Commons Sitting of 27 October 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Dry Docks and Floating Docks (East Coast).
  Mr. RENWICKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the exhaustive investigation into the serious want of dry-dock accommodation for our biggest ships on the East Coast, and the question of the provision of floating docks to meet the deficiency, as mentioned on pages 4 and 5 of the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1909–10, issued in March last, has now been made; if so, whether, as a result of such investigation, it has been decided that the two floating docks, the cost of which was partially provided for in the said Estimates, are considered sufficient to meet the requirements for our biggest ships on the East Coast; and, if so, has it been definitely decided to place one of such docks in a port on the East Coast north of the Thames?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The two floating docks mentioned are considered sufficient to meet immediate requirements. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. RENWICK: Has the exhaustive inquiry mentioned in the memorandum been made and what has been the result of the inquiry?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question asks me whether exhaustive investigation into the serious want of dry dock accommodation for our biggest ships and the question of the provision of floating docks to meet the deficiency as mentioned on pages 4 and 5 of the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1909–10 has now been made. That exhaustive inquiry has been made or it could not be mentioned.
  Mr. RENWICK: And the result is that no dock is to be placed upon the North-East Coast?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, it does not cover that point. It is as to the number of docks
  998
  required and not the particular location of the docks.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What is their capacity? What size of vessels will they take?
  Mr. McKENNA: The largest.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Twenty thousand tons?
  Mr. McKENNA: The largest.

  Gun Practice in Moray Firth (White Fish).
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the First Lord whether he is aware that there has this year been an unprecedented dearth of white fish in the Moray Firth, and that this is attributed to the frequent gun practice by His Majesty's ships; whether he was aware that this firing often takes place at night, to the danger of the fishermen, who must then be at sea or abandon their calling; whether notice of the times of firing is given by telegrams signed Coastguard; and under whose authority such telegrams are despatched?
  Mr. McKENNA: No reports to this effect have been received, and no proof has been given that the catches have been injuriously affected by the firing of His Majesty's ships. Night firing has been carried out by His Majesty's ships since 15th September, within a definite area in the Moray Firth, which was carefully selected so as to interfere as little as possible with the fisheries. In order to minimise any inconvenience to the fishermen, the times of commencement and completion of firing each night have been notified in advance to the Coastguard by the officer in charge of the practice, in order that the fishermen may be informed as speedily as possible.

  Crown Agents and Professional Men.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Colonial Office exercises any control over the employment and dismissal of professional men by the Crown Agents for the Colonies; and, if so, how is it exercised?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): With regard to this question I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 35 of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry of which I was Chairman, and which has been laid before the House.

  Kowloon Railway.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary if he had yet received the revised estimate of cost and alleged profits of the Kowloon Railway which the chief resident engineer was preparing last August; if he would give an abstract showing how it was contended that the railway can ever pay in competition with the shorter river which had cost nothing; whether the same resident engineer still holds office; and, if not, would he state the cause of the change?
  Colonel SEELY: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. As to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his question on 30th August. A new chief resident engineer has been appointed owing to the resignation of the officer lately holding the appointment.

  Southern Nigeria (Survey).
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he was aware that the survey of Southern Nigeria had been carried on for eight years at a cost of £52,868 without the production of a proper map; and that the annual Report of the Colonial Survey Committee for 1907 commented on this state of affairs; whether the Governor had made any representations on the matter; and whether it was proposed to take any steps in remedy?
  Colonel SEELY: The matter referred to in my hon. Friend's question are now being carefully considered by the Secretary of State.

  Death of a Chinese (Charge against Police Inspector).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the reason why Consul Werner, who refused to send for trial before a British court a British subject charged with having killed a Chinese, is being withdrawn from his post; and whether the accused British subject will be removed?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The statements implied in the question are not in accordance with facts. His Majesty's Consul at Kiu-kiang happens to be proceeding on leave of absence due to him in the ordinary course. The police inspector whose trial on the charge of causing the death of a Chinese resulted in his discharge is not in the service of His Majesty's Government, and the question of his removal does not rest with them

  Parliamentary Papers (Postage).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Parliamentary Papers are delivered without charge to Members while in the Colonies and British possessions; that if delivered to them in foreign countries a heavy postage is charged; and whether he will make arrangements to have the Vote Office bear the necessary expense of postage in the latter case?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): Under the Regulations of the Postal Union, the only correspondence which can be sent from one country to another without payment by means of postage stamps is official correspondence exchanged between Postal Administrations on Postal business. Arrangements have been made with the Colonial Post Offices for the mutual recognition of the "Official Paid" stamp on official correspondence of other kinds, but I am not in a position to make similar arrangements with foreign countries.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask whether the Post Office is justified in making charges for the redirection of Parliamentary Papers inside the United Kingdom?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Why is it that the Vote Office will not bear the necessary expense of the postage of documents sent out from their office?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is not a matter for me; it is for the Vote Office and the Stationery Office. I have no control over them in regard to these matters.

  Second-class Railway Fares (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. P. J. Power)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland) charge over 1½d. per mile to second-class passengers for uncomfortable carriages; what rate per mile is charged for first-class accommodation by the leading lines in England; and, in view of the high fares charged by this company for its second-class, will the Board of Trade endeavour to secure that third-class passengers who may not be able or willing to pay the high second-class fare charged by this company will be provided with foot-warmers or the carriages warmed by some other method?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I am aware that second-class fares on the Great Southern and Western Railway are, in some cases, at any rate, more than 1½d. a mile. The maximum fare chargeable is 2d. a mile. On the more important English railways the first-class fare is, generally speaking, about 2d. a mile. As regards the provision of foot-warmers in third-class carriages on the Great Southern and Western Railway, I have not yet received a definite reply from the company, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I do so.

  Crew of the Steamship "Linden Hall."
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the total number of the crew engaged on the steamer "Linden Hall," of West Hartlepool, in London during September last; whether the crew were engaged on board or at a mercantile marine office; how many Chinamen were engaged; and how many produced discharge books?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The crew engaged on the steamer "Linden Hall," of West Hartlepool, at Poplar on the 17th September last, numbered 28, of whom 20 were Chinese. The men were engaged on board and nine of them produced discharge books, two of the seamen producing discharge books being Chinese. There were also two apprentices on board.

  Customs and Excise (Examination).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the next examination will be held for situations as assistants of Customs and Excise, and what the limits of age will be?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Charles Hobhouse): I regret to be unable to make any statement on this subject at present.

