone in 1880? The average rateable value of a public-house in England is £108; in Scotland it is £75, and in Ireland it is only £16. Surely the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not suggest to us in any serious spirit that this enormous disparity is accounted for by "certain considerations of mixed trading which were taken into account when the separate method of valuation was adopted by Mr. Gladstone in 1880."
Moreover, an Irish publican has a very great grievance in the proportion of his Licence Duty to rateable value. He pays an enormously higher proportion of the rateable value of his premises in the way of Licence Duty now than does his fellow-trader 2056 in England, Wales or Scotland. The Licence Duty paid by publicans in England and Wales represents 20 per cent. of the average rateable value of the premises, and the Licence Duty paid in Scotland represents an average of 24 per cent. of the rateable value of the premises, but in Ireland a publican pays on the average a Licence Duty which represents nearly half the rateable value. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to press an argument on the fact that what he called the monopoly value of the Irish licence is greater than the monopoly value of the English licence. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman really understood what is involved in monopoly value. He seemed to confound it with security of tenure and he omitted entirely to inform the Committee that since 1904 the English publican has absolute security of tenure, and cannot be dispossessed of his licence without payment of full compensation. Therefore, even on the point of security of tenure there is no radical or essential difference between English and Irish publicans. But is monopoly value represented by security of tenure as a fact? The Committee know perfectly well that monopoly value is determined by two factors; first, the extent of the competition which you allow, and secondly, the per capita consumption of alcohol in the district. So far as the question of competition is concerned, is it seriously to be suggested to the Committee that the number of licences, which is justly described as enormous in Ireland, with 17,000 public-houses for a population of less than 5,000,000, and the enormous force of competition represented by those figures, really add to the monopoly value of licences in Ireland? It is a contradiction in terms. Moreover, the monopoly value of the average licence in Ireland is still further depreciated by the fact that the consumption of alcohol per head in Ireland is considerably lower than the per capita expenditure on alcohol in England and Wales. Therefore, even on the lines of the right hon. Gentleman's own reasoning, he has no case, and if there is to be a consideration of monopoly value the balance of argument lies in favour of the Irish publican as against the Scottish and English trader. I would like to give the Committee one or two supplementary figures which will help the Committee to see how enormously strong is the case for this Amendment. As a consequence of the difference in the rateable value in Ireland as compared with what it is in Great Britain, it follows that the 2057 effect of the minimum duty will be to hit the Irish publican to an extent out of all proper proportion as compared with the English or Scotch trader. Take the minimum duty as it stands under the Bill in the very smallest towns. I leave out those towns and places under 2,000 population and all the rural districts because there the effect of the minimum duty does not mean a very great increase, but taking the towns from 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants, the minimum duty actually affects 74 per cent. of the public-houses in those towns. In towns of from 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants it actually affects 84 per cent. of the whole of the public-houses in such towns. In towns of over 10,000 up to 50,000 inhabitants it affects 90 per cent. of the public-houses; and, if you go higher up in the scale to larger towns, then the minimum duty actually affects no less than 99 per cent. of the whole of the public-houses in those large towns. May I remind the Committee that in taking the small towns of from 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants, the minimum duty affects 84 per cent. of the public-houses in such towns as against 28 per cent. in Scotland and 32 per cent in England and Wales. In the next population group, ranging from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants, the minimum duty will affect 90 per cent. of all licences in such towns, whilst 16 per cent. of all licences in such towns will have their Licence Duty raised from £4 10s. to £20, but not a single licence in the corresponding English or Scottish towns will be affected in the same way. I will not weary the Committee with further figures. The case can be proved up to the hilt by facts of that kind. I wish to say for myself as a licence reformer, as someone described me last night, that there is no vote which I could give with a more convinced judgment and greater sincerity than my vote in support of the Amendment which the Government have advanced to-night.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
The hon. Member for Huddersfield deserves the thanks of Members on this side of the House for his very valuable statement of the case. I think that the Government ought to feel themselves greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College and the Member for North Antrim for the speeches they have delivered, because it will convince the Irish people why it is almost impossible to secure justice for any case put forward in behalf of Ireland in this House. The moment the Liberal party attempt to give the smallest concession, even the millionth 2058 part of what is due, down fall upon it every Orange Member from Ireland, charging the Government practically with treason to the Crown. I would ask hon. Members above the Gangway to remember the attitude we assumed at the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making concessions to English interests—when he was giving an enormous concession in, respect of the Land Tax, in respect of Income Tax, in respect of ungotten minerals, a whole number of concessions that he gave again and again in response to appeals from Members of the Tory party. Did any Member on these benches raise any protest against those concessions? No. But the moment justice, and not adequate justice, is granted to the Irish case, up gets the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College and his Friends to assail the Government for making these concessions. The hon. Member for Belfast said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College and his Irish colleagues were attending to English interests in this House. Where were they all through the Committee stage on this Bill, when English interests were under consideration? Did they give the Government the smallest help? Was the legal lore of the Member for Trinity College or the Member for North Antrim at the service of his party? No, nothing of the kind. It is only when these concessions are attempted to be made that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College rises in his place to object. Under this Bill, if passed in its present form, of 17,000 public-houses at least 8,000 would have been closed without compensation, and that is why the Members above the Gangway are talking about the great moral effects which have been lost because this scale has not been insisted upon. They know right well that this Budget was a sentence of death, and not an awarding of revenue to the Crown, had it been passed in its present form. The Government would, therefore, have done for Ireland what a Tory Government did in 1877. Let Members of the Tory party remember this, that in 1877 they closed 2,000 beerhouses—I am not certain about the exact number, but there was an enormous number closed—because the valuation was below £10. The Tory Government shut up those houses in 1877, and they did so without giving one shilling of compensation. The Government have recognised the justice of this case, and I say that no licensed business, sanctioned by law, should be abolished without just 2059 compensation, being paid for it. When monopoly value and other stuff of the kind is talked about in regard to Irish licences, will the House believe that tenancies are from year to year, outside Dublin and Belfast, and can be terminated by the landlord with a notice to quit, and you can imagine when the tenant is not protected by tenant right, or the Land Act in regard to his tenure, the amount of consideration they would have got. What consideration did they get last year in Kingstown, when Lord De Vesci and Lord Longford, on certain long leases falling in, doubled and trebled the rents? And this Budget, on these rack rents, would have heaped up taxes. It is not that we are getting justice in Ireland in this case—although I am quite willing to acknowledge the way in which we have been met—but we are getting something like an approximation to it, yet the Government are told that these valuations were unjust by those who were themselves in office for 20 years and never tried to obtain justice or to redress the alleged grievance. I rose for the purpose of raising a specific point in the case of Dublin, which I trust the Government will see their way to remedy. The City of Dublin is under a special grievance which no other city in the United Kingdom is under. It is that a publican, over and above his Licence Duty, has to pay 10s. extra under the Act of 1833, of William IV., chapter 68, section 12:—
"And be it further enacted, That every person who shall help obtain or renew under this Act a licence to sell spirits "—
This does not apply to an application, it refers to a renewal of the licence—
"in any house or premises situate within the police district of Dublin metropolis shall, within ten days next after he shall have so obtained or renewed such licence, deliver or cause to be delivered to the divisional justices of the Castle Division of the said police district,"—
The police district of the Dublin metropolis extends from Phoenix Park on the north down to Bray on the south, and it is a far larger district than the City of Dublin, because it takes in towns like Kingstown and a whole number of urban places of that kind outside the City of Dublin, although 20 miles from the General Post Office in Dublin—
"or to some clerk at the head office of police of the said district, a note in writing, under the hand of such person, or some person by him authorised in that behalf, 2060 in which shall be specified, set forth, and contained the Christian and surname and place of abode of such persons, and the situation and description of the house and residence of the existing sureties for such person under this Act, and such licensed person shall pay or cause to be paid to the receiver of the public offices in the said police district of Dublin metropolis the sum of 10s.; and all sums so paid to the receiver shall go in aid of the funds of the police district of Dublin metropolis; and if any person who shall have obtained or renewed a licence under this Act to sell beer and spirits within the said police district shall not, within the time and in the manner hereinbefore directed, deliver or cause to be delivered such note in writing as aforesaid, or shall neglect to pay or cause to be paid the said sum of 10s., every such person shall forfeit and lose the sum of £2."
