Scale 7.

HC Deb 06 October 1909 vol 11 cc2089-148

Wine Retailer's Oil-Licences.

Annual value of licensed premises—

		Duty.
		£	s.	d.
Not exceeding £20	…	2	10	0
Exceeding £20, but not exceeding £30	…	3	0	0
Exceeding £30 but not exceeding £50	…	3	10	0
Exceeding £50 but not exceeding £75	…	4	0	0
Exceeding £75 but not exceeding £100	…	4	10	0
Exceeding £100 but not exceeding £250	…	5	0	0
Exceeding £250 but not exceeding £500	…	7	0	0
Exceeding £500	…	10	0	0

—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in same scale (Provisions applicable to Retailers' Licences (General)), paragraph 1, to leave out the word "The" ["The sale at any one time"] and to insert instead thereof the words "A retailer's licence authorises."

This is a drafting Amendment, which is consequential upon the alteration which was made in respect of wholesale licences, and with regard to the quantities which may be sold under those licences. I made a very full explanation when dealing with the Amendment of the wholesale licence part of this Schedule. This Amendment makes no change at all in the proposals which appeared in this part of the Schedule, but the form in which they appeared must he altered on account of the alterations which were made to the wholesale part.

Mr. G. D. FABER

I am not quite clear that the retailer's position is not altered for the worse by this series of Amendments. I am told it is very doubtful whether there has been any such general restriction of the amount which may be sold by the retailer which is proposed in this Amendment. The definitions of sale by retail as a rule have been intended merely to show what the wholesale dealer might not do, and not to limit the amount which the retailer might do. The only restrictive provisions on retailers I am told are those contained in Section 102 of the Spirits Act, 1880, which forbids the spirit retailer to sell to another retailer or to a dealer unless he also holds a dealer's licence, and in the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1845, which forbids a spirit grocer in Ireland to sell more than two quarts of spirits at one time. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will explain whether his Amendments do alter for the worse the position of the retailer in regard to what he is allowed to do under his retail licence.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The Amendments make no difference at all. This Amendment merely recasts the form in which the Schedule now appears. Whether the Schedule itself makes any difference is, I think, what the hon. Member has in his mind. It would be advisable if I were to consider it before the Report stage, but, as at present advised, I am certainly of opinion that the retailer is restricted under the existing law and may not sell any quantities above those specified in the retail licence.

Mr. G. D. FABER

I am perfectly satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made, in Scale 6, to leave out the words "is sale by retail, and the sale at one time to one person of liquor in any larger quantities is wholesale dealing.

"2. A retailer's on-licence does not in any case authorise wholesale dealing," and to insert instead thereof the words "but not in any larger quantities."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I beg to move, in paragraph (3) ('Provisions applicable to Retailers' On-licences), to leave out the word "seven" ["annual value of the premises exceeds seven hundred pounds "], and insert instead thereof the word "five."

This is the concession which was announced some time ago to enable publicans and other persons with licensed premises of over £500 to have the option of being assessed upon annual compensation value instead of annual value.

Mr. JOHN GRETTON

It has been repeatedly stated by the Government in this House that this concession is one of very great value, but they have always refused to explain what they mean by it. The whole point of this Amendment depends entirely upon how they arrive at annual compensation value. No one representing the Government has ever explained to the Committee or the country how annual compensation value is to be arrived at. This matter has been very carefully investigated. The Amendment has been brought forward specially to meet the case of the large houses in London. Many of the owners of these large houses have paid great attention to this matter, and having expert knowledge, and being fully acquainted with all the terms, decisions, and precedents created under the Act of 1904, they have endeavoured to estimate the annual compensation value to which this paragraph would apply in the case of houses over £500 value. In no case does their calculation result in any reduction of the tax. These houses are of great value owing to the value of the site and the buildings, and when the trade done in houses is added to the value of the site and building the result is that a very large amount is taken for compensation under the Act of 1904. On the other hand, having regard to local taxation, which is already very heavy on the licensed trade, and the rents which such houses would command in many cases, the Government have already sucked the orange dry. But when you come to assess for ascertaining what the annual compensation value will be the amount is swollen beyond that which the Government propose in their scale, and under these circumstances I cannot convince myself that this so-called concession will be of the slightest value to any of these houses. It is no mitigation of the burden which this Bill proposes to impose upon them. I think the time has come when the Government should unravel the mystery of this concession by submitting figures, or by some method of calculation in order that the Committee may really know the meaning of the Amendment, and how the concession is to be worked out to afford some relief of the overwhelming burden of taxation which the Schedule proposes to impose on these licensed premises.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The Government have never said that this different basis would be a concession to all the houses above £500 or £700 value. There may be cases in which the rent is very moderate in proportion to the trade done, and there may be houses standing on sites of no very great value—buildings which are rated on a value of £600 a year—which may be doing a colossal trade, and if their compensation value were taken as the basis, I daresay they would not get an advantage. But these are not the houses that the Government have in view. These houses already, ex hypothesi, are being assessed on a low rateable value. The houses we have in view in proposing this option, as I have stated on more than one occasion, are houses which are in main thoroughfares perhaps, or at the corners of streets. They stand on very valuable sites and are commanding buildings, but, nevertheless, when they come to be examined, are found to do a very small liquor trade in consideration of the value of the buildings. There you will find that the compensation value would be remarkably low in proportion to the annual value. The hon. Member asked what is compensation value? Compensation value is the difference between the value of the premises with a licence and the value of the premises without a licence. That is a capital sum. Having got the capital sum, you have to ascertain what is the equivalent. The precise formula for effecting that calculation has not yet been laid before the Committee. We have undertaken, before we reach the Clause to which this matter is really germane, to give a statement of the general lines on which the calculation may be made. The importance of this point has been greatly exaggerated by hon. Members opposite. The law says that the annual compensation value shall be calculated in such a way, and the Licence Duty is to be levied on what is the annual equivalent of that capital sum. It must be the equivalent, but if a sum is arrived at which is not the equivalent, then we should be departing from the clear terms of the Act of Parliament. The hon. Member omitted one point in his speech. Not only are we taking a valuation which, in many cases, is lower than the annual value would be, but, for the purpose of Licence Duty, we divide that not by a half but by a third. That is an enormous difference. The difference between one-half and one-third is much greater than at first sight appears.

Mr. BARNARD

Is it on all houses?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Only houses above £500. We are speaking about this particular paragraph in the Schedule which relates to these houses. The hon. Member is thinking of small houses and beerhouses in rural districts.

Mr. BARNARD

The number you quote is only a minority of the whole.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Certainly they are a minority over £500 in value. That is obvious. The contention is that these houses are too highly valued, especially in proportion to their high rateable value. The difference between one-half and one-third is one-sixth, but the reduction is not a reduction of one-sixth, but a reduction of one-third of the revenue to be derived from it. Take the houses which are assessed for annual compensation value at £600, If you take half the compensation value as duty it would be £300, and if you take one-third of it it would be £200. Therefore the Amendment which I am going to move in a few minutes to reduce it from one-half to one-third will mean a difference in the duty on both houses from £300 to £200. That is, you lower the charge by one-third, which is a very great reduction indeed.

Mr. G. D. FABER

The change which you make of substituting £500 for £700 is, pro tanto, a concession; but to me the matter still remains wrapt in Cimmerian darkness as to what the annual compensation value is. I have been trying hard to understand the Finance Bill, and more especially what the compensation value means, and not only am I unable to understand it, but our professional advisers are unable to understand it, and I have waited for that happy moment when the right hon. Gentleman, with that perspicuity which we all so greatly admire, will make clear to us what remains wrapped in mystery. Until that happy moment arrives we fear that when we get the duty based on annual compensation value we may be out of the frying-pan into the fire.

Mr. MOONEY

I had an Amendment down on the Paper on this point in reference to Ireland to reduce the amount to £200. I wish now to direct attention to the fact that even the reduced figure which has just been put, before us does not give any advantage, and I desire to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that between this and the Report stage he should consider the advisability of putting in a corresponding figure for Ireland, having regard to the trade, the valuation, and everything else, and the number of houses affected. The number of houses which would be affected in Ireland would be very small. There would be only 29 houses above £200, and between this and the Report stage I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if necessary, to put in an Amendment on the lines I have suggested.

Mr. DILLON

I wish to support the suggestion that has just been made. I understood that this concession was to be extended to Ireland. Anyone who examines the figures will see that in order to extend it to Ireland it will be necessary to name, not the same figure, but a corresponding figure, because there are only six houses in the whole of Ireland above £500, and therefore to name the same concession for Ireland would be no equivalent at all. Having examined the figures very carefully, I would suggest that the very highest figure in Ireland corresponding to the £500 valuation which you propose in England would be £200.

Mr. GRETTON

The right hon. Gentletleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel) has really not helped his case very much by the remarks he has just made. It is quite true you have reduced the tax on the compensation value from one-half to one-third in the case of houses over £500 annual compensation value, but the figure still remains higher in every case, as I say, working it both ways, than the charge proposed to be made in the Schedule, except in the case of very few houses—such houses as those which the right hon. Gentleman has himself described in which the charges very nearly approximate. In most cases they are slightly over; in some cases they are practically the same. But these cases ere absolutely exceptional when you go through the houses which are tied to various breweries. There are only two or three cases in a long list of such houses valued over £500. This concession is really no concesion at all, dealing with the broad case, so we may conclude that this reduction of the limit is no substantial relief whatever for the larger and more expensive houses. The right hon. Gentleman has promised a full explanation. I want to clear his mind before he makes that explanation of a confusion that appears to have crept into it. In the Act of 1904 there was only one way of arriving at compensation value. You took the difference between the annual value of the premises with the licence and the annual value without the licence, and then capitalised that value. You then took the annual trade done in those houses, you capitalised the value of the trade on a certain number of years' trading, and you then put the two sums together. You have to deal in that case with a lump sum, but, at the same time, you are compensating the house for every interest in that house—the ground landlord's interest, if he has one, the tenant's interest, and the interest of the manager. There is no indication whatsoever how you are to arrive at the annual compensation value. The only other indication is given in the Act of 1894, as applicable to this case.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

On a point of Order. Does this question of the annual compensation value arise on this Amendment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The principle of how to arrive at the compensation value comes on in another part of the Bill.

Mr. GRETTON

I will not press that view of the case further. It has been put forward that the Government are making a concession, but I contend that it is no concession except in cases which are infinitesimal in number as compared with the whole number of houses. This concession will have no value whatsoever until we know how the annual compensation value is arrived at, and I may add that at a later stage we shall have to consider that matter. The Government evidently do not understand at the present moment what is the meaning of "annual compensation value," and we are all still in the dark in relation to it.

Mr. REMNANT

May I ask the Solicitor-General whether it is his intention to consider the possibility of reducing the sum from £700 to £200 on Report? I understand the hon. Member below the Gangway has an Amendment to reduce the amount to £200.

Mr. MOONEY

My proposal is not to reduce the English figure to £200.