  Suffragist Prisoners (Forced Feeding).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, at the time of the release of Lady Constance Lytton and Mrs. Brailsford from Newcastle Gaol, the other suffragist prisoners were being fed by force; and whether, previously to the forced feeding, these other prisoners had been medically examined for heart disease?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): Some of the suffragist prisoners were received
  1002
  in Newcastle Prison on Saturday, the 9th October; others on the following Monday. Lady Constance Lytton and Mrs. Brailsford, who were received on the Monday, were discharged on Wednesday, and on that day it became necessary to feed five of the other prisoners. All the prisoners, eleven in number, were medically examined with the utmost care, and four of them, who were suffering from heart disease or showed symptoms of cardiac trouble, were released on the recommendation of the medical officers. I need hardly say there is not the slightest ground for the insinuations which are being freely made that Lady Constance Lytton was released because she was a peer's sister. She was released solely on medical grounds, as were the other three prisoners.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Was the medical examination to which the right hon. Gentleman refers made before these prisoners were forcibly fed?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes, in every case.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the released prisoners says she was not examined before she was forcibly fed, and one of the doctors said———
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Which?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot say for the moment, but I will supply the name to the right hon. Gentleman. One of the doctors said to the other: "Has her heart been examined?" and he replied, "No, it does not matter; go on with the feeding." Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into that?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Certainly I will, but I have stated the facts.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any of the ladies are being still forcibly fed in the Birmingham Prison?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I understand that is the case.
  Mr. BYLES: Is there any reason for believing that these prisoners would take food in the natural way if they were placed in the First Division?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The contrary has been stated.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the right hon. Gentleman if the suffragist prisoners at Newcastle asked to be allowed to see their solicitor; if the solicitor himself applied

  1003
  to the Home Office for permission to see the prisoners; and, if permission was refused, what was the reason for the refusal?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Several of the prisoners referred to applied for permission to have visits from solicitors, and a firm of solicitors also applied for the same purpose; but the grounds stated did not bring the cases within the prison rules as to visits by legal advisers. I should have been disposed, in the special circumstances, to grant a visit outside the rules, but the fact that the prisoners who applied were due for release within a few days rendered this unnecessary.

  Sale of Poisons (Licences).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is aware that town councils are issuing, in large numbers, licences to sell poisons under Section (2) of The Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908, in places where abundant facilities are provided by the shops of qualified chemists; and, in view of the statement made in this House by the Under-Secretary when the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill was under discussion, that licences would only be granted under Section (2) where reasonable facilities did not exist, will he take steps to stop the granting of such licences in violation of that understanding and to cancel such licences as have been issued in contravention of it?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answers which I gave to questions by the hon. Member on this subject on the 10th and 24th June last. I have no power to control the action of the Town Councils, and I have already called the attention of the Privy Council Office to the allegations made.

  Liverpool Police Inquiry.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDhad given notice of the following question to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that last Friday an official disclosure was made by the chairman of the Liverpool Watch Committee from which it has become evident that the present dangerous situation in Liverpool originated in consequence of and following upon the erection of an altar in a public street for which official permission was given through some blunder on the part of the authorities; whether he is aware that on Saturday afternoon last
  1004
  Pastor George Wise was escorted to gaol by a procession of 60,000 sympathising citizens; whether, seeing that the inquiry for which the Government have promised a Bill will necessarily be largely concerned with events connected with Pastor George Wise, it is intended to hold such an inquiry whilst Mr. Wise, being in prison, is unable to take part; and whether he can see his way to assist in allaying popular excitement by accepting Mr. Wise's solemn promise, supported by the offer of prominent citizens to be bound over, that pending the official inquiry Mr. Wise will take no part in any public meetings which could reasonably be objected to by referring to matters sub judice and release Mr. Wise for the time being by allowing the warrant to stand over pending the inquiry?
  The HON. MEMBER: I desire to postpone this question.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: As the hon. Member's question may appear again on the Paper, I wish, upon a point of Order, to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the first paragraph of the question which says: "An official disclosure was made by the chairman of the Liverpool Watch Committee from which it has become evident that the present dangerous situation in Liverpool originated in consequence of and following upon the erection of an altar in a public street for which official permission was given through some blunder on the part of the authorities." I want to ask whether, in view of the fact that there is a Bill before the House for the appointment of a Royal Commission to take evidence in regard to these disturbances, it is in order to use the Notice Paper of this House for the purpose of pre-judging the facts of the case before the investigation is held?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think this will prejudge the question. We do not take for gospel all the words that appear in print.
  Mr. T. H. SLOAN: Have the Commissioners been appointed yet?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No, Sir.

  FINANCE BILL.

    NEW TAXES (YIELD IN IRELAND).
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what is now the estimated yield from Ireland for the current financial year of the new taxation imposed by the Finance Bill under the various heads?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The best estimates my right hon. Friend is able to make of the probable yield from Ireland of the various new and increased duties included in the Finance Bill, after allowing for the Alterations made since the Financial Statement of 29th April, and for the revised estimates of the yield of some of the duties recently presented, are as follows:—

    £

    Under Spirits

    80,000

    Under Tobacco

    180,000

    Under Motor Spirit

    10,000

    Under Motor Car Licences

    12,000

    Under Liquor Licences

    60,000

    Under Estate Duties

    52,000

    Under Stamps

    17,000

    Under Income Tax (including Super-Tax and allowing for concessions)

    100,000

    Under Land Value Duties

    24,000

    £535,000

    Some of these figures, however—more particularly those for the new taxes and for the increased rates of Estate Duty—cannot claim to be more than conjectural estimates.