Now that provision for the upkeep of the police of Dublin is one from which the Government receive a very large sum. I think it would be only fair to provide that the Dublin publican should not be under any greater disability in respect of this 10s. than any other publican in England, Scotland, or Ireland. There is a precedent for this in what the late Government did in regard to pawn offices. The Pawn Office Duty for England is only £7 10s., but for the Dublin pawnbroker it is £100 Irish. In 1898 the Government allowed that sum to be paid over to the Dublin Corporation. It would not be fair to do that in this case. The amount should be remitted, for this reason, that the duties are being doubled, and I think it will be most unfair to add anything, and that this should be restored to the publican.
One of the reasons I welcome the action of the Government is this—not merely in regard to sparing the men who would have been destroyed, but that by it as well you are at least retaining as a marketable asset the interest of the publican in Ireland. In my judgment, if this Bill passed in its present form, the uncertainty would be so great in the matter of calculation—I do not say that that would be so in a year or two—but during the next 12 months I believe that practically it would have destroyed the market for every public-house in Ireland. I will give one instance, which I have already mentioned at an earlier stage in the Debate. A licensed house in Dublin, on which duty had been paid on £9,000 in the spring before the Budget was introduced, was 2061 put up for auction lately in Dublin, and there was not a single bidder to bid for it. The certainty we get by this Amendment as regards three-fourths, if not more, of the publicans, induces me to say that I, for my part, hold that the Government have attempted to apply that same spirit of justice to this case as if they were dealing with English and Scotch cases. The notion that there is any bargain with us and the Government is absolute nonsense. I have fought the Government right through all this business, and I have come honestly to the conclusion that they have attempted fairly and honestly to meet this case. Certainly we were under a cloud as to the startling figures which the Solicitor-General read out, but I wonder had we given them would we have been told by the Government that they were grossly inaccurate.
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
As I intend to vote against the Government I desire to explain my reasons. I should like at the outset to dissociate myself from the charges which have been made by Members above the Gangway opposite, and, almost worse than charges, the innuendoes hurled against the Members below the Gangway opposite. It is not in the least from any motives of that kind I find myself opposed to my Nationalist Friends in this matter. This has been called a concession to Ireland. If I thought it a concession to Ireland I should not have voted against it, but it is a concession to the liquor trade in Ireland, and that is a very different matter. I confess that I felt something like despair at my heart when I heard hon. Members opposite saying that distilleries were the only industry left to Ireland. I have not a very large knowledge of Ireland, but I claim that there are some industries—
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
That was not the sentence used. However, I will only say that the attempt which has been made to identify Ireland with the interests of the liquor trade in Ireland is not welcomed by all true friends of Ireland, and I think my hon. Friends will believe me when I say that I go into the Lobby against this concession because I believe that the Government's concession to Ireland is injurious to 2062 that country, and not a benefit. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) have, I think, made out the very best case for the Government concession that could be made. I am bound to say that case leaves me wholly unmoved. The figures no doubt point to the fact that the tax will press more severely on the liquor trade in Ireland than in this country. But, at the same time, I think that is because the conditions under which the liquor trade in Ireland are carried on are worse than in this country, and as this tax would have helped to raise the standard on which the trade is carried on, I think it is a great misfortune that those who wish to raise the condition of Ireland generally should have been refused the leverage contained in it. A great point has been made about mixed trade, which is an unmixed evil. Everyone who has interested himself in the temperance question, everyone who has studied the licensing question in this country or in any other, every Commission that has gone into the question has practically recommended that there should be a separation between the sale of liquor and all other articles. Therefore, when I am told that this concession is made as the Prime Minister told us largely because there is mixed trade, I can only say that is a reason why this concession should not have been made, and why it should have been left to act as leverage to lead to that separation of trade, which I suppose every one desires. I heard my hon. Friend the member for Huddersfield to my utter amazement declare that he was prepared to give his vote quite apart from any moral consideration, or from any moral effects which might follow from this taxation.
§ Mr. SHERWELL
May I point out in correction of what my hon. Friend said I declined to consider a strictly fiscal proposition on moral or ethical grounds.
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I wonder what would become of the taxation of the liquor trade if you left out moral considerations. What would become of the licensing system if you are going to rule out moral considerations? I have heard the argument used that we ought not to introduce moral considerations into the Budget. I have never accepted that argument. The only grounds on which we can justify the taxation of liquor and the licensing system, 2063 and wish that it should be made heavier, the only grounds on which you can justify that is that you do not think it a wrong thing, but that you think it a wise thing to discourage trade in liquor and to diminish the consumption if it can be done. An hon. Member tells me they are luxuries, but they are the luxuries which one Chancellor of the Exchequer after another has sought to tax up to the limit of taxation. I would say that it is no argument against these proposals that they are going to have certain moral effects on Ireland if carried out. I do not want to pursue the matter further. I am sorry the Government have found it necessary to alter their Bill as it was brought in. I think it would have been fairer to leave the standard the same for the three countries. I think no case has been made out for lowering the standard, and therefore I shall go into the Lobby against the Government.