Mr. REMNANT

I thought it was generally to move that the figure be reduced from £700 to £200, and I understood that the Government had undertaken to consider it, if possible, between this and the Report stage.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

I shall certainly vote for this reduction, but I would urge seriously upon the Government to consider the absolute necessity of reducing this figure to at least £200. I am perfectly satisfied from my own calculations that the duty payable under the alternative of compensation value, one-third of the compensation value, will be less than the 50 per cent. on rental. Let me point out exactly how hard it would be in the case of a man under £500, and down to £200, compared with the licence holder whose house is £600. Suppose the house is £600. A man comes for his licence; he is over the £500, therefore he pays £200 certain, whereas the other man, who is below £500, will have to pay £245; that is to say, if his rent is £490 as against the man who pays £600, he will pay £245 absolutely, while the other man, at the higher rent, will pay £200, or it may be less. Therefore, unless the minimum is reduced to £200, or some similar amount, very great injustices and anomalies will arise between the figures, say, of £150 up to £500.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

One man may have annual value, and the other man may have compensation value.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

As I understand, the man who is over £500 is required to pay a certain sum by anticipation. It is surely so in the Section—he at once accepts the option, and, if he accepts the option, he has got to pay one-third; but the man of £490 rent actually has to pay £45 more than the man with the £600 rent. It is quite clear that if you have the compensation value it will be less than 50 per cent., the ordinary duty, and it stands to reason that you are giving to owners of houses where the rent is above £500 an advantage which you are not giving to lessees under £500. I want to know on what earthly ground you refuse to give the same advantage to lessees between, say, £100 or £200 a year up to £500 a year rent. The Committee will remember that these lower rented houses are overwhelmingly the largest number. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Charles Roberts), I think, stated that the average house was £332 rent. If that be so, then the man who is going to be injured is the man who has a less rent than £500. The number of houses over £500 is undoubtedly the smaller number, and the lessor of the larger house will get an advantage that you are going to deny to the £200, £300, or £400 man, until such time as he can obtain the compensation value in substitution for the annual value, and that may be one year, or two years, five years, or ten years hence—we do not know. But, during all that time, the Committee may take it from me, a substantial injustice will be done to the man of £200, £300, or £400 rent, as against the man of £500, £600, and £700 rent. I only want to impress a little more strongly on the Government than has yet been done a few of the anomalies and injustices which will arise in the case of the lower rented man. Now on £150 he pays 30 per cent., and he would have to pay 75 per cent.—150 per cent. more. I think that is quite enough. Take it at any reasonable figure you like under £500, by this proposal all privileges are with the higher rented man. That is what I impress upon the Government, and if they want to do justice to the smaller man they must reduce the limit from £500 to some such sum as £150.

Mr. RENWICK

I wish to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman who has an Amendment to reduce the sum from £700 to £500. An hon. Member below the Gangway has an Amendment to reduce it to £200, and I think he said he did not intend to move that Amendment. I gather from him that an arrangement has been made with the right hon. Gentleman by which the Irish case will be met.

Mr. MOONEY

My Amendment is on the Paper, and speaks for itself, and if the hon. Member will read it he will see what it is. I did not say anything about any arrangement.

Mr. RENWICK

I apologise. I understood him to say it was an arrangement. Then may I ask if in this case also Ireland has been met, and that there the minimum is to be £200 while it is to be £500 for Great Britain?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

No such decision has been arrived at. My hon. Friend has put down an Amendment for the first time to-day. His point is that we recognised that the valuation is on a different scale in Ireland to the valuation in England, and that for that reason we have a different kind of minimum for the lower value houses in Ireland than in England, because if we had the same minimum we would not arrive at the same effect. His point, as I understand it, is that the same principle applies to the higher houses, and that if we apply the English minimum of £500 to Ireland we should be applying it to a different class of house from that in England, and that if we want precisely to have the same class of house it must be a somewhat lower valuation in order to get at a house of the same character and really doing the same kind of trade. I interjected a remark across the floor that the Government would consider that point and look into it on Report stage.

Mr. LYTTELTON

Have the Government also considered the English case as to the £500 put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson)? If they have promised to do so, I would say no more about it; if not, I wish to ask for an explanation why they have taken a limit of £500 when it has been perfectly clearly shown, and no attempt has been made to answer it, that certainly in London, to houses of £300 or more in valuation, an injustice will be done in regard to this matter? It seems to me, if what is stated is a fact, and apparently it is not denied, that an overwhelming case for a lower standard has been made out.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The reduction from £700 to £500 was; very largely done in order to meet the case. The only reason for taking into consideration the other figure for Ireland would be the argument, if it is a valid argument, that a house in Ireland of £500 in valuation is not equal to a house of £500 valuation in London, or that it has not really the same effect by using the same figure. I quite agree with my hon. Friend opposite that the house above £500 has an advantage over that below that sum, but suppose you take the figure at £300, precisely the same thing would happen, the man above £300 would have the advantage. The same would happen if you took £100, or wherever you drew the line. The reason why the principle is not applied universally, because that is the real alternative, is a simple one. We think the principle is a far better principle; we believe in this compensation value, and we think the annual value basis is unsound, and that you ought to have regard to the trade, and that you ought not to have regard to the building. We want to get away from the annual value basis altogether, and universally apply this compensation value to all houses, whatever their value. That means an investigation of the circumstances of 120,000 licensed premises and the formation of a register of compensation value. That cannot be done in a moment. We have got a clause, which hon. Members have attacked again and again with the utmost vigour, authorising the Board of Customs and Excise to form this very register in order that the whole basis of Licence Duties may be shifted for all classes of houses. My hon. Friend desires that we should have, not annual value, but compensation value. That we propose to go on with as rapidly as may be, but it is a physical impossibility for the Department concerned to carry out this in a few weeks or a few months.

Mr. LYTTELTON

Why, in the meantime, and it may be a very long time, is an admitted injustice to continue?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I do not agree it is an admitted injustice. What I say is, a compensation value basis is a better basis than the basis which has existed in this country from time immemorial, which is now the law, and which has been the basis for a very long time past, and in respect to which we are obliged through the necessities of the case to adhere for the time being. Since the new duties will be far heavier on the larger houses than the small houses, and since the additional weight of the new duties increases in progressive ratio the larger the building, we thought it right not to require half annual value to be made on a house of, say, £1,000 a year or £1,200 a year, or £900 a year, doing perhaps a smaller trade than the smaller valued house. From the outset we wished that those houses should be at once assessed on the compenation value basis, and we would gladly have brought them all in the first year if that were possible. We found it practicable to bring in many thousands, about one half of which would be in London, by putting the figure at £500. To bring it lower would involve the whole undertaking practically.

Mr. RENWICK

Before this question is disposed of I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman is going to meet the demand for a lower basis of £500 with regard to Ireland, and that he refuses to meet the English demand for a similar reduction. The right hon. Gentleman has just acknowledged that the £500 house is more leniently treated than the £300 house, and that is an additional reason why he ought to favourably consider the case of Great Britain.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

The £500 house in London would be totally different from the £500 house in Ireland; but so it would be from the £500 house in Scotland or, say, the North of England. I want to impress this matter upon the right hon. Gentleman for further consideration. The man of £500 and over is included; but surely the higher you go the bigger the business. The man with the £500 or the £600 or £700 house is not to be called upon to pay the full 50 per cent., while the man with £400 is. Why are you going to relieve the £500 man, who is doing the bigger business, and leave out the man who has the £300 or £400 house, and is doing a smaller business?

Mr. J. WARD

That is an argument against every exception.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The man with the large house has not to pay the 50 per cent., but if he is doing the big business then the option would be no use to him, because his compensation value would be large.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

In my opinion, the compensation value will work out smaller than the 50 per cent. Assuming it is so, you are asking him to pay a smaller sum down, and from those who form the great bulk you are almost immediately going to take the full amount without the slightest chance of return. I want this Bill to be a success, and a measure such as the people will ultimately approve; but anything that is unjust or contains great anomalies cannot possibly last as a first-rate measure. Therefore, I want to give everybody, no matter what his rent may be, the same opportunities and privileges, and, although I shall vote for this proposal, I shall use my best endeavours to get the matter reviewed so that every licensee, whatever his rent, may have the full benefit.

Mr. REMNANT

The hon. Member apparently is going to vote for something which he thinks is unfair. It would be very easy for him to move an Amendment now to secure what he desires, and I am surprised that he has not done so. Of course, we are very thankful for small mercies, although I think they would have been larger if we had had the Solicitor-General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with. We know that the Chancellor of the Duchy has told us that he is not in a position to accept any Amendments.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr. REMNANT

I beg pardon; it was the Secretary to the Treasury. But really there are so many changes in the Minister in charge of the Bill that one gets confused. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been here I am sure that he would not only have agreed that Ireland is entitled to exceptional treatment, because the annual value there is taken in a different way from the annual value in England, but he would also have accepted my contention that London is entitled to special treatment for the same reason.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

We cannot go into the question of the special grievance of London. The question referred to is not under discussion at all.

Mr. REMNANT

I am objecting to the present Amendment, and giving as a reason the case of London. I understand that the case of Ireland would have been moved with the proposal to reduce the amount to £200 had it not been that that case was to be specially considered between now and Report; and my contention is that if Ireland is to be specially treated London also is entitled to special treatment for the same reason.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have already said that that question does not come into this discussion at all.

Mr. REMNANT

I will not pursue the point; but with all seriousness I would urge the Government in considering this matter to consider also the special circumstances of London.

Mr. E. H. CARLILE

The Committee are labouring under a great disadvantage in being without proper data for judging the position of these licences. Unless we know the compensation value of the various houses it is impossible to judge as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the Amendment. When asked whether he proposed to meet one portion of the United Kingdom by preferential treatment the Chancellor of the Duchy has always evaded the point; therefore, we do not know what importance we can attach to the assurance given on 17th June on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I then asked the right hon. Gentleman:— If in view of his announcement of substantial concessions in respect to Scotch and Irish license duties and analogous provisions in the Finance Bill, he will undertake not to differentiate his proposed taxation to the detriment of the English taxpayer. The reply given by the Secretary to the Treasury was:— My right hon. Friend has no intention of differentiating between the English taxpayer and the taxpayer in Scotland and Ireland. There we have a specific assurance on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no preferential treatment would be given, but yesterday and to-day, like many other promises received from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that assurance has been torn up and destroyed. We are always treated in this way. Whenever we require data to enable us to come to a sound decision we are told either to wait until a later stage or until next year or the year after, or that this is only a temporary arrangement, and that if it proves to be so unjust that it cannot be worked it will be modified.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Those general observations do not apply to this Amendment.

Mr. CARLILE

Thank you, Mr. Caldwell, for your guidance. Unless the Government is willing to do what it has specially not done we cannot say at this moment whether £500 is a suitable substitute for the figure which stands in the Bill. I am inclined to think with a great many Members on the other side of the House that the hon. Member for Aberdeen is right, and that this proposed alteration is very insufficient as a substitute for what is proposed in the Clause and the various anomalies consequent thereon, and that this is the right moment for the right hon. Gentleman taking efficient steps towards obviating this very undesirable condition of things.

Mr. BARNARD

These two or three Amendments appear to be very kindred to one another. Now we have at last got from the Chancellor of the Duchy that it is a physical impossibility for the Commissioners to be quick in their operations. We knew that before. He has told us that they are going to start on the big houses. I venture to put to the Committee that that practically creates a very serious condition for the small houses, who will have to wait whilst the big ones are being dealt with. Yesterday we were told by the Chancellor of the Duchy that he was able to compute the amount of money he expected to get under these arrangements by means of the technical advisers at his disposal. It would have been a great convenience if he had told the House, or the Committee, how he arrived at this annual compensation value. Everyone of us has wanted to know that for weeks past. What does the position to-night amount to? We are told that in London there is a particular position regarding valuation. I speak at a disadvantage, because I have not—although I asked a question on Mon day, and asked for an answer at once—the knowledge in my possession which the Chancellor said he had last night. Very well; I must take things as I find them. A house of £500, if rightly rated, would have to pay £167 contribution as Licence Duty, whereas a house of £498 would have to pay £249 to the Revenue under the circumstances proposed. That may be right or it may be wrong—

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The hon. Member is not quite right. He has omitted the fact that there is a minimum.

Mr. BARNARD

I have not omitted any fact except that I do not possess the answer to the question I put to the Treasury Bench. If I had got it I should be able to deal with absolute facts, which under present circumstances I cannot. I will repeat the position. I understand—and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that if a house is rated to-day in London at £500, and if London rating, as his own speeches have shown, is a more or less correct idea of the proper value—in comparison with other parts of the country—as he has repeatedly said—then one-third of £500 is £167—

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

There is no question of any house being charged one-third of the rateable value.