  Indian Railways (Rolling Stock Orders).
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there has recently been a serious diminution in the orders of the Indian State railways and other Indian railways for rolling stock from British firms, both in the case of maintenance and construction; what were the total values of orders placed by the Indian State railways and other Indian railways with British firms for rolling stock during the years ending 30th September, 1907, 1908, and 1909; and do the indents for railway rolling stock sanctioned by the Indian Government during the last financial year, both for the State railways and other Indian railways, represent the full requirements of the managers of those railways?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): I regret that I can answer the Noble Lord's question only so far as relates to the three railways worked by the State. The companies that work the other lines place their own orders for rolling stock, independently of the India Office. The orders for rolling stock placed through the India Office with British firms amounted in 1906–7 to £2,571,000, in 1907–8 to £1,385,000, and in 1908–9 to £1,016,000. I should explain
  1006
  that in the first of these years trade was exceptionally active, and urgent demands were made for more rolling stock, to meet which the Secretary of State granted an extra million pounds. Almost the whole of this grant, although it was eventually shared by both State railways and companies, is included in the figure given above. The other two totals relate to State railways only. Recently, as the Noble Lord is aware, economy has been necessary in every branch of the administration. The Secretary of State has no information as to whether the indents for rolling stock during last year represent the full demands of managers, but he will be glad to refer the Noble Lord's question to the Railway Board for any observations.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will that necessitate a mail there and back?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: Yes, I think it will.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: Is it not the case that all the estimates and demands for rolling stock on the other railways as well as on th State railways are sent to the Secretary of State for India, and, therefore he has all the information necessary to inform the House of Commons what orders have been given or can be given?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: So far as the last part of the question is concerned the Secretary of State for India has not the information. I will inquire of the Railway Board for the information which the Noble Lord asks for.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is it not a fact that this falling off is due to the Swadeshi movement, and will he consider whether those who are responsible for it should be deported?

  Public Accountants (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the expansion and growing importance of public accounts in Ireland, whether he has power and contemplates raising the standard, status, and responsibilities of accountants, appointing none to practice in a public Department except such as have passed a competitive or at least qualifying examination, and recruiting the official auditing staff exclusively from the qualfied accountants in the order of merit ascertained by competitive examination?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have no power to alter the status or responsibilities of

  1007
  accountants. The qualifications of Local Government Board auditors were settled by a Treasury minute of 8th July, 1908, which was presented to Parliament. I see no reason for restricting the appointments as suggested.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the growing practice of the Estates Commissioners to leave competent agriculturists who are landless in the neighbourhood of a ranch bought by them long in suspense, and finally give them none of the land, but give parcels of it to persons from distant places where land of the same class is available; and whether, seeing that this practice is different from the intentions of Parliament as declared by him, he will arrange to have evicted tenants, occupants of uneconomic holdings, and suitable landless men in the neighbourhood of a purchased ranch provided with land from it before any outside application is entertained.
  Mr. BIRRELL: In the allotment of un-tenanted land acquired by them the Estates Commissioners have regard to the provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the Evicted Tenants Act.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland), Proof of Age.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether in an old age pension case in which the applicant has always resided in the same district and yet does not appear in the Census Returns, and there is no baptismal register, and the local pension committee, satisfied that the applicant is over 70 years of age, grant a pension of 5s. a week, and the evidence of age is not refuted before the Local Government Board, and the Board disallows the claim solely for lack of proof of age, the Board rules that the incorrectness of the Census Returns shall deprive of a pension a person otherwise entitled; and, if not, will he say what kind of evidence the Board requires in the circumstances stated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have no power to award a pension unless there is evidence of statutory age, and they have been advised that the onus of proof rests with the claimant. The Board give full consideration to any reasons assigned by a committee for believing a claimant to have attained the statutory age, and are glad to accept these reasons when it is possible to do so. In many cases, however, no valid reasons are
  1008
  given in support of the committee's opinion, and in such cases the Board cannot grant a pension in the absence of evidence from the claimant himself. As regards the last paragraph of the question, the Board consider any kind of evidence they can get, and do not lay down any rule on the subject.
  Mr. GINNELL: Would the applicant in such a case in Ireland be called upon by an inspector of the Board as in this country?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think there is any difference in the practice of the two countries.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is it not a fact that the majority of pensions refused in Ireland have been refused because the applicant's name cannot be found in the Census Return, and is it not also a fact that the Census Return for one town omits the principal street of the place?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, the Local Government Board in Ireland do not regard the Census Return other than as a factor in the case, and any other evidence of a satisfactory character is received by them.
  Mr. GINNELL: If the evidence in a case is evenly balanced, will the right hon. Gentleman have an inspector of the Board call upon the applicant as is done in this country?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That course is open to the Board as it is in England if they think it is desirable.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will they do it in this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know whether in this case they think it necessary.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Local Government Board for Ireland, before finally disallowing the pension of 5s. a week granted by the local committee to Peter Bennett, of Delvin, will consent to see and hear the applicant himself, and then judge for themselves?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have already informed the hon. Member in reply to the question asked by him on the 20th instant that this case has been finally decided by the Local Government Board.

  Royal Irish Constabulary (Charge of Assault).
  Mr. J. B. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to a case heard at the Newtown-hamiltown Quarter Sessions, on the 21st instant, in which Sergeant Carroll, Royal Irish Constabulary, was charged with

  1009
  assault at Maguiresbridge; whether he is aware that the assault was committed in an attempt to prevent the hoisting of a Union Jack upon private grounds, and that the defendant stated that he had acted under authority, but declined to produce his authority to the court without the consent of the Government; and whether he will state upon what grounds the sergeant of police was authorised to interfere with persons who were hoisting the flag of their country upon private land?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the case to which the hon. Member refers. I understand that the sergeant has appealed against the decision of the county court judge. The case is, therefore, still sub judice, and it is not desirable to make any statement on the subject.

  Honour Papers in Irish.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. John Murphy)asked if the Commissioners of Intermediate Education were requested to consider the question of re-examination of the marking of the Irish papers at the last examination; whether they considered the question at their last meeting; if so, what decision was arrived at; and on what ground was the decision based?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The suggestion that the honour papers in Irish should be re-examined by a competent authority, and the further suggestion that the papers should be re-examined by the examiners, were considered by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education at their last meeting, when they declined to adopt either suggestion. The Commissioners inform me that they have never referred papers for re-examination unless satisfied that there has been some miscarriage. In the present instance they are satisfied that there was none.

  Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier, Limited, Ipswich.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (for Mr. T. F. Richards)asked the Secretary of State for War whether the firm of Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier, Limited, Ipswich, are contractors to the War Office; if so, whether he is aware that the riveters and platers in their employ are paid 22s. a week, the district rate being 32s. per week; and whether he will take action to have the Fair Wage Clause complied with?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): This firm does not at present hold any War Office contracts.

  Smuggled Hashish and Bhang (Confiscation by Egyptian Authorities).
  Mr. H. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for War what progress he has made with his inquiry into the circumstances under which a large quantity of smuggled hashish or bhang, discovered on a British transport, was recently confiscated by the Egyptian authorities, involving the payment of a heavy penalty by the British Government; whether he has reason to believe that certain British officers were implicated in the matter; and, if so, what steps he is taking or proposes to take to bring them to justice?
  Mr. HALDANE: The Army Council has this matter under investigation at the present time, and I hope before long to give my hon. Friend some information on the subject.