§ Mr. JOHN DILLON
We make no complaint of the speech which has just been delivered. Although we cannot agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member, we certainly recognise fully that he goes into the Lobby reluctantly under the coercion of a very strong conviction. I must tell the hon. Member when he says that this concession, if it is to be called a concession, is not a concession to Ireland but to the liquor trade of Ireland that he is very wrong. Some modification in the scale is absolutely necessary if you want to even approach equality of burden between the two countries, and you could not attempt to apply the same measure of taxation to Ireland as to England. The hon. Member really, I think, acting under the operation of a very strong principle on this matter, said that the spear entered his heart when he heard the Irish Members identifying themselves with a liquor interest, and saying that the distilleries were the only industry. We did not do either one thing or the other; we said, and we said truly, that distilling was one of the remaining industries of Ireland. We pointed out the fact that the industries of Ireland had again and again been destroyed by this House, and that therefore any attempt to abolish any of the remaining industries by special taxation aroused great resentment. The hon. Member spoke about our identifying ourselves with the liquor interests and defending the liquor interests—
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I do not think I said 2064 identified themselves. What I spoke of was a statement made by one hon. Member identifying the cause of Ireland with the cause of the liquor interests in Ireland.
§ Mr. JOHN DILLON
That is really a difference with a distinction, which is rather worse. That is a thing we have never done. I want to say this to the hon. Member: We really do in Ireland resent, and I think we are entitled to resent, any lectures coming from any Englishman on this question. If we had our own way we would be miles ahead of England in all temperance legislation. We would, and will be if we get the chance, and whenever temperance Bills come up in this House a large section of the Irish party always support them. You have never carried any temperance legislation without the help of the Irish party, and never could carry it without that help, because England has always been against temperance legislation. Really these things make us a little inclined to resent lectures. What we claim in this matter of temperance is that we should be allowed to carry out our own temperance legislation in our own way and in a way that will carry with us the moral conviction and the approval of our people, because I have always held that no temperance legislation in any country can be effective if you carry it out in such a way as to arouse the general public opinion of the country against it. You must in temperance legislation carry the public opinion of the country with you. I say, give us a chance in Ireland and I am quite convinced that we will show you an example in this matter. The hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) made an even more insulting and more outrageous charge. He spoke of us as the representatives of the liquor interest, and he said that we have subscriptions from the publicans.
§ Mr. DILLON
That was the principal part of the hon. Member's speech. I do not in the least deny that a great number of publicans in Ireland are Nationalists and support our party; but for every £1 of subscription that we have from the brewers and distillers, the party above the Gangway have at least £20 in their party funds. It is, therefore, rather a curious charge to make against us that we are the representatives of the liquor interest. We are much less the representatives of that interest than hon. Members above the Gangway. Our desire has been to defend a section of the population engaged in a 2065 legitimate trade from a gross injustice, and I thank the Government for the step they have taken. As for the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Mr. J. Campbell) and his philippic, I said last night that he did not represent the Unionist party in Ireland in what he said, and this morning the "Irish Times," the journal of that party, absolutely repudiates the right hon. Gentleman and the whole of his colleagues. In its first leader it says:—It sounded somewhat strange to hear so prominent an Irishman admitting that his country is the spoilt child of licensing legislation….. It is difficult to put a good construction on the action of Irish Unionists in this matter, and certainly they did not show to advantage in the discussion, some of them using language in regard to the concession which the facts do not warrant.The right hon. Gentleman himself will not deny the right of the "Irish Times" to speak for the body of Unionists in Ireland. Within 12 hours Members above the Gangway are repudiated by their own party in Ireland; therefore I claim that in this matter we are expressing the views not only of Nationalist Ireland, but of the overwhelming majority of the Unionist party in Ireland.
§ Mr. G. FETHERSTONHAUGH
It seems to me that the alteration now proposed by the Government somewhat conflicts with an answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury on 17th June, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was then asked:—If, in view of his announcement of substantial concessions in respect of the Scottish and Irish Licence Duties and analogous provisions in the Finance Bill, he will undertake not to differentiate his proposed taxation to the detriment of English taxpayers?The right hon. Gentleman replied:—My right hon. Friend has no intention of differentiating between the English taxpayer and the taxpayer in Scotland and Ireland.Having regard to the minimum now proposed, the vast majority of the publicans in Ireland will practically escape from any increase of taxation whatever. The hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) said that the result of the increased duties in Ireland, if the original proposals of the Government had been persevered in, would have been to close 8,000 houses. Speaking as one interested in the cause of temperance more than in any other cause in Ireland, I can only say that that result would
§ have given me unmixed pleasure, and when one considers the kind of public-houses that would have been closed, I think it would have been one of the most beneficial measures ever passed for Ireland. In that country there are 7,190 public-houses, which may fairly be described as hovel public-houses, paying a duty of £4 10s. on the minimum valuation. It is safe to assume that if 8,000 houses were wiped out as a result of the additional taxation, they would have been mainly in that class of house. The hon. Member for Louth made a great point that they would have been abolished without compensation. Even in regard to licensed property I am one of those who disapprove of abolition without compensation. But you must have something of some value to be compensated for. If these 8,000 public-houses would have been wiped out by an increase of duty, which in their case could hardly have amounted to more than £2, I do not think they would have provided very great subject-matter for compensation, and their being wiped out would have been one of the greatest possible benefits to the country. Therefore I extremely regret that the Government have not seen their way to maintain their original proposal. The only justification put forward is that the Irish publican for the last 29 years has been paying duty upon a valuation wholly different from the valuations in England and Scotland, and one very much in his favour. The value of the licence has never been taken into account, and even the 20 per cent. provided for in the Act of 1880 has never in practice been added to the valuation, the duty having been assessed on nothing but the Poor Law valuation. We have in Ireland 17,393 public-houses, and everyone who has any interest in the prosperity of the country knows that that is many thousands too many. Therefore, I should have welcomed any fiscal measure which, treating Irish publicans on the same basis as English, would have got rid of a number of those houses for the benefit of the country.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 246;: Noes, 74.2069
|Division No. 776.]||AYES.||[7.25 p.m.|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)||Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Atherley-Jones, L.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Ambrose, Robert||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Ashton, Thomas Gair||Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)|
|Alden, Percy||Astbury, John Meir||Barker, Sir John|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Harrington, Timothy||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Partington, Oswald|
|Beale, W. P.||Hazleton, Richard||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)||Healy, Timothy Michael||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Hedges, A. Paget||Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Helme, Norval Watson||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Philips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Henry, Charles S.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Boland, John||Higham, John Sharp||Pollard, Dr. G. H.|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Brigg, John||Hodge, John||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Hogan, Michael||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Reddy, M.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Horniman, Emslie John||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hyde, Clarendon G.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Idris, T. H. W.||Rees, J. D.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Illingworth, Percy H.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Jardine, Sir J.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)|