Mr. BARNARD

I have already tried to point out that I have asked continually for the definition of annual compensation value. I am still willing to sit down if the right hon. Gentleman for the third time will interrupt me by giving me that definition now. I therefore assume, as we have been told continually by London Members, that the London quinquennial valuation more or less approximates to the right valuation of these premises, and it has not been contradicted. If I am wrong the Government's speakers can correct me afterwards. Whether my calculations are exactly correct is immaterial. The question is: Why do you require to draw any distinction of any sort between the houses of the country? Why, if it is right to give to rich houses the option of being between the two scales, cannot you give it to all houses? I have never yet heard a single argument put forward of any description which deals with that aspect of the question. The Chancellor of the Duchy has told us that there are reasons: that these people are getting advantages. He said that because a halfpenny had been taken off the tax on sugar that they gained so much per barrel. He said that the price of brewing materials had altered. So far as my experience goes, I share the views expressed from that side of the House rather than his. But I do not pause to discuss that. He then said that a shilling war tax—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the Amendment, which is an extremely simple one. It is to take out £700 in order to put in £500. It is a question of a different amount.

Mr. BARNARD

I will do so. At the same time, Mr. Caldwell, without any disrespect to you in any shape or form whatever, we have raised no question touching the incidence of this duty, but we have been invariably beset by assertions from the right hon. Gentleman that the licensees gained in other side issues. I drop it, and leave it at that. I turn to the other aspect of the question. We are dealing with the distributers, and the distributer is the person who has to pay this duty. However much advantage the manufacturer may gain, I do venture to put to the House that the distributer absolutely stands to lose by the proposed arrangement. We heard last night that the small houses in Ireland are gaining. We know that in London the big houses will gain. What about the rest of England? I should very much like to hear from the Chancellor of the Duchy why he does not make this apply to the whole of England indiscriminately, without any fear or favour.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I do not see myself how we can dispose of this Clause until some answer is given to the questions put by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I contend that the reason the hon. Member does not get an answer to the question is this, it would let the large Irish cat out of the bag. The reason is this, that we are to be valued in Ireland, we were told by the Prime Minister, upon what is called Griffith's valuation. That was contradicted at once by the Chancellor of the Duchy, who said, "Nothing of the kind. There is to be a register which will apply to the three countries." Here we now have the narrow question apparently whether this is to apply to houses of £500 or of £700. I would ask two or three questions in regard to how this is to be applied to Ireland. It is a question of great importance, and for this reason. Whatever principle you adopt in valuing the larger houses, whether £700 or £500, £400 or £300, £200 or £100, you must apply, according to the Chancellor, to all Irish houses not subjected to the minimum scale this new valuation when it comes into force. I admit that the Chancellor of the Duchy tries by a later Amendment to meet the difficulty as far as regards Ireland. I really do not see how his Amendment does that. It is not a concession to us, as hon. Members above the Gangway suppose, but it is an endeavour to meet what otherwise would have been an impossible case, because as I understand the later Amendment it is this: The Clause as it stands says that where the compensation value has not been certified for the purpose of the register to be prepared under this Act, the licensed holder may require that amount to be so certified—that is to say, the licence holder in Ireland might require something that is impossible—it cannot be done. How can a man with a £700 house in Ireland require a certificate of what is non-existent? I presume it is to meet that that the right hon. Gentleman proposes his Amendment, "And where the annual compensation value has not been certified the licence shall be granted on a provisional payment of the minimum duty payable under this provision," and so on. I am right in that. I thought so. What really ought to be done, therefore, is this. You ought not to be afraid to mention the name of Ireland in the Clause. However, as it is a touch-and-go matter, I will not say any more about it; but certainly it is a very curious result of the Debate we had yesterday and the Debate upon Clause 30, and I respectfully say it entirely bears out the view that I took of the Clause. Let me now ask the Government to how many houses will their new Amendment apply? I hope the Opposition will believe me when I say that in no sense is this any concession to Ireland that England and Scotland does not share. If it is a concession at all—about which I say nothing—it is applicable to the three Kingdoms. We are entitled to ask what would be the principle applied in Ireland in regard to this matter of compensation, seeing that no compensation exists.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I should like to ask you, Mr. Caldwell, whether such a question as this is not wholly irrelevant to the point which is now under discussion, namely, whether the figures should be £500 or £700? We spent days of this matter in Committee.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

But we never got an answer.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I should be happy to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it would simply be leading to a repetition of the Debates which we have already had.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I could ask it on the Clause.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The whole basis of the principle upon which compensation is to be calculated—a lengthy statement—as I already stated, is to be laid before the Report stage as to the method by which annual compensation value is to be derived.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I accept that.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I already pointed out—

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I am sorry I did not catch it.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I do not think the hon. Member was in the House, and now, if he will excuse me, I would rather not enter into a detailed discussion of the manner in which the compensation value is to be calculated in connection with all the annual values in the country.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

Will it be circulated next week?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I hope so.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in paragraph (3), to leave out the word "half" ["a retailer's on-licence may be granted at the option of the licence holder on payment of an amount equal to half the annual compensation value"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one-third of."

Mr. CLAVELL SALTER

I beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "one-third" and inserting the words "one-quarter."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Amendment is not in order. It amounts to a direct negative, but I must take the word out first.

Question, "That 'half' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That 'one-third' be there inserted."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I must now point out to the hon. and learned Member that to insert "one-quarter" would be to negative this Amendment.

Mr. CLAVELL SALTER

I would like to know, upon a point of Order, what my position is at this moment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I will explain to the hon. and learned Member. A vote will have to be taken on the question "that the words 'one-third' be there inserted." If these words are negatived the hon. and learned Member can then bring forward his Amendment to insert "one-quarter." It can only be moved if the proposal of the Government to insert "one-third" was negatived.

Mr. CLAVELL SALTER

As I am not quite certain that these words will be negatived, I desire to say a few words upon the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am not so sure, after the ruling which has just been given, that I shall have an opportunity of placing before the Committee the Amendment standing in my name, but I think I shall be in order now in making a few observations. I address myself to the Committee because I wish to place before hon. Members certain figures of considerable interest and importance. Nothing will show how entirely in the dark the Government are as regards what will be the practical effect of this wholly novel basis of licence taxation which they are proposing so much as the change which is now before the Committee to shift the proportion of the annual compensation value upon the Licence Duty to be paid from one-half to one-third. The Government admit that in the higher range of the scale some mitigation must be found, but instead of graduating their scale upon the same basis throughout, they draw an arbitrary line at £500 and give the publican an option above that line, "to fly from evils that he has to others that he knows not of," and in regard to which the Government are in entire ignorance as to the amount this taxation will be. We have heard a great number of confident statements from the Government to the effect that this new basis—which is not like the annual value, which is a familiar basis, but a wholly novel basis—will be more favourable to the taxpayer than the old annual value basis. We have never had a single figure given to justify those confident assertions. Basing themselves upon that statement the Government first of all thought that one-half of the annual compensation value would be an advantage over the one-half of the annual value. That idea they have now apparently abandoned, and they are now proposing in place of one-half of the annual value one-third of the annual compensation value. It would be interesting to know upon what information they originally formed the idea that one-half of the annual compensation value would be an advantage to the publican.

Speaking yesterday, if I followed him correctly, the hon. Member for Hudders-field expressed some doubt as to whether the compensation basis now proposed would prove to be so favourable to the publican as had been stated. I venture to say that careful inquiries which have been made go to show that it is very clear indeed that a change from the basis of compensation value is not in the interest of the publican even when you take one-third as the Government now propose to do. Inquiry has been made into this question, and I have before me here the result, and I think this point is well worth the attention of the Government and of the Committee. This is an inquiry which has been made by people beyond suspicion of the highest experience, and it has been made upon such a scale that it really is impossible for anyone to say that it deals with exceptional or hard cases. I am sure I am at liberty to mention the names. These inquiries have been made by Messrs. Watney, Combe, and Reid; Messrs. Whitbread, and Messrs. Truman, Han-bury, and Buxton, all brewers whose names are well known. In the case of Messrs. Watney, Combe, and Reid inquiries were made in regard to 71 London houses running up from £500 to larger amounts, and it was found that the Licence Duties upon half the annual value basis amounted to £26,273. That is the total for the 71 houses. On the basis now proposed by the Government, that is the reduced basis of one-third of annual compensation value, the Licence Duties payable upon those 71 houses will be £36,000.

Sir SAMUEL EVANS

How was the annual compensation value taken?

Mr. CLAVELL SALTER

I will answer that question and then I will throw myself upon the mercy of the Government. I will not make any terms with them, but I ask them to be as frank with me as I am with them. Before I give the remaining figures I will answer the natural question which has been put to me. The annual compensation value was taken in this way. The beer was taken at 10s. per barrel profit; the spirits' profit at 2s. 6d. per gallon, and then the difference between the rent licensed and the estimated rent unlicensed was considered. Those familiar with these matters can judge for themselves as to the reliability of these figures, which I know are well within the mark. The element to be considered is the unlicensed rent, and for that the Committee must assume that it has been clearly estimated by competent persons. That is how the compensation value was taken. It was not capitalised. The Committee knows that when obtaining compensation value for the purpose of compensation it is capitalised, but under the new system the Licence Duty is to be paid on the annual equivalent, and, therefore, it is absurd, having obtained the annual difference to multiply that by so many years and then divide it by the same number of years. Having obtained these three elements, they have taken them to be the annual compensation value. That is my answer to the Solicitor-General, and I hope we shall be told whether, in the view of the Government, that is the correct and proper way, and, if not, in what respect is it defective.

I will now give the result of the inquiry made by Messrs. Whitbread. In this case 24 houses were inquired into, and upon half the old basis the duties amounted to £10,487, and upon one-third of the annual compensation value to £10,301, so that they would stand to gain a few pounds. I am told the reason why the new basis works out so much less unfavourably in their case than in others is that they happen to own a considerable number of houses in the City on very valuable sites. Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton made inquiries in the case of 30 houses. On the old basis they pay £16,250, and on the Government's new basis they will pay £20,584, so that this generous concession and this alternative offered in mercy and in consideration to the publican, whose injustice was admitted, will result in one of these cases in a loss of £10,000 a year, in another case in a loss of upwards of £4,000, and in a third in a trifling gain. The houses in regard to which these inquiries have been made are in all parts of London, and they are 135 in number. I do not think it would be possible for any hon. Member to suggest that that does not give a very important and, for London, at any rate, a very reliable general average result. They are, at any rate, figures with which it behoves the Government to deal, and to deal with at once. I hope it may be possible under the Rules of Order to put my Amendment to substitute one-quarter for one-third to the vote of the Committee. If the Government really desire to do any justice to the publican in the upper part of the scale they must go below a third and to a quarter. Taking these 135 houses together, they would, on the old scale of half the assessment, pay £53,016. On a third of the annual compensation value, the Government's present proposal, they would pay £67,260, a loss of £14,000 a year. If the third were reduced to a quarter, then the duties would be reduced from £53,016 to £50,520, so that at a quarter of the annual compensation value there is a trifling, but only a very trifling, advantage. I submit those figures are of considerable importance, and I ask the Government to say in what respect they can challenge them. Do they challenge the method in which the compensation value has been obtained, and, if not, can they possibly resist the conclusion that they must, in justice, reduce the proportion from a third to a quarter?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I must congratulate the hon. Member on having successfully steered his way through the obstacles which the forms of the House strewed across his path. If he has not succeeded in moving his Amendment he has made a lucid and interesting speech in support of it. But these arguments have been to some extent dealt with already in my reply to the hon. Members for York and Rutland, both of whom advanced the view that taking the houses of a high value as a whole they would in many cases gain no advantage at all from this alteration. We have never said that this concession would be of advantage to every house above £500, indeed, we have said the contrary. The hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke said the injustice was admitted in the case of houses over £500.