  Officers of Special Reserve (Reduced Railway Fares).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company recently refused to grant cheap tickets to officers of the Special Reserve and Territorial Forces on the warrant which is issued to Regular officers entitling them to travel at reduced rates for weekend training, on the ground that they are not a part of the Regular forces; and whether, in view of the repeated declaration that officers of the Special Reserve are part of the Regular forces, he will make representations to the railway company upon the subject?
  Mr. HALDANE: My hon. Friend is apparently alluding to the special concession made to Regular officers in the matter of week-end tickets when attending a course of instruction at Hythe. The question of extending this concession to Special Reserve and Territorial officers has been referred to the Railway Clearing House Superintendents' Conference for their consideration.

  Pointed Bullets.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked whether the experiments in regard to rifle shooting have resulted in any decision as to pointed bullets; and, if so, are they soon likely to be issued for general use?
  Mr. HALDANE: Valuable information has been obtained from the experiments and is still under consideration.

  Development and Road Commissioners.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE (for Viscount Morpeth)asked the Prime Minister if he can now give the names of the Development Commissioners and Road Commissioners?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir, I am not as yet in a position to make a statement.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Well, before the Bill finally leaves this House.

  Vacant Irish Judgeship.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to filling up the vacant judgeship of the Court of Appeal in Ireland; and whether he will name the successor to the late Lord Justice Fitzgibbon?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot make any statement.

  Trafalgar Anniversary Demonstration.
  Mr. CARLYON BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister, in view of the official intimation of interest and good wishes sent through the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Trafalgar anniversary demonstration at Toronto, will the Government in future show their interest in the London celebration in Trafalgar-square?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that the message transmitted through my Noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, was in reply to a communication to the King. I am not aware of any steps that could fittingly be taken by His Majesty's Government to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member. As he is no doubt aware full facilities for the decoration of the Nelson column are accorded by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the suggestion often made in this House to fly the flag over public buildings on Trafalgar Day?

  Old Age Pensions Act (Amendment Bill).
  Mr. P. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister when the promised Bill for the Amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act will be introduced; and if it is the intention of the Government to redeem the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9th July, 1908, that the Poor Law disqualification would be removed this year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is not proposed to introduce this Session a Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act of last year. My right hon. Friend explained in the course of his Budget statement on 29th April last that, though he was afraid he would not be able to deal with the Poor Law disqualification this year, he had borne the matter in mind in framing his proposals, and hoped next year to be able to make the necessary provision.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  PROPOSED ADJOURNMENT.
  Lord BALCARRES: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make as to the course of business?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday next we propose to take the Lords' Amendments to the Housing and Town Planning Bill, the Lords' Amendments to the House Letting (Scotland) Bill, and the Second Reading—I understand it will not be seriously contested—of the Assurance Companies Bill.
  Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday we propose to devote to the Third Reading and final stage of the Finance Bill; and we hope on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, after the Debate on the Finance Bill has been concluded, to secure the Committee and Third Reading stages of the Assurance Companies Bill, which I believe may now be regarded as a non-controversial measure.
  On Friday, 5th November, we shall take the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Land Bill, preceded by a Motion to enable the Amendments to be put as a whole from the Chair. A formal Motion will be made at the commencement of the sitting on Friday, 5th November, to adjourn the House until Tuesday, 23rd November.
  Mr. MOONEY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has not received information that there will possibly be a very long discussion on the Assurance Companies Bill, and whether, if time be not available on Wednesday evening, the House will not be asked to sit up and discuss the Bill after 11 or 12 o'clock?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My information is in the contrary sense; but, if it turns out that the Bill is seriously contested, we shall have to reconsider the matter.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask if any date has been fixed for taking the Lords Amendments to the Development Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: When the House reassembles after the adjournment.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: May I ask whether there will be any opportunity of a discussion with reference to the Public Accounts Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid we shall not be able to find time for that.

FEE-CHARGING SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
Return ordered: Showing, in reference to Article 20 of the Regulations for Secondary schools, the number and names of the fee-charging secondary schools receiving the higher grant in which the ordinary percentage (25 per cent.) of free places has been reduced or varied on grounds deemed by the Board of Education to be sufficient.—[Mr. D. J. Shackleton.]
FINANCE BILL.
As amended in Committee of the Whole House, further considered.
FINANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 44.—(Valuation of Licensed Premises.)
  (1) The annual value of any premises for the purposes of any duty charged in the First Schedule to this Act shall be determined in the same manner and subject to the same conditions (including as respects licensed premises in Ireland the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section forty-three of the Inland Revenue, Act, 1880), as the annual value of premises is determined for the purpose of a publican's licence, and in the determination of that value the duty on the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction.
  (2) It shall be the duty of the Commissioners to prepare, and to keep corrected, a register as respects all fully licensed premises and beerhouses respectively of the amount which would be payable as compensation in respect of the premises under Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Licensing Act, 1904, if the premises were premises in respect of which compensation was payable under that Act, and of the annual equivalent of that amount (in this Act referred to as the annual compensation value, that equivalent being determined for the purposes of this Act in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury). That amount and the annual equivalent thereof shall be certified respectively for the purposes of this Act by the Commissioners
  1014
  of Inland Revenue, and any such certificate shall be subject to the like appeal as that to which the determination of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the amount to be paid for compensation under Sub-section (2) of Section two of the Licensing Act, 1904, is for the time being subject, with the substitution, as respects Scotland of the Judges of the Court of Session named for the purpose of hearing appeals under the Valuation of Land (Scotland) Acts, and as respects Ireland of the High Court of Justice of Ireland, for the High Court.
  In estimating for that purpose the value as licensed premises of hotels or other premises used for purposes other than the sale of intoxicating liquor, no increased value arising from profits not derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be taken into consideration.
  (3) The licence holder and any person interested in licensed premises shall, if required by the Commissioners, make a return in such form and containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require for the purpose of the ascertainment under this Section of the annual value or the annual compensation value of the premises, and if any person fails to make such a return within the time, not being less than thirty days, specified in the notice requiring the return he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
  Mr. JOHN GRETTON Mr. JOHN GRETTON moved, on Subsection (2), to leave out the words "as to which the determination of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the amount to be paid for compensation under Subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Licensing Act, 1904, is for the time being subject," and to insert instead thereof the words "to the High Court as under the Finance Act, 1894."
  I apologise for the Amendment not being on the Paper. The words proposed to be left out are of peculiar importance, dealing as they do with appeals under the Bill. They practically put an appeal under this Bill on the same footing, as regards costs, as an appeal against a decision of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the Act of 1904.
  By Sub-section 4 of the same Section it was enacted that: "(4). Any costs incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on an appeal from their decision to the High Court under this Section shall, unless the High Court order those costs to be paid by some party to the appeal