|Clough, William||Jenkins, J.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Joyce, Michael||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Kavanagh, Walter M.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Keating, M.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Kekewich, Sir George||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Kelley, George D.||Rowlands, J.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Kettle, Thomas Michael||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Kilbride, Denis||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Laidlaw, Robert||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Crean, Eugene||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Crossley, William J.||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Cullinan, J.||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Seddon, J.|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Seely, Colonel|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lewis, John Herbert||Shackleton, David James|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lundon, T.||Sheehy, David|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Dillon, John||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Duckworth, Sir James||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Steadman, W. C.|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)||M'Kean, John||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Elibank, Master of||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Erskine, David C.||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Summerbell, T.|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Massie, J.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Middlebrook, William||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Mond, A.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Mooney, J. J.||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Findlay, Alexander||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Toulmin, George|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Morse, L. L.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Muldoon, John||Verney, F. W.|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Murnaghan, George||Walters, John Tudor|
|Gardner, Ernest||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Myer, Horatio||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Gill, A. H.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Ginnell, L.||Napier, T. B.||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Nicholls, George||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Nolan, Joseph||Weir, James Galloway|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Nuttall, Harry||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Gulland, John W.||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wilton, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Young, Samuel|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||O'Malley, William||Norton and Mr. Whitley.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Balcarres, Lord||Banner, John S. Harmood-|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Baldwin, Stanley||Black, Arthur W.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Bowles, G. Stewart|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Renton, Leslie|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Renwick, George|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Heaton, John Henniker||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Hill, Sir Clement||Robinson, S.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hills, J. W.||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Clark, George Smith||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Kerry, Earl of||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Keswick, William||Stanier, Seville|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Starkey, John R.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lamont, Norman||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Essex, R. W.||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Fell, Arthur||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Fletcher, J. S.||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Winterton, Earl|
|Forster, Henry William||M'Callum, John M.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Moore and Mr. Lonsdale.|
|Haddock, George B.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Hamilton, Marquess of||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in Scale 3 (Minimum Duty Payable for Publicans' and Beerhouse Licences), to add at the end the words: "The boroughs of Burslem, Hanley, Longton, and Stoke-upon-Trent, and the urban districts of Fenton and Tunstall, which, in pursuance of the Borough of Stoke-on-Trent Order, 1908, as confirmed by the Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1908, are, as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten, to form (subject to certain provisions as to differential rating and other matters to have effect for a period of twenty years) one borough to be called the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that Order, continue for the period of twenty years from the said date to be separate urban areas for the purposes of this scale."
§ The Amendment refers to the special case of the Pottery towns. The six towns are about to be federated under an Act which was recently passed by Parliament. This Act comes into operation next year. The effect of it will be that these six towns become one town of over 100,000 inhabitants, and therefore will fall under the maximum rate of Licence Duty in the part of the scale we are now considering. The Act leaves the towns separate for purposes of finance for a period of 20 years. Their rates are to be separate rates, their loan charges separate, and in other particulars the Act allows a certain differentiation, That is because these towns, although continuous, although they verge into one another, really are, owing to their local circumstances, still, to a certain degree, separate towns. They have their separate centres of population, and they have, to a considerable degree, 2070 their separate local life. Consequently it was alleged to be a hardship, and the Government admitted that it was a hardship, for them to be treated, for the purposes of the Bill, as they are not treated for the purposes of their local finance—as a single town, and not as six separate towns. This Bill, if unamended with a view to this special case, means an increase of £4,000 per year Licence Duties compared with what it would have been if federation had not taken place. On reviewing the whole of the circumstances, the Government thought that this concession was legitimately asked for, and, for that reason, I beg to move the Amendment.
Mr. G. D. FABER
When did the Government discover this state of affairs which has been described by the right hon. Gentleman? Were they not aware of the fact when the Budget Bill was first drawn? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me that?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
This is a very special case which was not taken into consideration before the Budget was drawn. It was brought to our notice by the hon. Members for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) and Hanley (Mr. E. Edwards), and by a deputation which came to me, accompanied by the public officers of the towns concerned, and made out a very strong case, with admirably prepared statistics. The result is this Amendment.
§ Mr. REMNANT
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider, if these cases are to be considered, that a special case has been made out for London?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL'S reply was inaudible to the Press Gallery.2071
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I have come to the conclusion, even antagonistic as I am to the Government, that this Amendment is an honest and fair Amendment, having regard to the local Acts. The local finance is separate, and I do not think that the Government could have resisted putting forward their Amendment.
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
I want to say just one word regarding the subject. The statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy in suggesting this alteration is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, there are two or three of these districts, like Fenton, which are only urban districts. They were opposed to this federation entirely. It is not an amalgamation. It is not like a borough extending its boundary by swallowing up some suburb. It is a scheme of federation by which, for certain purposes, these distinct entities, so far as municipal life is concerned, are to be fetched together, but they have their distinct and separate rating areas, separate loan charges, and are separate in everything except that for the future they will be managed by one council instead of half a dozen. For that reason, I think, the case is overwhelming for the exception, which I think ought to be made.
§ Mr. C. S. HENRY moved, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "In the case of the borough of Wenlock the sanitary divisions shall be the area upon which the population shall be calculated and the licence based, instead of the borough as a whole."
§ When I first put this Amendment on the Paper I had the impression that there were several places like Wenlock. Hence the change in the wording. I think it is a special case which deserves special treatment. The borough of Wenlock is situated partly in the Constituency which I have the honour to represent and partly in the Ludlow Division. It is divided by the River Severn. It comprises four sanitary divisions. The area of the borough is 22,522 acres. Its extreme length is from 10 to 12 miles, and its extreme breadth from four to five miles. In spite of that large area the population is only 15,894 persons. I think it is a case which really should commend itself to the Government. What I ask is that the four sanitary divisions should be treated as the area upon which the Licence Duties should be based. It 2072 is a borough which has a small, scattered population, and is quite the opposite to the idea of what a borough should be. I do not know that anyone can cast any reflection upon me in view of the action I am taking, for so far as my part of the division is concerned I do not think that one publican will vote for me at the next election or did so at the last election.