Mr. CLAVELL SALTER

I said it was admitted that there must be a mitigation of the scale at the other end.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

What has been admitted is that in respect of a considerable number of houses above £500 there is no injustice in applying the scale. But there are hard cases, and this concession is intended to meet those hard cases. If a house is rated at £600 a year and does a vast trade, it is no reason because its value happens to be £600 that there should be a reduction of the duty. This paragraph in the Schedule is intended simply to meet the case of the house which does a trade out of proportion to, and much less than might be expected from a house of that rateable value. It is no answer to say that if you lump all the houses above £500 a year together there may be no concession to be derived from this particular paragraph. That is my answer to the speech to which we have just listened. The Committee must not draw the conclusion that the effect of this Schedule would be to increase the duties upon any brewery companies who own these houses. In any case it is optional, and they can always elect to be assessed on the half rateable value, and, therefore, in no circumstances can this be held to be extracting more from the trade than the provisions of the Clauses in the earlier part of the Schedule would. If the hon. Member will submit figures to me I shall be happy to see if there are any hard cases which we intend to meet that are not met, but I repeat we do desire to insure that where a house does a small trade it shall get this concession.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. Gentleman, in my opinion, has given no answer to the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke. What strikes me as the extraordinary point is this: My hon. and learned Friend was challenged by the Solicitor-General to say how do you arrive at the compensation value. That is information which the hon. Member for Kidderminster and I have been trying to get for some time. The Solicitor-General seemed to think that the question was put by the Government merely as a puzzle, and if the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke had not been armed and equipped with a very careful method of investigation he might have been floored by the question of the Solicitor-General. But he had his answer ready. He told the Government most distinctly: "I take a certain amount of profit on each barrel of beer, a certain amount on each gallon of whisky, and then I take the difference between the rent which would be paid by a tenant as an ordinary tenant and the increased value which is paid because of the licence." That is a scientific method. I do not know whether the Government intend to employ it or not, but certainly it has a foundation based upon science.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I should like to ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, whether we are now discussing the basis on which the annual compensation value is to be assessed or whether we are discussing, on the assumption that there is to be an annual compensation value as fixed in the Clause, what proportion is to be taken as duty. I intend no disrespect to the hon. and learned Member, but I would point out that the time is passing very rapidly, and we have still a great many matters to discuss.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

On the point of Order, may I say that this whole question was raised by the Solicitor-General for England? It was he who put a question to the hon. Gentleman, and it was in reply to the Solicitor-General that the hon. Member for Basingstoke said, "I arrive at it in a particular way." Whether the point of Order be good or bad, the matter was raised by the Solicitor-General for England, who asked the Member for Basingstoke, "How do you arrive at the compensation value?" The Member for Basingstoke said, "Take the profit on beer and the profit on spirits and the difference between licensed rent and unlicensed rent."

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)

I have not heard the whole of the argument, and am hardly in a position to decide at present.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I immediately bow to your ruling. I certainly would not care to say a thing which is out of Order. The Member for Basingstoke, whose learning in this matter must be the admiration of everyone, has put forward a scheme at the request of the Government, and when he asks the Government, "Do you challenge it or do you not," the Government raise a point of Order. I do not think that is fair to the House. This question, if it has been put once it has been put 165 times, and it has never been answered. Would it be fair to pass this Clause without getting some insight into what the Government intend by this compensation value? If the method of the Member for Basingstoke be agreed to it would be far fairer to Ireland to leave out compensation value altogether. In regard to those large Irish houses, you are doing the thing the Prime Minister said should not be done. You are proposing to exact from them £250 as the minimum under this Clause. We are told that the same principle will be applied to the whole of Ireland. You will have this result, that every publican in Ireland will have to give an account of the beer and spirits he has sold, and you will have a system of torture far worse than any system of Income Tax ever invented.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in paragraph (3), to leave out the word "three" ("less than three hundred and fifty pounds"] and to insert instead thereof the word "two."

Mr. T. M. HEALY

Now I think we are entitled to know how this figure of £250 is arrived at.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The figure £250 proposed to be inserted is arrived at by dividing £500 by two. The £350 is half of £700. The purpose of it is this. The hon. Member (Mr. Barnard) said the effect of giving this privilege of option would be to enable larger houses to pay a less duty than much smaller houses, and in order that houses below £500 shall not be put at too great a disadvantage we say that at all events a house of £700 or £800 annual value, if it chooses to pay on its compensation value, may be assessed on that basis, but it is not to pay less than a £500 house which has not the privilege of this option. A £500 house pays £250, and a higher house if it chooses the option is not to be allowed to pay less than £250. £350 is the sum payable by a £700 house, which was the value previously in the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved to insert, at the end of Paragraph (3): "This provision shall apply to premises, whatever their annual value, if they are structurally adapted for use as an hotel and are bonâ fide so used, and it is shown to the Commissioners that it is impracticable to obtain a reduction of duty in respect of the premises under the provisions of this Act enabling such a reduction to be obtained for hotels in certain cases, owing to the fact that visitors resort to the place where the premises are situated only during certain seasons of the year.

"In such a case, the minimum amount of duty payable shall be fifty pounds instead of two hundred and fifty pounds."

This is intended to meet a particularly hard case. Hotels are placed in a very different position from public-houses in respect of the amount of duty that they have to pay. The duties are very considerably lower in the case of hotels than in the case of public-houses, but in order for a particular licensed house to be valued as a hotel less than a third of its total receipts must, be liquor receipts. It has been represented that there is a considerable number of hotels, for example, in the Highlands or in certain seaside resorts which are unable to show a proportion of liquor receipts less than a third, and thus to qualify as hotels for the purpose of duties, because during the winter months they are closed; but their bars may remain open for the convenience of the people of the locality. They are none the less genuine hotels, and they ought not to be made to pay half their rateable value in Licence Duties. To meet that case we have put down that particular Amendment. I believe it is generally accepted in the main as meeting the case of the seasonal hotels. As regards the three Amendments which appear on the Paper in the names of the hon. Members for Wandsworth (Sir H. Kimber), the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire (Viscount Helmsley), and Hereford (Mr. Arkwright), it may save time if I say now that the first is really unnecessary, because it expresses the intention of my Amendment. There is no objection to inserting the words if desired. The second Amendment would make my Amendment far too wide. The third Amendment is one of some substance, but the Government will require a case to be shown why the minimum should be reduced from £50 to £35, as the hon. Member for Hereford suggests.

Mr. CATHCART WASON

I desire to thank my right hon. Friend for moving this Amendment. Many of us were in a position of extreme anxiety, not only in regard to hotels in our respective districts, but also as to the effect which the original proposal of the Government might have had as to the number of people who would be able to visit the resorts in the Highlands and islands of Scotland and also seaside places in England. This Amendment will meet the hard cases which I had the honour of placing before the Chancellor of the Duchy. One of the objections to making the Amendment was that when one concession is granted further concessions are asked. In view of the hour we have reached, and the amount of business still to be done, I sincerely trust that the hon. Member for Hereford will not press his Amendment to reduce the minimum to £35. At the same time, I would express the hope that between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration whether he could not further reduce the limit in order to bring in a large number of hotels which otherwise may suffer.

Mr. BARNARD

I understand that the abatement will be upon one-third of what is received in connection with the sale of alcohol. Will that bring into the account the money received from a garage, livery yard, boats, and other things?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

That question does not arise on the Amendment.

Mr. BARNARD

I am very anxious about this.

The CHAIRMAN

That does not arise here.

Mr. BARNARD

With all respect, this is a very important point which does arise on other matters before that which we have discussed this evening. I am extremely anxious to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether or not in his proposal the intention is simply to include what Happened under the hotel roof.

The CHAIRMAN

It really does not arise here at all.

Mr. AINSWORTH

What is the minimum in the case of the seasonal seaside hotels? Is it in no case to be less than £50?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

It is a mistake to think that whether the receipts are less than one-third or more than one-third from liquor these places will have to pay £50. This only applies to ordinary public-houses which carry on a public-house business during the winter when the hotels are closed, and, consequently, the receipts from liquor are more than one-third. In the majority of hotels the receipts from liquor are far less than one-third. Hon. Members have drawn my attention to letters from constituents whose receipts from liquor are only one-sixth and who ask why should they pay a minimum duty of £50. In such cases the minimum duty will not be £50 but will be the minimum duty of one-third, or the minimum fixed in the scale according to valuation.

Mr. RENWICK

By how much will this concession reduce the estimate?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The number of cases is very small, and the amount will be very small.

Mr. A. FELL

There is this difficulty with regard to many seaside hotels and restaurants. During two or three summer months they do a large business and make a profit; during the rest of the year they have to keep open, but they lose money. I trust that consideration will be extended to these cases, and that they will not be penalised because they have to remain open during the winter months, when they do not make a profit.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Each case, of course, must be treated on its merits. It is impossible to lay down an absolute rule, but I should say that the vast majority of seaside hotels which remain open all through the year, even if they do a small business during part of the year, would be able easily to show that less than one-third of their receipts are from liquor. Of course, if a hotel is genuinely a hotel and is not merely a public-house, it would certainly be brought by the Commissioners within the scope of the Clause.

Mr. BARNARD

The Chancellor of the Duchy has several times used the word "receipts." Will that word, in comparison with the 33 per cent., include matters under the roof of the hotel and outside the hotel?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The receipts will be the receipts ordinarily belonging to an innkeeper's business—livery stables, boats by the riverside, and other means of bringing in receipts.

Sir J. JARDINE

The explanations which the Chancellor of the Duchy has given will really be the means of greatly relieving the minds of many worthy hotel-keepers in out-of-the-way places in Scotland.

Mr. J. S. ARKWRIGHT moved to amend the Amendment by adding after "seasons of the year," the words, "or mainly on the occasions of fairs or markets." My point is, in submitting this Amendment that there is no difference in principle between making a concession to seaside and other hotels who do a seasonal business, and making a concession to small struggling hotels which do their chief business on certain days. The hotels on behalf of which I speak are to be found in almost every constituency. I hope a similar concession will be made to them, and I feel a growing anxiety on the point in view of the concessions which have been made to other classes of hotels. I am afraid that in the kind of district which I represent still greater annoyance will be felt if they are refused a concession which is given to other hotels.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

If this Amendment were accepted it would deprive the Revenue of a very large part of the income expected from the Licence Duties. If you take an hotel in a market town it may be doing some hotel business, and may have perhaps only two or three bedrooms for commercial travellers. Ninety per cent. of its receipts may be from liquor, and, if the Amendment were adopted, such places would escape altogether from the ordinary Public-house Duty, and come under the Hotel Duty, which is on an exceedingly low scale, with a very low minimum. It is obviously a provision which would go far beyond the oases for which it is intended, and the Government cannot possibly see their way to accept the Amendment

Mr. GRETTON

The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misjudged the Amendment, which refers to business done on fairs and market days. There is not a great number of market towns, and in the market towns with which I am acquainted there are only some two or three of these hotels. These are genuine hotels, and do a genuine hotel business for six days in the week. On the market day it is customary to have what is called a "market ordinary." A large number of persons attending the market go in to that ordinary, and when the business of the day is done, before departing by train or driving to their homes in the country, it is customary to meet in the bar and talk over the prices of the market and the gossip of the countryside. A considerable amount of trade is done on those occasions, which take place on one day in the week. Every other day those are quiet hotels, where drink is an inconsiderable factor. They come easily within any rational definition of hotels; but the business to which I have referred

will probably, in the majority of cases, place them outside the scope of the definition in the Bill. They are quite respectable houses, where people who are visiting their friends can stay. It is a class of hotel that is well known, and for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this is going to make a serious inroad on the revenue is entirely to misrepresent the matter. I press on the Government that this is really a serious grievance, and that if they persist in the course indicated they will cause a vast amount of dissatisfaction.