  1015
  other than the Commissioners, be paid out of the amount to be paid as compensation."
  One particular objection to the insertion of these words in connection with an appeal against an assessment fox valuation under the Finance Bill is that there is no Compensation Fund from which the costs can be paid. In that respect the reference to the Compensation Fund is mere nonsense. I take it the object of the words must be that whatever might be the decision of the High Court, the costs of both parties to the appeal would have to be borne by the appellant. That is my construction of the Clause as it stands. It is an alteration of the ordinary law for which no justification has yet been put forward in this House. I believe it is the fact that subsequent words in this Clause enable in Scottish oases an appeal to be made to the judges of the Court of Session, and in Irish cases to the High Court of Justice in Ireland; but, so far as those two countries are concerned, there is no provision of this nature with regard to costs. Unless the words are omitted as I suggest, and the matter is dealt with as proposed in the Amendment, the owners of licensed premises in England and Wales, who may deem it necessary to appeal against a decision of the Commissioners, will be in a much less advantageous position than Scottish or Irish licence holders who make a similar appeal. The costs in these cases are by no means light. In the famous Kennedy judgment they amounted to £700, and in addition to that the costs of the Commissioners had to be paid, the result being that the total came to within £100 of the sum awarded as compensation. It must be perfectly obvious that with such high costs the value of an appeal is practically taken away. It is only in very important test cases that it will be possible to carry an appeal forward, and then the appeal will have to be made by a combination subscribing the costs. The Amendment will permit of a less expensive method of procedure. I take it that the House desires, in laying down the terms of appeal, that justice shall be done. The appeal should be an effective appeal, and my Amendment in substance gives an appeal to the county court in cases where the sum involved is not greater than £10,000. In this respect, therefore, the Amendment is one of very great importance. I think the inclusion of this provision as to the payment of costs out of the Compensation Fund must have been an oversight, and
  1016
  I do not believe the Government can wish to adhere to the exact terms embodied in this Clause.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I beg to second the Amendment. I think my hon. Friend's objection is well founded. Often the costs in an appeal become more important than the subject matter of the appeal. It is only the uninitiated who imagine that the costs are a mere matter of form. Under Sub-section (4), Section 2, of the Act of 1904, it is provided that in no event shall the Commissioners of Inland Revenue be called upon to pay their own costs, whatever the issue of the litigation may be. The Sub-section says that the costs incurred by the Commissioners on an appeal from their decision to the High Court shall, unless the court orders the costs to be paid by some party to the appeal other than the Commissioners, be paid out of the Compensation Fund. But in these cases there is no Compensation Fund to draw upon, and the fear of my hon. Friend is that the interpretation of the Section will be to throw the whole of the costs—whatever the issue—on the appellant. Why not leave it entirely open and let the costs, as in the ordinary courts, follow the event? Let the party who appeals, if he is successful, have some chance of recovering his costs.
  The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): With regard to the question of costs the provision under Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act of 1904, which enables the court to give costs against the Commissioners out of the Compensation Fund cannot apply at all in this case. Therefore the law, with reference to costs; upon an appeal, will be governed by the provisions of the 10th Section of the Act of 1894, the Finance Act, and those provisions are perfectly plain because the appeal under the Act of 1904 is in accordance with the provisions of the 1894 Act, which says that the costs of the appeal shall be in the discretion of the court, and the court may order the Commissioners to pay them for such period as they may think fit. Therefore, the position is that any appellant will have a chance of getting his costs, and if he is able to satisfy the court that his appeal is reasonable he may bring it without having to pay costs at all under the discretion of the High Court. It is quite true that the appeal under the Act of 1904 is only to the High Court, and that is the appeal which has been preserved under the provisions of this measure. We have adopted the provisions of the Act of