§ Mr. B. STANIER
I should like to support the hon. Member for Wellington in the Amendment which he has proposed, because I can bear him out as to the peculiar character of this borough. It is, the largest borough in England, in area containing no less than 22,000 acres. It is a borough composed of three towns in the middle of a large agricultural area. Each of these towns has a population of from 2,000 to 3,000, but if the whole borough is taken the population is only 15,000, and therefore the licences would come under the larger scale. This borough has been treated in a peculiar manner in times gone by, therefore it comes under no new application. The exceptional nature of the borough was recognised by an exceptional section in the Education Act of 1870, and again in the Local Government Act of 1888. The hon. Member for Wellington has said that the borough asks that the sanitary divisions should be taken as the area for the licensing question. The Chancellor of the Duchy has told us of the particular case of the federated Staffordshire towns, and I think that we have here a case of even greater claim to exceptional treatment. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government will give the matter sympathetic consideration.
§ Mr. REES
I would like to say a word in support of this Amendment, and of the Mover and of the hon. Gentleman who has last spoken. I am, myself, well acquainted with this borough and its peculiar circumstances. But one of the boroughs which I represent myself, though not the largest in England, is the next largest, and only 600 acres less than Wenlock. I refer to Welshpool. The circumstances of this town are also extraordinary. It is a small town situated in a very large area which comes within the Parliamentary borough, and I had wished, had not this point been raised on behalf of Wenlock, to raise it on behalf of Welshpool. The circumstances are very much the same. I hope the House will not be prejudiced by the fact that Welshpool is not known as Much Welshpool as Wenlock is known as Much Wenlock, because that is a difference 2073 which merely proceeds from the fact that the Welshpudlians are as modest as the Salopians are proud.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The circumstances of Wenlock are certainly peculiar, but the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down shows in what the Government will be involved if this Amendment were accepted. For immediately it establishes a precedent, and many anonymous boroughs would appear in various parts of the United Kingdom, and would make a claim analogous to that of Wenlock. I point out, further, the case is distinct from that of the Potteries in many particulars. In this case the towns have been united for 20 years. The Potteries are to be united next year, and the exemption allowed is to last the period of only 20 years, which has already elapsed in the case of this town of the borough of Wenlock. Secondly, the Pottery towns are separate for the purposes of rating and finance generally; and, thirdly, the minimum duty in the potteries is very considerable. As they have a population of over 100,000 the minimum duty will be £35. It is only little more than half that in the case of Wenlock. The minimum charge in the case of the beerhouses in the Potteries will be £23, whereas in the case of Wenlock it will be only £13. More than that, my hon. Friend does not propose a limit of 20 years, which is the period adopted in the case of the Amendment in connection with the Potteries which I have moved. For all these reasons the cases are not parallel, and although I shall be very willing to listen between now and the Report stage to any new and more cogent arguments which hon. Members can advance to show that this town is differentiated from that of any other boroughs which cover the same large area and have
§ the same proportions of population, as at present advised I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. HENRY
The reason I did not bring the parallel of the Potteries to that of Wenlock was that I did not think the cases were analogous. If my right hon. Friend would make the concession I am quite willing to accept the limit of 20 years. Personally, I do not want to press this matter to a Division, especially when the right hon. Gentleman promises that between now and the Report stage he will consider the matter, and I may say I have no objection whatever to the case brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery Boroughs being also considered.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I have already said I will consider any representations my hon. Friends may make to me. I am not prepared to pledge myself to the word "favourably."
§ Mr. REMNANT
As the right hon. Gentlemen has promised Members upon his side to consider between now and the Report stage their Amendments, will he make a similar promise to Members upon this side of the House to consider the case of London?
§ Leave withheld.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 184.2075
|Division No. 777.]||AYES.||[7.50 p.m.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Forster, Henry William||Morse, L. L.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Gardner, Ernest||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Haddock, George B.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Renton, Leslie|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Heaton, John Henniker||Renwick, George|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Helmsley, Viscount||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hill, Sir Clement||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hills, J. W.||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Starkey, John R.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Kerry, Earl of||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Keswick, William||Valentia, Viscount|
|Clyde, J. Avon||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Walker, Col. W. H. Lancashire)|
|Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Taber, George Denison (York)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Henry and Mr. Stanier.|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Pointer, J.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Pollard, Dr. G. H.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)|
|Beker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Rees, J. D.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Hedges, A. Paget||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Barker, Sir John||Helme, Norval Watson||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Beale, W. P.||Higham, John Sharp||Robinson, S.|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)||Hobart, Sir Robert||Robson, Sir Walter Snowdon|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Hodge, John||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hyde, Clarendon G.||Rowlands, J.|
|Brigg, John||Idris, T. H. W.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Jardine, Sir J.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Jenkins, J.||Seddon, J.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Seely, Colonel|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Shackleton, David James|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Kekewich, Sir George||Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Clough, William||Kelley, George D.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Clynes, J. R.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Laidlaw, Robert||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Lament, Norman||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Steadman, W. C.|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Corbett, C. N. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Summerbell, T.|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Lewis, John Herbert||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Crossley, William J.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||M'Callum, John M.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Toulmin, George|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Duckworth, Sir James||Massie, J.||Verney, F. W.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Middlebrook, William||Walters, John Tudor|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Mond, A.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Elibank, Master of||Myer, Horatio||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Essex, R. W.||Napier, T. B.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Nicholls, George||Watt, Henry A.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Findlay, Alexander||Norman, Sir Henry||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Nuttall, Harry||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Gill, A. H.||Partington, Oswald||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Philips, John (Longford, S.)||Norton and Mr. Whitley.|
|Gulland, John W.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
Question, "That those words be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGH moved to insert, at the end of Scale 4 (Wine Eetailers' On-Licence), the words: "Where a retailer's on-licence for wine is taken out by a person who is the holder of a beerhouse licence, the duty payable on the retailer's on-licence for wine shall not exceed 25 per cent. of the duty payable on the beerhouse licence."