Mr. RENWICK

On what figures does the right hon. Gentleman base the statement that this concession will cost an enormous amount of money to the revenue? When I asked him a similar question he said no calculation had been made, but I think it is quite evident a calculation must have been made when the rght hon. Gentleman ventures to say that this would cost an enormous sum. I ask why a calculation has been made in one case and not in another? I think I am entitled to this information, as on it would depend my vote. I would be largely influenced in the amount it would cost the Revenue.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted" (in the proposed Amendment).

The Committee divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 202.

Division No. 778.]	AYES.	[10.54 p.m.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Magnus, Sir Philip
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Fletcher, J. S.	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Forster, Henry William	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Ashley, W. W.	Gardner, Ernest	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Balcarres, Lord	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Baldwin, Stanley	Haddock, George B.	Renton, Leslie
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hamilton, Marquess of	Ridsdale, E. A.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Helmsley, Viscount	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Bull, Sir William James	Hill, Sir Clement	Salter, Arthur clavell
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Hills, J. W.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Stanier, Beville
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Kerry, Earl of	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Clark, George Smith	Keswick, William	Starkey, John R.
Clyde, J. Avon	Kimber, Sir Henry	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Valentin, Viscount
Courthope, G. Loyd	Lambton, Hon. Frederick William	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Faber, George Denison (York)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Winterton, Earl
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Fell, Arthur	MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gretton and Mr. Renwick
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	M'Arthur, Charles
NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Barker, Sir John
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Ashton, Thomas Gair	Barnard, E. B.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Atherley-Jones, L.	Barnes, G. N.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Barran, Rowland Hirst
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Beale, W. P.
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Hodge, John	Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)	Holland, Sir William Henry	Rees, J. D.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Hope, John Deans (File, West)	Rendall, Athelstan
Berridge, T. H. D.	Horniman, Emslie John	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Boulton, A. C. F.	Hyde, Clarendon G.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Bowerman, C. W.	Idris, T. H. W.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott. (Bradford)
Brigg, John	Illingworth, Percy H.	Robinson, S.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)	Jardine, Sir J.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jenkins, J.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Clough, William	Kekewich, Sir George	Rowlands, J.
Clynes, J. R.	Kelley, George D.	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Laidlaw, Robert	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Cooper, G. J.	Lamont, Norman	Seely, Colonel
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis	Shackleton, David James
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lehmann, R. C.	Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Sherwell, Arthur James
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Cowan, W. H.	Lewis, John Herbert	Simon, John Allsebrook
Crossley, William J.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Lupton, Arnold	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Lynch, H. B.	Steadman, W. C.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Duckworth, Sir James	M'Callum, John M.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Duncan, J. Hastings, (York, Otley)	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Summerbell, T.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Edwards, A. Clement (Denblgh)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Elibank, Master of	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Erskine, David C.	Marnham, F. J.	Thomasson, Franklin
Essex, R. W.	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Toulmin, George
Esslemont, George Birnie	Massie, J.	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Evans, Sir S. T.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Verney, F. W.
Everett, R. Lacey	Middlebrook, William	Vivian, Henry
Findlay, Alexander	Mond, A.	Walters, John Tudor
Fullerton, Hugh	Montgomery, H. G.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Gill, A. H.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Glendinning, R. G.	Morrell, Philip	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Morse, L. L.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Waterlow, D. S.
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Myer, Horatio	Watt, Henry A.
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Napier, T. B.	Weir, James (Galloway)
Gulland, John W.	Nownes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Nicholls, George	Wiles, Thomas
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Wilkie, Alexander
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Norman, Sir Henry	Williamson, Sir A.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)	Partington, Oswald	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Hedges, A. Paget	Paulton, James Mellor	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Helme, Norval Watson	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Philippe, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Henry, Charles S.	Pointer, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain
Hobart, Sir Robert	Pollard, Dr. G. H.	Norton and Mr. Whitley.
Hothouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. ARKWRIGHT moved to leave out the word "fifty" ["in such a case the minimum amount of duty payable shall be fifty pounds instead of two hundred and fifty pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-five." This would give the Government the chance of doing justice in another way to that suggested by the last Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

As I said previously, in moving my Amendment, the Government will be very glad to take into consideration any cases that can be quoted in which hardship would be done. If it can be shown that there are any considerable or appreciable number of seasonal hotels coming within the purview of this paragraph of the Schedule, and that £50 Licence Duty is really too much, then the Government will consider the case, for they are very anxious not to cause any hardship in cases such as these. If the hon. Member will be good enough between now and the Report stage to communicate with me or lay before the Government any cases which he may have in his mind—or any from any hon. Member—those representations will be treated in a friendly spirit.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in Scale 6 (Provisions Applicable to Retailers' On-Licences), at the end of paragraph 3 ["not be less than three hundred and fifty pounds"] to add the words:—

"And (b) where the annual compensation value has not been certified, the licence shall be granted on a provisional payment of the minimum duty payable under this provision, or of one-fifth of the full duty, whichever is the higher, and, upon the annual compensation value being certified, the duty shall be adjusted by the return of any over-payment or by the recovery, as a debt to His Majesty, of any sum by which the amount paid falls short of the amount which is found to be payable."

Mr. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. Gentleman used the words "these hotels." Dees this provision apply only to hotels?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I should have said hotels and public-houses.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: In paragraph (4) after the word "proprietor" ["retailers on-licence granted to the proprietor of premises"] to insert the words "or occupier."

In paragraph (4), to leave out the words "to be" ["premises to be used only for"] and to insert instead thereof the words "adapted to be and bonâ fide."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in paragraph (4), after the word "namely" ["any of the following purposes, namely"] to insert the words "for judicial or public administrative purposes or."

Mr. LEIF JONES

Will my right hon. Friend say what are "administrative or public purposes "?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

For instance, the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, unless we made this provision, would have to pay on half the annual value of the premises.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved in paragraph (4) to leave out the words "or as railway refreshment rooms."

Mr. H. A. WATT

Does this mean each refreshment bar in a railway station? There are many railway stations where there are at least six refreshment bars. Is the £50 to be charged for each? The object of my inquiry is to point out that it is unfair that these bars should have to pay so much less a figure than the outside licensed houses with which they are in competition.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

If there are a number of refreshment bars on one station, it will be treated as one licensed premises.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In paragraph (4), to leave out the words "in respect of the premises."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

In paragraph (4), to leave out the first word "be" ["in respect of the premises shall be fifty pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the words "in the case of a theatre, the annual value of which does not exceed two thousand pounds, be twenty pounds, and in any other case."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

Mr. G. D. FABER moved in paragraph (4), to leave out the words "to persons bonâ fide using the premises" ["and to persons bonâ fide using the premises, for the said purposes."]

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Those are words which cannot be properly applied to a railway refreshment room because it is impossible to enforce the provision that they should be persons bonâ fide using the premises for railway purposes. We shall move to omit those words, and we shall make an addition to bring railway refreshment rooms in again without those words being applied to them. The words bonâ fide using the premises" are applicable to theatres, music halls, public gardens, picture galleries or exhibitions.

Mr. G. D. FABER

How can you tell whether a person is bonâ fide using a picture gallery? I think in this case the words are uncalled for and cannot be enforced.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The words are inserted merely to prevent evasion, and to stop a public-house trying to pass, itself off as a picture gallery. A bogus picture gallery might be established for the sale of liquor, the public being admitted really for the sale of liquid refreshment.

Mr. GRETTON

I hope we shall have some explanation of what is meant by "private entertainment" in this Subsection.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

There is nothing penal in this Clause whatever.

Sir SAMUEL EVANS

It is quite clear, if a man sells intoxicating liquor without a licence, he contravenes the law and is subject to prosecution.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

All I say is that, as the Clause stands, it is not a penal Clause.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

These words are taken from the Licensing Act, 1904, under which places of public and private entertainment, picture galleries, etc., are entitled to a reduction in the compensation levy charged upon them. There has been no trouble in interpreting this Act in deciding which places are entitled to the lower charge, and there will be no difficulty in applying the same words in respect of licence duties.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved at the end of paragraph (4) [condition attached to theatre licence] to insert the words, "The maximum amount of duty payable in respect of a retailer's on-licence granted to the proprietor or occupier of premises adapted to be and bonâ fide used as refreshment rooms at a railway station shall be fifty pounds."

Mr. T. M. HEALY

If I read the Amendment correctly, it is that £50 shall be payable in respect of every railway refreshment room. It seems to me that, as regards Irish railway refreshment rooms, that is excessive.

Sir SAMUEL EVANS

That is the maximum.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, at the end of the words last added, to insert the following new paragraph:—

(Provisions as to Duty Where Premises Include a Place of Public Entertainment.)

Where any premises include a music hall or other similar place of public entertainment (hereinafter referred to as a place of entertainment), a retailer's on-licene may be granted, at the option of the licence holder, on payment of a duty of fifty pounds, together with such sum as would be payable as duty under this Act on the part of the premises not used as the place of entertainment if that part were a separate set of premises, but it shall be a condition of any such licence that intoxicating liquor is not sold under the licence in the place of entertainment except whilst that place is open and being used, and to persons bonâ fide using that place, as a place of entertainment."

This is another Amendment moved to meet exceptional cases of hardship. It would not be just if music halls, which have public-house bars as part of the same premises, were charged on half the rateable value of the entire premises, and, consequently, we make a provision to enable music halls to pay as music halls holding licences and as a public-house bar in respect of so much of the premises as are used for that purpose.

Mr. T. H. SLOAN moved, in Scale 6—(Provisions Applicable to Retailers' Off-Licences)—at the end of paragraph (1) [Restriction to sale off] to insert the words, "And a person holding a retailer's off-licence must not supply gratuitously or otherwise any intoxicating liquor for consumption on the licensed premises." In the north of Ireland, particularly Belfast, we find that abuse is very prevalent of drinking on "off" licensed premises, and the police have been unable to obtain convictions because it is alleged that the drinks are supplied gratuitously.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I submit that this Amendment is not in Order: it is an attempt to regulate the publican's conduct of his business.

Mr. SLOAN

It does not refer to the publican. It is the off-licence holder. We find in the City of Belfast—

The CHAIRMAN

I think the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth is perfectly legitimate, and that the Amendment is not in Order.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

I have on the Paper an Amendment to omit from the Provisions applicable to Retailers' Off-Licences, paragraph (2), after "open vessels," the words "or in any quantity less than one reputed quart bottle." I desire to know what is the Government proposal on this point. I take it, that so far as Scotland and Ireland are concerned, there is to be no limitation of the quantity hitherto sold, but that in future it must be sold in sealed bottles.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The Government proposal is to leave out the words mentioned by the hon. Member and to insert instead thereof the words "in England." I understand the hon. Member does not wish to raise the question of the "small bottle" in Scotland.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

If the Government Amendment will complete the matter I am content, but the words "in England" might be out-voted, and then the Clause would stand as it is.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must take the risk of that.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

I had better move the Amendment to omit from paragraph (2) of the "Provisions Applicable to Retailers' Off-Licences" the words "or if any quantity less than one reputed quart bottle."

Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON

I think it very desirable that the Government should give some explanation of this Clause and their Amendments to it. In spite of a good many exhortations from different quarters, and in spite of a great many observations, which have been made with much force, as to the sale of small measures of spirits producing secret drinking, especially among women, so far as I can judge, the effect of the Government Amendment is to preserve the status quo exactly with regard to sales by ordinary licences, plus the purely illusory provision in regard to the sealing of the quantities in Scotland. It is now urged that the existing provisions with regard to the sale of noggins in Scotland are preserved. We have only, what I have said is a purely illusory provision, that these noggins must be sealed. After a great show has been made of dealing with the temperance question by this Clause an absolute abdication has been made by the Government, and the temperance party are asked to seal down their consciences in the same way as the noggins are to be sealed down.