  1017
  1894, which will enable the appeal to be taken to the High Court. The costs are mainly within the discretion of the High Court.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman, he really thinks that the Bill as it stands will have the precise effect which my hon. Friend wishes to ensure by moving his Amendment?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Except in regard to the county courts.
  Mr. BALFOUR: As regards the High Court there is absolutely no difference between my hon. Friend and the Government as to the way costs shall be allocated and they shall be allocated under the Act of 1894, and the fact that the Act of 1904 is interpolated does not affect that at all. They are to be under the Act of 1894?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Yes.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Why is it necessary to import the Act of 1904?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The answer to that is this: The Act of 1904 is referred to in the other part of the Clause, and as we deal with it in the one case we think as a matter of drafting it is well to deal with it in the other.
  Mr. GRETTON: Would it not be better, in this connection, to insert words to the effect that the Act of 1904, except as regards the Sub-section dealing with this particular matter of costs, would apply? That would make the matter perfectly clear and would not leave any room for misinterpretation. It is very well known that a Solicitor-General takes one view, but other expert legal opinion takes a different view, and I think it would be better to insert words which would eliminate the portion of that particular Sub-section of which I complain, and which the hon. and learned Gentleman explained to the House the Government do not wish to import into the interpretation of an Act dealing with this matter. On that ground, in the interests of clear drafting, it is very advisable that some limitation of the words should be applied so as to eliminate the ambiguous words and prevent their being applied to the particular matter of this Bill. I venture to make an appeal to the Government for further consideration before the Amendment is finally dismissed, and it is in the interest of their own measure that they should make this clear. I admit that in relation to the
  1018
  Act of 1904 these words are very properly inserted. The Commissioners would come forward, not as interested persons in that case, but in the position of arbitrators between the licence holder who is to receive compensation and the local authority who have contol of the Compensation Fund, and have to award that fund and see it devoted to particular licences. There the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are called in as arbitrators, but in this case they are called in as one of the most interested parties. They are in their official position interested in the collection of the revenue, and it is to their interest to make that collection as high as possible. Therefore they are not in the position of disinterested parties, and they are not able to exercise their powers disinterestedly. If they exceed the absolute line of justice and over-assess and value the property, then it is only reasonable that there should be an appeal against their decision, and if they have to pay the costs when the case is clearly against them, that liability will, at any rate, be some check upon the valuation which they place upon the property for taxation, and will act as a protection to the interests of the subject. In all these cases of valuations and assessments for the purpose of taxing it is held that the interests of the subject and the taxpayer are to have the benefit of any doubt, and I therefore maintain that the insertion of such words as I have suggested would act in the direction which the Government desire. I am quite sure that it will be desirable to do away with this ambiguity. There will be probably in the earlier stages of this legislation some disputes which will result in very costly litigation, and every lawyer in this House knows that in cases of litigation an opinion from an authority, however eminent and well instructed, given to Members of this House as to the intentions of the Government, or even the intentions of Parliament, count for nothing in the law as it stands and as it passed this House, is the matter for decision. I therefore venture to put these words forward for further consideration, and I hope that that consideration will result in the insertion of some words which would make the Sub-section clear.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: May I say that if there is any genuine doubt on the part of anybody I am quite willing that the words should be put at the end of the paragraph to make it clear, "and the costs of any such appeal shall be in the discretion of the court."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: At the end of the first paragraph of Sub-section (2), to insert the words "and the costs of any such appeal shall be in the discretion of the court."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next Amendment of the Solicitor-General it appears that to strike out the words "no increased value arising from profits not derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be taken into consideration," will increase the charge. To the ordinary mind it implies that the increased value should be taken into consideration. I do not know if the Solicitor-General can show that it does not increase the charge.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I put the Amendment down in deference to the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister on the Committee stage that upon the whole, to avoid doubts being raised, it would be better to omit these words, and in that opinion I respectfully agree. But when you, Mr. Speaker, ask me if the excision of the words might in some cases have the effect of increasing the duty, I wish to say that while I do not think it probable, I cannot deny that it is possible that the relief contemplated by the Subsection might not be fully given in some cases, and, accordingly, after what you have said, Sir, I do not propose to move the Amendment.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE Mr. JAMES HOPE moved to omit Subsection (3).
  I move this on the ground that the Subsection will put, not only upon the licence holder, but upon any person interested in licensed premises, the liability at any time and in any manner, to be questioned and harassed by the Commissioners. This point was raised in Committee, and the Solicitor-General seemed to feel the force of the argument. He said, first of all, that he could not accept the statutory form of the Schedule which was proposed, but he added that he would consider the suggestion which had been made whether it would be advisable if the questions asked were of an inquisitorial character to put it in the form of a Schedule. I would ask the Solicitor-General whether he has not considered that point and whether it could not be put in the Schedule. The case is rather stronger from the fact that a similar question arose under Part I of the Bill. There the powers of the Commissioners to call for particulars were distinctly limited. The form of the Bill as it left the Committee with regard to information as to land was "any other information
  1020
  which the Commissioners may require," which left the Commissioners the extraordinary power to ask information not only from land-owners but from occupiers of land. Those words were left out and other words were inserted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved an Amendment limiting the power of the Commissioners to the "title, area, character and use of the land and the consideration given on any previous sale or lease of the land and other matters which might properly be required for the purpose of the valuation of the land," and that was further amended, the word "title" being struck out. It was thought necessary in that part of the Act to lay down distinctly what were the subject matters which the Commissioners might ask about and if it was necessary in that part of the Act it is equally necessary here, and I would ask the Solicitor-General whether he has gone into that point and whether he sees an objection now either to putting definite words in which will limit the range of the Commissioners' questions or else putting here merely that they should call for such information as may be set forth in the Schedule, and then preparing the Schedule accordingly. But as it is, the range is so vast that the unfortunate persons interested would never know when they had satisfied the Commissioners or when they might not have to fill up other forms. I know there are many people who find as great an annoyance in their daily life from the constant filling up of forms as from the taxes themselves.
  Mr. E. H. CARLILE Mr. E. H. CARLILE seconded the Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I have considered this. I offered in Committee to insert certain words which would be of a limiting-character—"information material for ascertaining the annual value" or something; of that kind. I think in a matter of this kind we must leave it to the discretion of the Commissioners. It is necessary that they should be informed as to the value, rent, and things of that kind which would enable the accurate annual value to be arrived at without making it necessary to embark upon an expensive appeal. The information required cannot be of a very inquisitorial kind. Everyone knows the kind of information which will be asked for. I certainly did not hold out any hope in Committee that I could put any form in the Schedule. The Bill is quite long enough, and I do not want to increase the number of Schedules.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: There is a certain amount of hardship because cases of this kind under this Bill differ entirely from compensation cases under the Act of 1904. There, there is no hardship at all in having the fullest possible inquiry, because there, there is no secrecy in the matter. It is no longer a going concern. The licence was about to be extinguished, the amount payable in respect of the extinction was to be ascertained, and there was nothing to be held back on the part of the trader. But here it is a totally different matter. It is a going concern, and no trader likes to disclose the whole quantity and quality of his business. The wind should be tempered, as far as possible, to the shorn lamb. Unfortunately, words uttered by so eminent a legal luminary as the Solicitor-General carry no weight with those who have to decide these matters hereafter. They may see no reason at all for being benignant when they have to perform their duty. They may demand the ransacking of the books from beginning to end, and go into the whole business. I wish some words could be put in roughly, as a guidance to those gentlemen to show that only the information which is absolutely necessary in ascertaining the annual value of the licence should be required. We have some grievance in this matter.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I do not know whether, after the statement made by the Solicitor-General, it is any use to press this matter further on his consideration. I do not think there is any exact precedent for conferring these powers on the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I believe that the right of the Inland Revenue Commissioners to ascertain for the purpose of Income Tax the facts as to the business being done is strictly limited to certain particulars. They have not a roving commission. They have the right to make inquiries in regard of certain specified matters, but they are not allowed to go beyond these. I can give an instance, not drawn from the revenue laws, but from the public health laws. In dealing with some of the greatest nuisances arising in relation to the question of public health, one of the difficulties in the way of discovering the causes was that it was impossible for the Government inspectors to make certain investigations without making such demands on manufacturers as might result in the disclosure of secret processes of manufacture. The manufacturers thought
  1022
  they should not be called upon to part with information which might be used to their prejudice if disclosed to others. Here you are asking wide powers, which are not defined or limited in any way. No one doubts the bona fides or the capacity of the Commissioners, but I think some difficulty might arise, as in the case I have referred to in connection with the administration of the public health laws. I had the pleasure of proposing an alteration in the law for the purpose of enabling the Government inspectors to carry out their inquiries more effectively in regard to public nuisances, and an hon. Member opposite vehemently resisted the change on the ground that a manufacturer should not be exposed to the risk of having the information which would be supplied to inspectors disclosed to his competitors. It is clear that for the purpose of arriving at the value of the premises you do not want to investigate the innermost secrets of a man's business. I am sure the Solicitor-General is entirely at one with us in desiring that there should be no inquisitorial procedure and no disclosure of matters which are not necessary to the purpose of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Surely it would be possible to insert words to guard the licensed trade against what they conceive to be a real risk. If the Solicitor-General could suggest some words to do so, the trade would be relieved from a danger which, I think, they very reasonably fear.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am entirely at one with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that no particular information should be asked except that which is reasonably necessary for the purpose of making the valuation. I have been informed since I spoke that when the Bill was in Committee the words "such particulars as may be material for the purpose of ascertaining the value" were inserted in connection with the Land Clauses. They provide some limitation, but I think they are not so good as the discretion of the Commissioners. I am quite willing to insert the word "properly," so that the Sub-section would read "such particulars as the Commissioners may properly require."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think that is about as much as I can ask for under present conditions. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: After the word "may," in Sub-section (3), to insert the word "properly."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Drafting Amendment made.