§ This Amendment raises a question of very great importance. I am not asking by this Amendment any concession, but I 2076 think the grievance which I seek to remedy is due to an oversight on the part of the Government, and upon this ground I venture to claim for it the sympathetic attention of those in charge of the Bill. I think the sooner this matter is elucidated the better for all parties concerned. As the Bill stands it is possible that in many cases it may occur that the united duties upon the combined on-licence for beer and wine may be equal to or exceed the duty upon the full licence, which authorises the 2077 sale of all kinds of drink, and this may occur upon premises of identically the same annual value. That appears to be a case of anomaly, and the case becomes more apparent if we consider it in connection with the minimum charge. It is in the knowledge of the Committee that the minimum charge for wine is exactly the same as the minimum charge for a full licence, and consequently if a house is desirous of selling beer and wine they would have, in addition to the minimum charge for selling wine, to take out a minimum licence for selling beer.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ I am glad to see that the Solicitor-General is going to answer this Amendment, because it appears to me that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster revels in anomalies, and this is one after his, own heart. I would like to give an instance showing the justice of the Amendment I am bringing forward. Take the case of a £24 house. The full licence would be £12, the beerhouse licence would be £8, and a wine on-licence would be £4 10s., or altogether the combined licences in a beerhouse where the proprietor desires to sell wine would be £12 10s., whereas a full licence would be only £12. Take the case of a £36 house. The full licence would be £18. The beerhouse licence would be £12 and the wine on-licence £6, and taken together the cost would be exactly the same. It will be obvious to the Committee that a full licence is by far the most valuable. If I have succeeded in pointing out an anomaly to the Committee, I am very glad to have been able to do so, and without any further argument I will move my Amendment.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANS
The object we have in view in proposing this scale of licences is to make them distinct one from the other. The publican's licence is one thing and the beer licence or the wine licence is quite another thing. Until the year 1880 there was a separate licence required from the Excise for wine and for beer, but after that year, for some reason or other, the two separate licences were combined into one licence for beer and wine for the sum of £4. There was no justices' licence which corresponded to these licences which enabled them to sell both beer and wine upon the premises. In this Bill we have a separate scale for the wine retailers. It is possible that these two licences combined will in some cases come to more than the full publican's licence, but I submit to the Committee that that is not the proper test. I have known 2078 cases of applications for full licences where there existed before only a wine and beerhouse licence refused over and over again. The amount is very small for a house the annual value of which is under £30, the licence being £4 10s., and that is only £1 more than it was before and up to the year 1880. In no case, whatever the annual value of the house may be, can the wine licence be more than £12. This is considered to be a reasonable sum, having regard to the incidence of taxation and the question of the revenue to be raised. If we accept this Amendment there will be an irresistible case for applying the same principle to off-licences. To adopt that course would entail a very great diminution of revenue, and having regard to the smallness of the scale and the maximum sum and the fact that we are only reverting to the state of things which existed before 1880, when the beer and wine licences were separate, I am afraid the Government, notwithstanding the forcible speech of the Noble Lord, are not in a position to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. RENWICK
In some cases the combined Beer and Wine Duties will exceed the amount of a full licence, and for this reason I think the Amendment ought to receive some consideration. We are in the extraordinary position that the Government have in the whole of this Finance-Bill favoured the importation of wine by imposing very small duties upon wines as compared with beer and spirits. That, I take it, will lead to a further increase in the importation of wines, and if you are going to do this surely you ought to take some steps in the direction of facilitating, the drinking of wine. I take it that the object of the Government in giving this preference to wine is that they think it is much less injurious than spirits, which has a very much heavier duty. I ask the Solicitor-General how can he justify this proposal? He may be able to justify in the eyes of his own party, but he cannot justify in the country, the fact that the combined duty on wine and beer will in some cases exceed a full licence. I cannot imagine how, for the sake of facilitating the passage of this Bill, he can justify a charge of this description. I sincerely hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider this matter, and if he does not give us some assurance on this point I shall certainly vote in favour of this Amendment.
Mr. G. D. FABER
The Solicitor-General's argument appears to be that if 2079 you remedy the injustice in this case you will also have to remedy it in the case of the off-licence. Surely that is not an argument that will commend itself to the Committee from the point of view of justice. I think that is a strong reason for remedying the injustice in both cases, but the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think it is a sufficient reason for remedying neither. In the cases quoted by my Noble Friend actually the full licence would be cheaper than the joint licence for beer and for wine, and that cannot be justified. I agree that the words proposed may not come in quite conveniently in the position in which they are proposed to be inserted in the Bill by this Amendment. The Solicitor-General has frequently shown himself sympathetic in cases of this kind after we have pointed out the injustice which will be done, and I ask him before the Report Stage to look into the matter in order to see whether this injustice cannot be remedied.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANS
There is no doubt an anomaly exists, but it is far more apparent than real by reason of the fewness of the cases. I do not like anomalies, and I will undertake to look into the matter to see whether the case put forward requires separate treatment, whether it is a small matter, whether we need to stick to it as a question of revenue, or whether the anomaly is a really great one. I will undertake to consider the matter on the Report stage.
Mr. G. D. FABER
I do not think the Solicitor-General should look at this matter solely from the point of the revenue, but he should look at it all round.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGH
Under the circumstances I think I am justified in withdrawing this Amendment. I would suggest, however, that the Solicitor-General should give additional attention to the words I have proposed, because I think they will meet the case.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendments made: In Scale 4 (Off-Licences—Beer), paragraph (1), leave out "c. 41, s. 20," and insert instead thereof "c. 20, s. 41."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
§ In same Scale—Wine, leave out "Scale 6." and insert instead thereof "Scale 7."—[Mr Herbert Samuel.]
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in the same Scale, to add after the second 2080 paragraph relating to Wine, "Licence as a dealer in wine, on which duty is payable under 6 Geo. 4, c. 81, s. 2, so far as such a licence authorises sale by retail."