The Government really have a part in this matter, as to which I invite an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To thoroughly appreciate the courageous policy taken by the Government in this matter we must go back to the negotiations which took place, a matter of public notoriety, between the licensed grocers and the Government. The public were led to believe that an arrangement had been made by which uniformity between the two classes could be secured. The Scotch grocer was not to have liberty to sell under half a pint, and the reputed quart, which is the present limit of the English grocer, was to be reduced to a similar amount. That was the arrangement which everybody believed had been entered into, and had been actually consummated as between the English grocer and the Government. A pretence was made that uniformity, which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he desired to aim at, had been secured in the matter. Not merely do I understand that that settlement was believed by the grocers to have been absolutely arranged, but actual transfers have taken place on the supposition that the arrangement was complete. The upshot of those negotiations and that arrangement was that a Government Amendment was placed upon the Order Paper of this House on Friday, 27th August, embodying the arrangement to which I have referred, and it was not taken off the Paper until the following Wednesday. At the time it was taken off, I will not say an official statement was made, but a very authoritative statement was made to the effect that that Amendment had been placed upon the Order Paper of the House by error or inadvertence of the Government draftsman. That was stated in the public Press. From September 1st to September 9th the Government draftsman lay under the imputation that it was by his inadvertence that this extraordinary Amendment had been placed upon the Order Paper, and there was no statement volunteered by the Government that it was not the Government draftman's mistake. But on September 9th questions were addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this matter, and then for the first time, and as the result of those questions, the Government draftsman was exonerated by the right hon. Gentleman, who said he accepted the full responsibility for placing the Amendment on the Paper. That statement is really a formula which conveyed to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had nothing to do with the mistake, but that someone else had, and that he accepted the responsibility for it. I think we ought to know whose mistake this was. I do not really believe for a moment that it was the fault of anyone in the Government draftsman's office, or of the Government draftsman himself, and I have every reason to believe that there was no permanent official who was responsible for this mistake. If it was a mistake the Committee is entitled to know whose mistake it was.

I do not think it is right that the Order Paper should be used as a kind of trial advertisement as to how much the temperance party will stand. It really ought not to be used, as it were, as a test tube to ascertain the digestive powers of the temperance party, and it looks very much as if that were the case. I am quite aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said this was a matter of inadvertence, but was it an inadvertence which was a clerical mistake, or was it the inadvertence of a Minister desirous to ascertain what was the feeling of the temperance party in regard to the matter. I do not easily suspect, but I confess this transaction appears to me to be of a slightly suspicious character. First the Amendment is placed on the Paper after these elaborate negotiations; secondly, that it remains there from Friday to Wednesday; and, thirdly, a public announcement is made that it was the fault of the Government draftsman, one of the most indefatigible, able, and loyal servants of the Government. I do not think, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, it is creditable that this Government, above all Governments, should have allowed such an imputation to rest on the Government draftsman for one day, let alone several days, because no Government ever owed more to, or laid such heavy duties upon their draftsman. I do not know how many abortive Bills he has had to prepare for the Government.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Not so many as for your Government.

Mr. LYTTELTON

There have been three or four abortive Bills, but I do not wish to go beyond this Budget alone. Not until eight or nine days had elapsed was this imputation removed from the draftsman, and I really think it is due to the Government themselves that they should explain, with frankness to the House, what was the real source of this alleged inadvertence, and whether it is not to be ascribed to causes which I have ventured to indicate.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyttelton), I must say, has not given us very much assistance in the examination of this Budget, but he has made up for the rareness of his appearances in Debate by the gross violence of his language when he has intervened. If he really wants to challenge our proposal he has plenty of opportunity for doing so, but instead of discussing the merits of the proposal before the Committee, he enters into an elaborate examination of a problem of not very much importance, I can assure him, and he sets up all sorts of conjectures which are purely figments of his own imagination, and he suggests that a frank explanation should be given to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had great experience in the late Government, and I suppose he desires me to give what he was accustomed to give, an open, frank, and straightforward answer. I shall give a perfectly straight, frank answer to the question which he has put to me. When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that imputations were made against the Government draftsman, he is making a statement which is absolutely without warrant, a statement which he has no right to make, and one which he ought either to prove or withdraw.

The imputations against the Government draftsman appeared in papers supporting the right hon. Gentleman. No imputations against the Government draftsman appeared, as far as I know, in any papers supporting the Government; and the very first opportunity which I had of making an explanation I volunteered the statement that the Government draftsman had not the slightest responsibility for it at all; I had seen it stated in Opposition papers that he had. I go beyond that. I say, then, whatever responsibility there was was entirely mine. I still say it. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman to censure me, to find fault with me; but at any rate I still say the responsibility, as Minister in charge of the Bill, was entirely mine. What really happened was: there were negotiations—the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly accurate there—conducted as far as I can recollect with the officials of the party. There was no arrangement. Otherwise, if there was an arrangement with the grocers it was an arrangement with the English grocers, and not with the Scotch grocers, and the Scotch grocers repudiated the idea that there was an arrangement. It was an arrangement, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that reduced the quantity that could be sold by the English grocers, but increased the limitation upon the Scotch grocer. Does he say that the Scotch grocers were under the impression that there was an arrangement? On the contrary; they repudiated it. There was a discussion upon it between the officials and the grocers—Scotch and English—and I believe the Irish as well.

Mr. J. M. CAMPBELL

Did they get a promise?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

There was absolutely no promise.

Mr. CAMPBELL

The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) who is not here now, stated to-night that so far back as the month of July they had got a promise on this matter of the small complement.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

He did not say so. He said a wholly different thing.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Before the right hon. Gentleman gets up and contradicts he ought to know that the transaction that was referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) is a totally different one. This is purely a negotiation between the representatives of the Scotch, English and Irish grocers and officials, and the whole question is whether there was an arrangement entered into between the officials about the pint bottle. That is the whole point. That is not the matter referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was referring to a deputation upstairs.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

And I said so.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Does the right hon. Gentleman see now how irrelevant his interruption was? It will show the Committee how hopeless it is to pursue the subject with him. I think I have been in the habit of treating the House pretty frankly, and I am not going to depart from it on the present occasion. Negotiations were entered into between the grocers and the officials. This suggestion was put forward by the officials as a basis of arrangement. They were under the impression that all the grocers agreed to it. The Scotch grocers said they did not agree to it, and this draft Amendment was put down in my absence from town, when I was away on a Friday night, under the impression that it, had been approved of. That is the whole story. I never saw it until I saw it in the paper. When I came back on the Monday morning I instantly put myself into communication with the draftsman and with the officials, and made it perfectly clear that there was no approval on the part of the Government, and it was a mistake; and I took the very first step to take it off the Paper that night and not on Wednesday. That is the whole story from the beginning to the end. The right hon. Gentleman may deny it. Does he dispute that?

Mr. LYTTELTON

I asked you to put it down.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

It was put down by the Government draftsman.

Earl WINTERTON: By whose authority?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I have told the hon. Gentleman that it was put down by the draftsman under the impression that it was approved. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Member challenges that. Very well, he can do as he pleases. I tell him frankly it will make no difference to me whether he believes it or not, though it may make a difference to him. That is the whole story. The Amendment was put down without the knowledge of the Minister, under the impression that it had been approved, but the Government draftsman, under the misapprehension that the Minister had approved it, took his instructions from the officials, and it was the only amendment put down that night. There were several Amendments, and I had gone through all the other Amendments except that one. That was put down afterwards, under the impression that the Minister had approved it, and on the very first opportunity it was taken off the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that some sort of kite had been flown to see what would be agreed to. There is not a word of substance in that suggestion. I have now given him the whole of the facts. With regard to the merits, I regret that it is impossible to establish uniformity. I think it would have been exceedingly desirable, but it was found impossible owing to the pressure in the three countries. There was resistance in England to the reduction, and resistance in Ireland and Scotland to an increase, and under the circumstances it was impossible to establish uniformity, though it was desirable. I agree that the grocers were under the impression that there was no limitation at all, but that has nothing to do with the negotiations referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. They were under the impression that a pledge of that kind was given to the deputation. I do not agree. But it does not matter. The mere fact that there should have been an impression of that kind makes it of the utmost possible importance that there should not be the slightest doubt that a pledge had not been given. The right hon. Gentleman has not thought fit to examine the proposal on its merits; he simply entered into an elaborate examination of this suspicion which has no foundation in fact. I have given the Committee the whole of the facts, and I take upon myself the whole responsbility as Minister, but I think it is due to the Committee that they should know every circumstance and every fact.

Mr. LYTTELTON

The Committee will judge whether the opening observations of the right hon. Gentleman were well founded or not. If he believes that my intervention in the Budget discussion has been grossly violent, I am perfectly willing to leave him in that opinion, which I am certain will not be shared by the House. Of course, I accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman. He has now made to us a full statement. I do not, for a moment, regret the speech that I made, because it must have been perfectly well-known to the right hon. Gentleman upon September 9th, a good many days after this general misapprehension existed upon this matter, and he had the fullest opportunity, as the OFFICIAL REPORT will show, of making the full explanation that he has made to-day. He did not give that full explanation, and it was only right those upon this side of the House, who have a right to criticise such a thing as this, and not only to criticise it, but that they should take the opportunity of asking for a full disclosure of the whole matter. That he was then challenged to do by my hon. Friend behind me, and which he abstained from doing. He was asked how this mistake arose, and he gave no reply to that at all. That was a question which the House of Commons and its Members had a right to put and which ought to have been answered there, and it ought not to have been left to this later stage of the Bill to elicit this information. We have now elicited it in its fullness. I accept it, but when the right hon. Gentleman or his friends ask me to withdraw anything I have said, I am not aware there is anything to withdraw at all. I stated these were suspicions, and suspicions which naturally and justly arose owing to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, and owing to the answer he gave. I regret he did not give the answer more fully. I fully accept it now that it is done, but when I am asked whether I regret the action I have taken, I say I have no regret whatever.

Mr. G. N. BARNES

I have no intention of following both sides in this unfortunate misunderstanding that has arisen. Let me say, that if the Government have been understood to make a promise to the Scotch grocers, I suppose they will be bound to carry that promise out. Neither am I going to prejudge the case which I gather is to be put later on, by the hon. Member for West Belfast, for Ireland. There may be special circumstances in regard to Ireland which will justify some alteration in the Bill. If the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) puts this to a division, I shall be compelled to vote against him, and I should like to say why. I believe the purport of this Amendment is to-enable Scotch grocers to sell in less quantities than one-fourth. I am quite well aware that the Bill will make an alteration in the Scottish practice so far as grocers are concerned. For my part, speaking of the matter on its merits, I shall vote for that Amendment—that is, I am going to vote for the Bill as it stands. I believe that the grocers' shops in Scotland that sell intoxicating liquors have been the centre of demoralisation so far as the Scotish workmen's wives are concerned, and for my part, having the opportunity to vote for the alteration in the law, I think I would be wanting in my duty did I not avail myself of the opportunity. It is said by some I know in favour of retaining the old practice that if the women are prevented from going to the grocers to get small quantities of liquor that the women will simply go to the public-house which may be next door.

Personally, I think that that is much overstated, because in Scotland public opinion is very much against women going into public-houses, and there is a social stigma attaching to women who do so. Therefore, I believe, that if grocers in Scotland were prohibited from selling in the small quantities they are now allowed to sell it would be an invaluable measure of temperance reform? Inasmuch as I am interested in temperance reform, and in removing a temptation which has often been availed of by women to their own detriment and the demoralisation of their homes, I should be wanting in my duty did I not, as a representative workman from Scotland, vote in favour of a Bill which would remove that temptation.