  CLAUSE 45.—(Reduction of Duty in Case of Hotels or Restaurants.)
  (1) Where in the case of any licensed premises which are structurally adapted to be used and bonâ fide used for the purpose of the reception of guests and travellers desirous to sleep in the premises, or which are licensed premises structurally adapted for use, and bonâ fide used as a restaurant, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor were in the preceding year less than one-third of the total receipts in that year from the business of all descriptions carried on in the premises, the duty payable under this Act in respect of the licence shall, subject to the minimum provided by this Section, be a reduced duty bearing the same proportion to the full duty payable as the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor bear to the total receipts.
  (2) For the purpose of the calculation of receipts under this Section, the year shall be the year ending the thirty-first day of March or such other day as the Commissioners may fix for any area or to meet the circumstances of a particular case or cases.
  (3) The reduced duty payable under this Section may, at the option of the person by whom the duty is payable (but subject to the minimum provided by this Section) be a duty of twenty-five per cent. on such amount as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue certify to be the annual compensation value of the premises, and those Commissioners shall, on the application of any person by whom the duty is payable, certify that amount subject to appeal in manner hereinbefore provided in any case where that amount has not been determined for the purpose of the register to be prepared under this Act.
  (4) The reduced duty payable under this Section shall not be less than one-thirtieth of the annual value of the premises in the case of fully-licensed premises, and in any other case one-fifteenth of the full duty.
  (5) The Commissioners may make regulations for adapting the provisions of this Section to cases where a licence is granted in respect of premises for which such a licence has not previously been in force or where the annual compensation value of the premises has not been certified, and
  1024
  may by those regulations provide for the grant of a licence in cases where they are satisfied that it is probable that the premises for which the licence is granted are premises to which this Section will apply, on a provisional payment of one-fifth of the full duty, and for adjustment of the duty after the licence has been in force for six months in accordance with the receipts for those six months, or after the annual compensation value has been certified, either by the repayment of any duty which is found to have been paid in excess, or by the recovery as a debt due to His Majesty of any sum by which the amount paid as duty falls short of the amount which is found to be payable.
  (6) The power to obtain a licence on payment of a reduced amount of duty in the case of a six-day licence and in the case of an early closing licence shall not apply where a reduced duty is payable under this Section; but in oases to which this Section applies, effect shall be given to the statutory enactments as to six-day and early closing licences by calculating the full duty payable as the amount of that duty reduced in the case of a six-day or early closing licence by one-seventh, and in the ease of a licence which is both a six-day and an early closing licence by two-sevenths.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, after the word "less" in Subsection (1) ["were in the preceding year less than one-third of the total receipts"], to insert the words "in the case of a restaurant than two-fifths, and in the case of any other premises."
  It was stated in the Debate in Committee that there might be submitted cases of bonâ fide restaurants where the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor were over 33 per cent. of the total receipts, and that they would, therefore, be excluded from the reduction provided for by the Clause owing to the somewhat higher percentage of liquor receipts than the Bill allows. No such cases have been submitted, but our own inquiries have revealed the fact that there were one or two restaurants which have a somewhat higher percentage than 33. I think the cases are exceedingly rare where restaurants, which are not public-houses, have a percentage of liquor receipts over 33. In those rare cases there would be a real hardship in leaving them under the public-houses charge, and consequently we propose to alter the per-

  1025
  centage from 33 to 40 in the case of restaurants. The figure 40 is taken from the Memorandum to which I referred yesterday. It was circulated by the committee representing the hotel and restaurant trade of the United Kingdom. I should not be prepared to go beyond that figure as is suggested in the Amendment of winch the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Arkwright) has given notice, for this reason. We want to draw a line between public-houses and restaurants. A certain amount of public-house sales will be soda-water and temperance drinks of one kind or another, and usually tobacco. Therefore they all have a certain percentage of non-intoxicating liquor business. It would be very easy so to arrange prices as to show a somewhat larger proportion of non-intoxicating liquor receipts and a somewhat smaller proportion of intoxicating liquor receipts. The danger is that if you go beyond 40 per cent. many places would be able in this way, if they were anxious to escape the burden of the Licence Duties on public-houses, to receive the consideration which is being given to restaurants. They would be able surreptitiously to bring themselves within a class to which they do not properly belong. I hope the House will accept the figure 40 per cent., which is the figure proposed by the accredited representatives of the restaurant proprietors.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. S. ARKWRIGHT: I beg to move to leave out in the proposed Amendment "two-fifths," and to insert instead thereof "three-fifths." I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Duchy cannot accept this Amendment. I desire to point out what I meant by putting down the Amendment, and to say that I shall be obliged to ask the House to divide upon it. The chief meaning of the Amendment is the reference it bears to our contention which would follow that the hotel proportion should be one-half, and it was in view of the possibility of being told that that proportion would be more favourable than the terms already given to the restaurants that I put down this Amendment to avoid that objection.
  Mr. CARLILE: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Mr. H. BELLOC: In supporting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Arkwright), I still maintain, as I maintained in Committee, that the distinction between the ordinary public-house and the restaurant and hotel is emphatically not a distinction that can be arrived at by determining a numerical proportion; but the higher you put that numerical proportion the more justly do you treat such exceptional cases. The distinction is, as everybody knows by experience, whether the house in question does or does not lay itself out for ordinary entertainment, or whether it lays itself out merely for making a profit on the sale of liquor. I have heard no argument advanced to maintain a numerical proportion as the test except one interjection by the Chancellor of the Duchy—who I think is quite out of touch with public feeling in this matter as in most matters—in which he said that permanent officials, or, at any rate, he himself, had determined that one-third was the exact proportion which made the difference between a restaurant and a public-house. The difference is not numerical. It would be best established by a local committee whether a house is a bonâ fide hotel or restaurant, or not. I shall vote for the Amendment moved from the opposite side of the House, because it goes further in my direction than the Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Duchy.
  Mr. YOUNGER: The proportion of three-fifths might create certain difficulties. At the same time it seems to me that anything that advances the interests of temperance should be encouraged, and if you could prevail upon publicans to carry on their business more like restaurant keepers, and go in more for supplying meals rather than merely selling liquor then it would be a gain to temperance and a gain to society.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 61.