Mr. G. D. FABER
I think the right hon. Gentleman might give us a word of explanation in regard to this proposal.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The wine keeper's licence authorises sale by retail as well as wholesale. A justices' licence is required to authorise the sale not only wholesale, but also by retail. Consequently it is necessary in this definition to make clear that this Act so far as it authorises sale by retail has reference to the licence with which we are now dealing.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in Scale 5 (Spirit Retailers' Off-Licence) to leave out:—
|£30 and under £50||…||…||20||0||0|
|£50 and under £100||…||…||30||0||0|
|£100 and over||…||…||50||0||0|
|Not exceeding £10||…||10||0||0|
|Exceeding £10 and not exceeding £20||…||11||10||0|
|Exceeding £20 and not exceeding £30||…||14||0||0|
|Exceeding £30 and not exceeding £50||…||15||0||0|
|Exceeding £50 and not exceeding £75||…||16||0||0|
|Exceeding £75 and not exceeding £100||…||17||10||0|
|Exceeding £100 and not exceeding £250||…||19||0||0|
|Exceeding £250 and not exceeding £500||…||30||0||0|
§ This Amendment has been on the Paper a long time and it was promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as long ago as July last. The Scale in the Bill was recognised, on reconsideration, as being unduly onerous. There are a number of cases in which off-licence holders who hold all the various licences in respect of spirits, wine, and beer, and who would be required to pay a higher sum than publicans who have both on and off-licences for the same beverages. That cannot be avoided in some cases of the lower-rated premises without lowering the duties already paid. It was represented to us very strongly that the sales carried on by large numbers of grocers in highly-rated premises are frequently very small. They may have a considerable business as grocers, and their liquor business be a 2081 very trifling adjunct to it. The effect of charging the high Licence Duties proposed in the Bill would be not to bring in any additional revenue, as anticipated, but merely to induce grocers to surrender their liquor licences and deal in groceries only. We are familiar in all these cases with the argument that the duties will be found so oppressive that they will bring in no additional revenue; but it may nevertheless sometimes have substance and have to be admitted by the Government that the rate of taxation may be so high that fresh revenue will not be obtained. We thought it desirable for all these considerations to remodel the scale of duties for off-licence holders, and the Amendment I now move is the first of a series to effect that purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have been in communication with the off-licence holders of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and it is estimated that this scale we now propose would, to a large extent, meet the requirements of the business, and at the same time considerably increase the revenue. All taxpayers object to increased taxation upon their business, and the off-licence holders are by no means addicted to have their duties raised, but if they are to be raised the scale now proposed is the form which would cause them the minimum of inconvenience. Under the Bill, the duties, if a man wants to sell spirits, wine, and beer, start at £21 on the lowest rated houses, and go up to £70 on the highest rated houses of £100 and upwards. The new scale begins at £14, and rises to £70 and upwards. A large proportion take out spirit, wine, and beer licences; consequently, they will have to take out three licences, and, if hon. Members will look at the three sets of duties set out, they will see that on the lowest rated houses they come to £14, and on the highest rated houses to £70. The wholesale Licence Duties remain as proposed in the Bill, but we propose as a further concession that where the two are held in combination, as they very often are, the wholesale licence may be had at a reduction not of 25 per cent. as proposed in the Bill, but of 50 per cent. If there are any other points hon. Members opposite desire me to explain, I shall be pleased to do so, but meanwhile I hope these considerations are sufficient to commend the proposals to the Committee.2082
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
Supposing the same number of licences are taken out in the future as in the past, the proposal would cost about £200,000, but, as it is certain that that estimate is really a paper estimate, and that the effect of the Bill would be to deter a large number of grocers continuing their licences, the loss would be very considerably less than that amount. It is impossible to say how much less till we know how many licences will be taken up.
§ Mr. REMNANT
This change, considerable as it is, does not remove the objection which has been urged during the Debate to placing the off-licence duties on the annual value of the premises. I think anybody who has really studied the cases of small people in the country districts must appreciate that, even reduced as these duties are now, they will be very oppressive. The case of Ireland has been constantly urged, and has been put with such force to the Government in other directions that they have made a special exception of Ireland, and I should imagine this case would apply as strongly to Ireland as it does to England and Scotland. I have had numerous letters from members of my Constituency stating that these taxes are so onerous and oppressive, both directly and indirectly, that their businesses, small as they are, stand a great chance of having to be sacrificed. I cannot understand the position of the Government. On the one hand, they wish to be fair and not oppressive, but they have no sooner said that than they get up and speak in favour of taxes which are considered most oppressive by those who have really studied and understand the question. I believe if the Solicitor-General who took such an active interest and a large part in the Licensing Bill was here he would appreciate in this case, as he has done in others, that there is considerable reason and ground for relief. In his absence I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge at the present moment to favourably consider this matter. I would like to move an Amendment to substitute £10 for £5 in the first line.
§ Question, "That Scale 5 (Spirit Retailers' Off-Licence) stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.2083
§ Mr. REMNANT moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in the first line of the proposed new scale, to leave out "£10" (the amount of the duty) and to insert instead thereof "£5."
§ This cannot be a very serious matter from a revenue point of view, while it certainly would relieve a great many of the hardships to which attention has been drawn. I commend it, therefore, to the serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The Government cannot accept this Amendment. The scale has been agreed upon between the parties concerned, and I would point out that if this Amendment were carried it would allow grocers to get spirit licences at a considerably cheaper rate than they now do.
§ Mr. REMNANT
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that this scale has been arranged between the parties?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I told the hon. Member that the Government had been in communication with the Off-Licence Holders' Association, and this scale was agreed upon as one which would impose a minimum amount of inconvenience, providing, of course, the duties are to be raised.
§ Sir WILLIAM COLLINS
I thank the Government for their concession in this matter. When first the Bill was published I had communications from off-licence holders in my Constituency, and since the new scale has been brought forward I have been given to understand by those who felt that they had a just and legitimate complaint against the original scale that they are satisfied with this proposal. On their behalf, therefore, I desire to thank the Government for the concession which it has made.
Mr. G. D. FABER
I congratulate the Government on having at last discovered, five months after the Budget was introduced into this Chamber, that there comes a breaking-point in taxation, and that the higher the tax is the smaller will be the revenue return. That has been a matter of common knowledge to great Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past, but apparently the present Government have a 2084 great deal to learn in this direction. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has told us that this remission in favour of off-licence holders will cost something like £200,000, but, he added, that it would not really be so large as the scale, as originally fixed, would have acted as so great a deterrent to those accustomed to take out these off-licences that they would drop their licences rather than pay the amount set down in the scale. That is a great confession for the right hon. Gentleman to have made, and I thank him for it. What we have been saying from first to last, ever since the Licensing Duties were laid before this House, was that that would be the effect—
Mr. G. D. FABER
I understand that the object of the Amendment is to still further reduce the charge—to reduce it from £10 to £5. I am glad that that proposal is made. I have been championing the cause of the on-licence holders, but I am none the less delighted at any prospect of getting a concession for the off-licence holders. I shall be only too glad, if the right hon. Gentleman will agree, to substitute £5 for £10. I have simply been overwhelmed with representations from members of the off-licence trade with regard to the burdens these new duties will cast upon them, and if we are able to get this concession from the hard-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer I shall be only too glad. I hope that, on a subsequent Amendment to this proposal, I may be permitted to indulge in remarks of a more general character. I would point out to hon. Members that to the thousands engaged in this trade this is a matter of great importance.
§ Mr. G. RENWICK
I confess I cannot see my way to support this Amendment, and I must join in the thanks which have been expressed by an hon. Member opposite for the concession which has been made to off-licence holders. It is undoubtedly a valuable concession, but one cannot help thinking that this tender regard for off-licence holders has underlying it some motive which has not yet been disclosed. I should like to know what that motive is. I have a shrewd suspicion that votes are at the bottom of it. When we compare the way in which these gentlemen have been met with the bitter hostility which has been displayed to the on-licence holders, one cannot help thinking that if 2085 there had been an equal number of votes on each side the on-licence holders would have received the same consideration as the off-licence holders are getting. When concessions like these are made they ought not to be made to a particular body of men. They should be made in a general way. If the right hon. Gentleman has £200,000 or £300,000 to give away, he surely might have spread it over the off-licence holders and the on-licence holders equally. I cannot help expressing my regret once more at the way in which the on-licence holders have been treated, and I hope the remarks I have made will induce the right hon. Gentleman to adopt a more conciliatory attitude to that body. Perhaps he will consider that the question of votes is, after all, something—
§ Mr. RENWICK
Then I will conclude my remarks by appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to give the same consideration to the on-licence holders as he is giving to the off-licence holders.