Mr. EUGENE WASON

I should like to endorse what the hon. Member has just said in reference to Scotland. I speak on behalf, not only of myself, but of the great majority of Scottish Liberal members, when I say that we regret extremely that there has not been some limitation put in this Bill in reference to the small quantities sold by grocers. Somehow or other the licensed grocers in Scotland thought a pledge had been given them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not believe any such pledge was given, because one of the grocers who attended the deputation told me, in the presence of another Member of this House, that he could not gather from anything the right hon. Gentleman had said that he had given any such pledge. While a great deal of disappointment has been created amongst temperance people in Scotland that some limitation has not been placed on the selling of very small quantities, we recognise that, this impression having gone abroad, it was better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give way this time. We still retain our opinion that the selling of small quantities by grocers is an unmitigated evil, and the first opportunity we get we shall press for its removal.

12.0 P.M.

Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS

As I understand, the English off-licence holders never pressed for quarter-bottles; they asked for half-bottles. A meeting was held towards the end of June, and an arrangement was drawn up on paper in the office of the Solicitor to the Inland Revenue. That agreement, in order, as I understand, to satisfy all parties, provided amongst other things that spirits might be sold in bottles containing a quarter of a reputed quart. That agreement, arranged between the representatives of the off-licence holders of England, Scotland, and Ireland, was in existence, typewritten, and in possession of those gentlemen from the end of June till the end of August without anybody raising a voice against it, and all that time the representatives of the English off-licence holders understood that that was an agreement which was come to between themselves and a Treasury official, and the Scottish and Irish representatives. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the Scottish and Irish representatives did not agree to the quart bottle. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this plain question: How is it if this memorandum; was drawn up on Treasury paper that the Scottish and Irish representatives of the off-licence holders never put forward any protest to it between the time at which it was drawn up and the end of August? There is only one other point I shall raise. I cannot see that it was any excuse whatever, if it were the fact—and the allegation was made or hinted at about that time by the morning papers that support the Government—that this mistake was due to a Government draftsman. It makes no difference whatever to my mind, but I wish to correct the Chancellor on that point.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

A great deal of irrelevant matter has been brought forward on this Amendment. This Amendment has been down for months, and we are discussing it now! The only hon. Member that I am called upon to answer is the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. George Barnes). What is the whole case? The first grocers' licence was granted in England in I860, The Scottish grocers' licence goes back as far as the days of Mary Queen of Scots. When you talk about temperance reform, I say I am as strong a temperance advocate as my hon. Friend opposite. But he has got to convince me—and I have never yet heard an argument put forward that did convince me—that a man—or a woman—is more likely to get drunk upon one glass of whisky rather than upon a quart bottle. There is another element in it which is apt to be overlooked. It is very necessary in districts in Scotland, especially in districts of my own Constituency, that small quantities of brandy should be allowed to be sold. Brandy is not used for ordinary drinking, it is used medicinally. Anyone taken ill on a Sunday in Scotland must get the local medical authority's certificate before they can get any brandy. An ordinary medical man's certificate would not do, and doctors in my Constituency have over and over again complained of this, and the Lord Advocate has promised to have it amended if he could. In Scotland they have been accustomed, from time immemorial, to sell liquor in small quantities. I do not believe that small quantities produce drunkenness. I know the stories about the gill and half-gills being taken round corners for consumption. Of course, drink, wherever it is found, will be abused, but I am perfectly satisfied that it is more for the interest of the community that people should openly go into the grocers for what they want and take it home than that they should be forced into the public-house for small quantities. There is another reason why this Amendment should be adopted. These grocers' licences are going to pay more by a considerable

amount than the publicans pay. Those under £10 will have to pay £15; the publican will have to pay £5. The grocer of £20 will have to pay £16 10s. as against the publican's £10. A very large number of grocers in my Constituency will have to pay £20 as against the publican's £15. If you are going to heavily increase the duties on these shopkeepers, I think it would be very cruel to cut away their trade at the other end. I hope the Committee will accept my Amendment, which will not hurt the temperance cause while it will do justice to these people.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in the same paragraph, after the word "or" ["may not sell spirits in open vessels or"], to insert the words "in England."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 67.

Division No. 779.]	AYES.	[12.10 a.m.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Flynn, James Christopher	Marnham, F. J.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Massie, J.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Masterman, C. F. G.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Gulland, John W.	Middlebrook, William
Ambrose, Robert	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Montgomery, H. G.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Mooney, J. J.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Barker, Sir John	Healy, T. M. (Louth, North)	Morrell, Philip
Barnard, E. B.	Hedges, A. Paget	Morse, L. L.
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)	Helme, Norval Watson	Muldoon, John
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Murnaghan, George
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)	Henry, Charles S.	Murphy, John
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Higham, John Sharp	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Nicholls, George
Boland, John	Hogan, Michael	Nolan, Joseph
Boulton, A. C. F.	Horniman, Emslie John	Norman, Sir Henry
Brigg, John	Hyde, Clarendon	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)
Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Jardine, Sir J.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jenkins, J.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Joyce, Michael	Parker, James (Halifax)
Clough, William	Kavanagh, Walter M.	Partington, Oswald
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Keating, Matthew	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Cowan, W. H.	Lehmann, R. C	Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Crean, Eugene	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Crossley, William J.	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)	Philipps, John (Longford, S.)
Cullinan, J.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Pointer, Joseph
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Lewis, John Herbert	Pollard, Dr.
Devlin, Joseph	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Power, Patrick Joseph
Dillon, John	Lundon, Thomas	Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Duckworth, Sir James	Lupton, Arnold	Reddy, M.
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Lynch, Arthur Alfred (Clare, W.)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Redmond, William (Clare)
Elibank, Master of	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Rendall, Athelstan
Erskine, David C.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Essex, R. W.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Ffrench, Peter	M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Lelces.)	Robinson, S.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Markham, Arthur Basil	Roe, Sir Thomas
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Rose, Sir Charles Day	Summerbell, T.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Rowlands, J.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Watt, Henry A.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)	Wiles, Thomas
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Wilkie, Alexander
Seely, Colonel	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Williamson, Sir Archibald
Shaw, Sir Charles Edward	Thomasson, Franklin	Wills, Arthur Walters
Sherwell, Arthur James	Toulmin, George	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Silcock, Thomas Ball	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Simon, John Allsebrook	Verney, F. W.
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Vivian, Henry	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain
Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	Norton and Mr. Whitley.
Strachey, Sir Edward	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gardner, Ernest	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagrh
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Ashley, W. W.	Gill, A. H.	Paulton, James Mellor
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Glendinning, R. G.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Haddock, George B.	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Bowerman, C. W.	Hamilton, Marquess of	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Bull, Sir William James	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Clark, George Smith	Hill, Sir Clement	Seddon, J.
Clynes, J. R.	Hodge, John	Shackleton, David James
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hope, John Deans (File, West)	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Cooper, G. J.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Walters, John Tudor
Courthope, G. Loyd	Kelley, George D.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	Kerry, Earl of	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Keswick, William	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Everett, R. Lacey	Laidlaw, Robert
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Findlay, Alexander	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lamont and Mr. Barnes.
Fletcher, J. S.	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)
Fullerton, Hugh	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved after the word "or" ["may not sell wine in open vessels or "], to insert the words, "in England or Ireland."

Mr. CLAVELL SALTER

I wish to ask a question on a matter on which there is some uncertainty. I understand this is a limitation on total quantities, and the grocer is at liberty to sell spirits or wine in such vessels or in such quantities as he pleases, providing the total sale to one person at one time does not exceed the amount in a quart bottle in the case of spirits, or a pint bottle in the case of wine. I understand the Excise officers have in some cases expressed another opinion.

Sir SAMUEL EVANS

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct in his assumption.

Amendment agreed to.

Provisions Applicable to Railway Restaurant Car Licences.

A railway restaurant car licence granted in respect of a car authorises the sale by retail to passengers on the car of any intoxicating

liquor for consumption on the car.

Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved to insert:

1. (1) A licence for a railway restaurant car may be granted without the production of a justices' licence or certificate.
2. (2) The position with regard to selling intoxicating liquors on railways has, since the custom started, been a very peculiar one. So far as I know, there is no provision in the law which allows the sale of intoxicating liquors on railway cars. There was a provision, which enabled a licence to be given by the Excise to a particular officer named on passenger vessels, as far back as the year 1828. That was before railway travelling became in vogue in this country, but from that time till this there has never been any Act of Parliament making it legal to grant licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors in this manner. The custom has grown up, and has become very strong, and we, therefore, propose to insert in this Bill a provision authorising the Excise authorities to grant the licence.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

In 1880 Mr. Gladstone proposed an Amendment something like this, but it was not carried.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS moved, in paragraph (2) after the word "car" ["in respect of a car"] to insert the words "in which passengers are supplied with meals."

I attach real importance in reference to two points affecting railway cars. As the Solicitor-General has explained, the sale of intoxicants on these cars is at present—generally—illegal. There is a pretence of complying with the law which takes what we regard as the objectionable form of touting for orders for drink, and perhaps when the custom is legalised that practice may be dropped. The words used in this provision—applicable to railway restaurant car licences—really go beyond what the Solicitor-General has said, for it legalises more than the custom of supplying drink in restaurant cars with meals. Personally, I do not wish to protest against that practice, though at the same time—by reason of the absence of a protest—I do not wish to be bound to the opinion that these licences ought to be granted without control. I think the proper form of control would have been the Licensing Commission proposed to be set up in last year's Bill. I restrict myself, therefore, to this point about meals. I think one might easily get, under the form of words now proposed, a new custom started—viz., having mere drinking bars on wheels attached to these cars. The words would, I think, quite cover that, unless you introduce safeguards, and if such a custom were once started it might be found to be too late to protest against it. Hon. Members may say, "trust the railway company," but these companies have been breaking the law quite deliberately for the last 30 years. Only the other day when travelling on the Great Eastern I saw small bottles of spirits and wine hawked down the platform in an illegal way. It may be, or it may not be, a very desirable thing to do, but it is illegal, and when I am advised to trust the railway companies in this matter, I say at once I am not prepared to do so. I ask the Government to safeguard it in this way. The Amendment which I now move would secure that these cars should be restaurant cars, really supplying meals, which might be accompanied with drink. It would not make it impossible for a man to get a drink without meals. This would only mean that the existing restaurant cars would be continued. I hope the Government will accept those words, which will make the meaning clear.

Sir SAMUEL EVANS

I think it is a little hard upon the railway companies to say that they have openly broken the law for the last twenty or thirty years. My hon. Friend mentioned the matter of control, but it would be very difficult indeed to fix upon a particular body which ought to control the licence. A railway car travels 300 or 400 or 500 miles, as the case may be, and goes through the jurisdiction of a very large number of licensing justices. The Amendment which I propose is to allow the Excise authorities to give a licence to restaurant cars, and my hon. Friend's Amendment does hardly more than give some sort of definition as to what a, restaurant car is. I entirely agree that it would be undesirable to have drink hawked from parish to parish. So far as this is a definition of restaurant cars, I do not object to it with the limitation that after the words "restaurant car" there should be inserted "in which passengers can be supplied with meals." My hon. Friend's Amendment might be construed to mean that you would really have to take a meal in the car, whereas, what I propose, is to define a restaurant car in which passengers can be supplied with meals if desired.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I think it is very undesirable to extend the law in this way. Take the case of Dublin. The Dublin Railway Company can get a licence cheaper than the ordinary publican. As I previously pointed out, the ordinary publican in Dublin has, in addition, to pay a 10s. Licence Duty to the State. I remember Mr. Gladstone proposing this in the Budget of 1880, and I remember the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. W. Russell) distinctly canvassing the Irish Members against this proposal, and the result was that it was dropped. Seeing that the proposition to take 10s. off the Dublin publican has been so poorly met by the Government, I do not see why we should give a railway company for £1 the right to keep a travelling drinking shop.