§ Mr. REMNANT
If this is the result of an arrangement between those representing the off-licence trade and the Government I will not attempt to upset it. Under the circumstances, I would ask permission to be allowed to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. G. D. FABER
When I was interrupted I was trying to point out that the improvement in this new scale, although I understand it has been agreed to by representatives referred to is an enormous increase upon Mr. Gladstone's scale under the Act of 1880. There, I believe, the licence in all such cases was £3 10s., and now for the first time as regards off-licences it proceeds upon the basis of annual value. Mr. Gladstone, for some reason of his own, in the scale of 1880 disregarded annual value and made a charge of £3 10s. all round. One cannot help contrasting this scale of off-licences with the scale for on-licences. I can only say that I wish the right hon. Gentleman had discovered there was a breaking point in the scale for on-licences as he has discovered it in the case of off-licences. He came to the conclusion that by proceeding with the scale as regards off-licences he would have lost more than he would have gained. He would have drawn the enormously increased duty prescribed in the 2086 original scale, but it would have had such a deterrent effect upon the trade as a whole, that the traders, rather than pay such an exorbitant amount, would have dropped the licence altogether, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have found himself no richer, but poorer, in consequence. I do not complain of his having arranged the matter with the off-licence trade, but I wish in his financial wisdom that he had tried to make a similar arrangement for the on-licence holders.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
It is quite correct that the off-licence holder can get a spirit licence for £3 10s. He can get a retail licence for £3 3s., but there is this anomaly in the present law, that he cannot have a retail licence without first taking out a wholesale licence, so that no grocer can take out a licence to sell in retail quantities alone, and for the two in combination he has to pay £13 13s. Now we propose to allow him to have on the lowest rated houses a licence for spirits at the rate of £10, but although there is no graduation according to rateable value in England, there is for off-licence holders in Scotland and Ireland.
§ Colonel W. H. WALKER
Do I understand from the Chancellor of the Duchy that a grocer who wishes to sell spirits retail and nothing else can get a licence cheaper under this new scale than previously?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
If he has a comparatively small place he can get a licence for £10 now instead of £13 13s., but he is now restricted, as he was not before, to selling in retail quantities.
§ Colonel WALKER
The rate under this Bill must be to the advantage of the individual grocer who confines his trade to selling retail.
§ Lord BALCARRES
I confess I have not appreciated the point of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend. I am quite sure that the public at large have not yet understood that the effect of this alteration in the Schedule is to allow the duty for retailers of spirits to be lower than it was 12 months ago. Perhaps, to some extent, that accounts for the enthusiasm with which we gather the Chancellor of the Duchy's scheme has been accepted by this particular branch of the trade. As to the financial effect of this new series of Schedules, it is true I did not give the right hon. Gentleman notice of my question on that point, and 2087 perhaps he was not at that moment prepared to deal with it as fully as the subject demands. I gathered that he said the effect of these reductions might be to incur a loss to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of something like £200,000 a year. I think it is very important that we should have a more definite and revised estimate. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that he expects in certain cases the number of licences taken out will be reduced.
§ Lord BALCARRES
In view of the fact that the retailer will be able to take out his licence at a smaller figure than is the case to-day, does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate in consequences of that very great concession, and considering how very heavy other portions of the licensed trade are hit, that more licences will be applied for? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee a financial estimate on his revised Schedules.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The cases in which a grocer will be able to get a licence cheaper than now are exceedingly few, because it is only in the case of the smallest houses that this can possibly occur. If the house does not exceed a rateable value of £10, a spirit licence costs £10, which is less than the wholesale plus retail licence now. I do not know how many cottages there are less than £10 in annual value and grocers' shops which have a spirit licence, but there must be hardly any, if indeed there are any. As to the next step in the scale, exceeding £10 and not exceeding £20, again he will be able to get his licence at £11 10s. retail instead of 13 guineas, retail and wholesale. There there is a very small decline; but there again the number of grocers' shops of less than £20 which have these spirit licences are few, if any. As soon as we come to the third step, exceeding £20 and not exceeding £30, there at once you get a £14 licence for retail only in place of the present 13-guinea licence, both retail and wholesale, so that the charge will be higher than it his been hitherto. Therefore the cases must be so small as to be quite negligible in making these estimates of the probable yield of the duties. Further, this must be taken into account, that the existing law was obviously anomalous. To say to a man, "You shall not have a retail licence unless you also have a wholesale licence," as clearly wrong, and it was necessary to 2088 split the licence in two. When you have split the licence in two you have to take all the circumstances into account, and it was thought right to charge a sum of 15 guineas for a wholesale licence and to charge sums varying, according to the scale, from £10 up to £50 for the retail licence. If a man with a £10 cottage wanted to have the wholesale plus retail licence which he has now—if he wants to get the same thing that he pays 13 guineas for now—he would have to pay in future £17 odd—that is, £10 plus half of 15 guineas—to get what he now pays 13 guineas for.
§ Lord BALCARRES
I am much obliged; but could the right hon. Gentleman give a general estimate of the financial alteration involved apart from houses under £20?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
It was estimated that these concessions would, if the Bill made no difference to the number of licences, cost £200,000, but it is perfectly impossible to estimate how many grocers would have surrendered their licences if the scale of the Bill had been insisted upon, and how many would still retain them under the scale which we now propose to insert.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether in Scotland the value that is to be taken in order to determine the amount of the Licence Duty is to be the value appearing in the valuation roll?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The Scotch licensed grocers are now charged upon their rateable value on a scale varying with their rateable value, and as at present advised I am of opinion that the same principle will apply in future as now.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: In Scale 6, to leave out "or wine retailers" ["beer retailers' or wine retailers' off-licence"].—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
§ To leave out:—
|£30 and under £50||…||…||5||0||0|
|£50 and under £100||…||…||7||0||0|
|£100 and over||…||…||10||0||0|
|Not exceeding £10||…||1||10||0|
|Exceeding £10 and not exceeding £20||…||2||0||0|
|Exceeding £20 and not exceeding £30||…||2||10||0|
|Exceeding £30 and not exceeding £50||…||3||0||0|
|Exceeding £50 and not exceeding £75||…||3||10||0|
|Exceeding £75 and not exceeding £100||…||4||0||0|
|Exceeding £100 and not exceeding £250||…||4||10||0|
|Exceeding £250 and not exceeding £500||…||7||0||0|