Sir F. BANBURY

If the Amendment is inserted, a man going for a long journey who may have dined before he got into the train, and who desires a smoke and a brandy and soda before he goes to the sleeping car will be unable to get it unless he goes into the restaurant car. There might not be a seat in the restaurant car, and although if he stood in the car he might get a drink, he could not have it if he sat in the next car to it. Then there might not be a restaurant car on a long journey, and a person who wanted the guard to get him a brandy and soda at a refreshment room could not have it because no meals were served on the car. As regards temperance the matter is so small that even the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) will see that it can make no difference. I really think this is temperance gone mad. In order to promote temperance a man may not have something to drink when he is thirsty. I presume there is nothing to prevent a man taking his own whisky and soda in his portmanteau. Is the hon. Member going to travel in every carriage to see that no one produces a flask out of his pocket? The thing is simply absurd.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in order to move it in the form suggested by the Solicitor-General—"in which a passenger can be supplied with meals." It is not all I wanted, but I will take as much as I can get.

Mr. HAY

Am I to understand the Solicitor-General to mean that if an invalid passenger is lying in a compartment which is not in a restaurant car, he would be deprived of the opportunity of getting any alcoholic beverage at all?

Sir SAMUEL EVANS

It would not be regarded as a contravention to supply liquor in another carriage under those circumstances. It might be technically against the law, but it would not be a case for prosecution. Has anybody ever heard of a person being prosecuted for committing a technical breach of the law when the offence only took the form of administering alcohol to a sick or dying man?

Mr. HAY

Are we to understand that an invalid in a train can only obtain liquor when he is in a sick or dying condition?

Sir SAMUEL EVANS

I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means. As the hon. Member for Lincoln is not to be allowed to withdraw his Amendment, I move to leave out the word "are" in the proposed Amendment, and to insert instead thereof the words "can be."

Mr. T. M. HEALY

Will this licence be subject to annual review?

Sir SAMUEL EVANS

It is only an Excise licence.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

There is Sunday closing in Ireland except in the large towns. The Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company is a hard-up company, and I wish to know whether it could be dealt with in any way, supposing it put on restaurant cars and ran them on the day when the public-houses are closed. It is all very fine to believe that that will not be done, but we should not run these risks. I understand that the licence is to be granted by the Excise, and that if there is any irregularity whatever there is to be no check upon it.

Mr. A. B. MARKHAM

May I ask whether in the case of a passenger having a luncheon basket handed into a carriage, the sale would be regarded as having been effected in the carriage itself? It seems to me that the sale would be made, not in the refreshment car, but on the train.

Sir SAMUEL EVANS

That would be a sale out of the refreshment room.

Mr. W. W. ASHLEY

Am I to understand that if this Amendment is carried there cannot be any liquor sold on the train except in the restaurant car, where meals can be served? Is the practice which has gone on in the past of allowing a passenger in a sleeping car to be served with a brandy and soda to be regarded as illegal?

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

I travel a great deal, and I have never found that liquor was served in a sleeping car.

Amendment made in the proposed Amendment: To leave out the word "are" ["passengers are supplied"], and to insert instead thereof the words "can be."

Question put, "That the words in which passengers can be supplied with meals' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 48.

Division No. 780.]	AYES.	[12.45 a.m.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Hazleton, Richard	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Helme, Norval Watson	Parker, James (Halifax)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Partington, Oswald
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Paulton, James Mellor
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Henry, Charles S.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Barker, Sir John	Higham, John Sharp	Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Barnard, E. B.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Barnes, G. N.	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Barren, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)	Hogan, Michael	Pointer, Joseph
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Pollard, Dr.
Beale, W. P.	Horniman, Emslie John	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Hyde, Clarendon	Reddy, M.
Boland, John	Illingworth, Percy H.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Bowerman, C. W.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Redmond, William (Clare)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Jardine, Sir J.	Rendall, Athelstan
Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)	Jenkins, J.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Joyce, Michael	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Kavanagh, Walter M.	Robinson, S.
Charming, Sir Francis Allston	Keating, Matthew	Roe, Sir Thomas
Clough, William	Kilbride, Denis	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Clynes, J. R.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Laidlaw, Robert	Rowlands, J.
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lamont, Norman	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Cooper, G. J.	Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lehmann, R. C.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Seddon, J.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Seely, Colonel
Cowan, W. H.	Lewis, John Herbert	Shackleton, David James
Crean, Eugene	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Shaw, Sir Charles Edward
Crossley, William J.	Lundon, Thomas	Sheehy, David
Cuilinan, J.	Lupton, Arnold	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Lynch, Arthur Alfred (Clare, W.)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Lei trim, S.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Devlin, Joseph	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Dillon, John	M'Callum, John M.	Summerbell, T.
Duckworth, Sir James	M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Elibank, Master of	Marnham, F. J.	Thomasson, Franklin
Erskine, David C.	Massie, J.	Toulmin, George
Essex, R. W.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Esslemont, George Birnie	Middlebrook, William	Verney, F. W.
Evans, Sir S. T.	Mond, A.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Everett, R. Lacey	Montgomery, H. G.	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Ffrench, Peter	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Worrell, Philip	Watt, Henry A.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Morse, L. L.	Weir, James (Galloway)
Flynn, James Christopher	Muldoon, John	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Fullerton, Hugh	Murnaghan, George	Wiles, Thomas
Gill, A. H.	Murphy, John	Wilkie, Alexander
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Williamson, Sir Archibald
Glendinning, R. G.	Nannetti, Joseph p.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	Nicholls, George	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gulland, John W.	Nolan, Joseph
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Norman, Sir Henry
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)	Norton and Mr. Whitley.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

NOES.
Balcarres, Lord	Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott
Baldwin, Stanley	Carlile, E. Hildred	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Castlereagh, Viscount	Faber, George Denison (York)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Clark, George Smith	Fell, Arthur
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Clyde, James Avon	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey
Brotherton, Edward Alien	Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Forster, Henry William
Bull, Sir William James	Courthope, G. Loyd	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Stanier, Beville
Gretton, John	Magnus, Sir Philip	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Haddock, George B.	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Starkey, John R.
Harris, Frederick Lever ton	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah	Valentia, Viscount
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Ratcliff, Major R. F.	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Hill, Sir Clement	Renton, Leslie	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Hills, J. W.	Renwick, George
Kerry, Earl of	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl
Keswick, William	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Winterton and Mr. Ashley.

Mr. LEIF JONES (for Mr. Hart-Davies) moved, after the words "for consumption on the car," to insert the words "provided that the train to which the car is attached makes at least one non-stop journey of over thirty miles."

I move this Amendment merely for the purpose of eliciting from the Solicitor-General some definition of a "train." It is not unreasonable, seeing that you limit sale in other directions, that you should limit it in railway trains. I take it that no one wants these trains to become travelling public-houses. The whole object is to meet the convenience of travellers. The Government recognise that they are entitled to have their convenience met, but they cannot wish that trains should be drinking places. I think there may be some real danger on short journeys. Take the Underground Railways in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] It may be very absurd at present, but if we limit public-houses, and put a very small tax on railway trains, we make it easier to sell liquor in railway trains. I quite imagine that it would be more profitable to sell in trains than in public-houses, with the heavy Licence Duties that are now being put on public-houses. I suggest that there should be a bonâ fide journey.

Sir SAMUEL EVANS

This is not the definition of my hon. Friend, and as the author is not here I will not attempt to describe it or say what I think about it. It is an Amendment the Government cannot possibly accept, even though pressed to do so by the hon. Gentleman. We intend that these licences should only be granted to restaurant cars. I do not think it would be reasonable or in the interests of the public to restrict the matter further than we have already done.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I think the proposed Amendment should be not a "non-stop journey" of 30 miles, but a "non-drink" journey of 30 miles.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Mr. H. J. WILSON moved, after the words "for consumption on the car," to insert the words, "Any offence committed with reference to the sale of liquor on any railway restaurant car may be heard and determined by any court of summary jurisdiction through whose jurisdiction such car passed in the course of the journey during which the offence was committed."

This is practically only an extension of the Section in the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, to meet the case of any irregularity which might be committed on the cars now under consideration.

Mr. G. D. FABER

Is this within the scope of a so-called Finance Bill?

The CHAIRMAN

Certainly some of these Amendments go very far in reference to a Finance Bill; but in this case we are putting on a new licence which has not existed hitherto, and I think it is not beyond the scope of what is in the Bill with regard to that new licence.

Earl WINTERTON

The effect of this Amendment would be that if an offence was committed in a district through which the train was passing, where the train had not a regular stopping place, the train would have to be stopped in order that a magistrate might be fetched.

Sir SAMUEL EVANS

I do not think this Amendment is necessary. If an offence were committed by a railway company in connection with one of these cars, which I do not think is at all likely, there would be no difficulty in dealing with it under the ordinary law.

Amendment negatived.

1.0 A.M.

Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved, in the last paragraph of the First Schedule [Provisions applicable to occasional licences], to leave out the word "those" ["and any provisions relating to those licences shall apply accordingly"], and to insert instead thereof the word "occasional."

Amendment agreed to.

Question put, "That Schedule One, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 49.

Division No. 781.]	AYES.	[1.0 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)	Pointer, J.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)	Pollard, Dr. G. H.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Hedges, A. Paget	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Helme, Norval Watson	Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Rendall, Athelstan
Barker, Sir John	Henry, Charles S.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Barnes, G. N.	Higham, John Sharp	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hobart, Sir Robert	Robinson, S.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Beale, W. P.	Hope, John Deans (File, West)	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Berridge, T. H. D.	Hornlman, Emslle John	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Rowlands, J.
Bowerman, C. W.	Hyde, Clarendon G.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Illingworth, Percy H.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Jenkins, J.	Seddon, J.
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Seely, Colonel
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Shackleton, David James
Clough, William	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Shaw, Sir Charles E.
Clynes, J. R.	Laidlaw, Robert	Sherwell, Arthur James
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Lamont, Norman	Simon, John Allsebrook
Cooper, G. J.	Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis	Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lehmann, R. C.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Summerbell, T.
Cowan, W. H.	Lewis, John Herbert	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Crossley, William J.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Lupton, Arnold	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Thomasson, Franklin
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	M'Laren, H. O. (Stafford, W.)	Toulmin, George
Duckworth, Sir James	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Verney, F. W.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Marnham, F. J.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Elibank, Master of	Middlebrook, William	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Erskine, David C.	Mond, A.	Watt, Henry A.
Essex, R. W.	Montgomery, H. G.	Weir, J. Galloway
Esslemont, George Birnie	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Evans, Sir S. T.	Morrell, Philip	Wiles, Thomas
Everett, R. Lacey	Morse, L. L.	Wilkie, Alexander
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Williamson, Sir A.
Fullerton, Hugh	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Gill, A. H.	Nicholls, George	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Norman, Sir Henry	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Partington, Oswald
Gulland, John W.	Paulton, James Mellor	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Norton and Mr. Whitley.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

NOES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Ashley, W. W.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Renton, Leslie
Baldwin, Stanley	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Renwick, George
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)	Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Gretton, John	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Barnard, E. B.	Haddock, George B.	Stanier, Seville
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Starkey, John R.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Bull, Sir William James	Hill, Sir Clement	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Hills, J. W.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kerry, Earl of	Winterton, Earl
Castlereagh, Viscount	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)
Clyde, J. Avon	Magnus, Sir Philip
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount
Courthope, G. Loyd	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)