  Division No. 847.]

  AYES.

  [4.5 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barker, Sir John

  Brace, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brigg, John

  Agnew, George William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bright, J. A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beale, W. P.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Ashton, Thomas Galr

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Cameron, Robert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hodge, John

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Clough, William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robinson, S.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hort, Richard Durning

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rowlands, J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hudson, Waiter

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Crossley, William J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Sears, J. E.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Seely, Colonel

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Silcock, Thomas Bail

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lamont, Norman

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Elibank, Master of

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Summerbell, T.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Essex, R. W.

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Verney, F. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Ginnell, L.

  Massie, J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Glover, Thomas

  Morteno,percy Alport

  Wiles, Thomas

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Myer, Horatio

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nicholls, George

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nissey, Sir willans

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Hall, Frederick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wood, T. McKinnon

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Radford, G. H.

  NOES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Renwick, George

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Valentia, Viscount

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nield, Herbert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Oddy, John James

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Arkwright and Mr. Carlile.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Renton, Leslie

  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. E. A. GOULDING Mr. E. A. GOULDING moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "one-third" ["one-third of the total receipts"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one-half."
  When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget he said he was going to draw a dividing line between inns and the ordinary drinking establishments. Since then Amendments have been moved giving relief to the hotels and seaside establishments that are open only for por-

  1029
  tion of the year and also to the large hotels in big cities. But I want to make an appeal for the moderate-sized hotel which is to be found in our provincial towns and market places. They are not only a convenience to the general public but are absolutely necessary to the agricultural community and to those connected with commercial travelling. They are in a peculiar position, because the consumption of alcohol is generally in excess of the one-third, so that they would not come under the exemptions, and the Option Clause would be practically no use to them, and they would not be able to avail of it. As a rule they are houses with not a very large number of bedrooms; the money paid for food is generally not of a very extravagant figure; so that there is no possibility of making up their takings from other dealings besides alcohol so as to bring them under the one-third. Most of the business in these market towns is done on special days of the week, generally market days, and everyone knows the kind of trade done on those days. Men come in to the hotels from their market dealings, but they do not take a big meal, generally bread and cheese, with a little alcohol, or whatever the beverage may be. These market towns and provincial hotels are not very flourishing concerns; they are not paying enormous dividends, and there is really very little return upon the capital invested in them. The Government said they were prepared to consider cases of real hardship, and would try to give concessions, and I cannot for the life of me see why, in regard to these provincial hotels, you are going to extend to them treatment which you considered absolutely wrong last year in regard to the treatment of clubs. In respect of clubs, it was pointed out to you that in some clubs the amount of subscriptions was very small indeed, while the amount of receipts from alcohol was enormous, and that that might be taken as a certain gauge of the bona fides of a club. But you would not hear of that. Now, when you come to the case of these provincial hotels, you propose to take the very criterion that you refused to take in regard to clubs. What I ask the Government is that they should make some special conditions in regard to the treatment of these particular cases. Every Member of the House knows that hotels in small towns are generally situate in the principal thoroughfare, and in consequence their assessments are high. Besides, they have always attached to them large outhouses,
  1030
  garages, places containing stock, and places for putting the goods brought down by commercial travellers for sale. Ordinarily, these hotels have attached to them a great deal of land, which is necessary for their business as an hotel, but not necessarily connected with the sale of alcohol. I have particulars of some very hard cases connected with towns in the Eastern counties. There are three cases of hotels, none of which would come under the one-third limit, but which would be under the half, though over the third. I can give the cases to the right hon. Gentleman himself, if he thinks it necessary. In one of them the assessment is £575; it has bedrooms for 40; its present duty is £50, and that duty will be increased to no less a sum than £237 10s. The right hon. Gentleman may take it from me that the net receipts from liquor will be not half, but over one-third, and, therefore, would be outside this provision. There is another case exactly similar, where the assessment is £600; it has bedrooms for 50, but there is really little chance of making a revenue from the bedrooms, and in its case the duty will be increased to £300. That is an appalling sum to place on any of these inns. To try and impose such a burden on institutions of that character, as every hon. Member in this House knows perfectly well, means the extinction of many of them. In the particular place of which I am speaking I understand there are public-houses which are assessed at £80 and £100, and which under this Bill would pay £40 or £50 in respect of duty. In both of those cases the amount of alcohol consumed is equal to, if not more, than what is consumed in an hotel. While these public-houses pay a duty of £40 or £50, in the case of the hotels I have named one will pay £237 10s. and the other £300. In such cases I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman will see that a gross injustice is done if the benefit of this provision be not given to them, as stated by the Prime Minister; otherwise it is inevitable that many of these houses must be closed, and that ruin must follow. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a favourable consideration to the Amendment, which I move in relation to provincial hotels and hotels in market towns, which, under the Bill, will be subject to gross injustice.
  Mr. ARTHUR FELL: I beg to second the Amendment. I know myself of a case exactly similar to those quoted by my hon. Friend, but it is a case where there was a mortgage on the premises, and I have been

  1031
  told by the people who are the owners that if this duty be imposed it will mean the difference between making a living and not making a living. This additional £200 or £250 a year will deprive them of their livelihood. They must pay the mortgage interest, and this duty would leave them nothing to live upon.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment quoted generally the cases of small hotels in provincial towns, in which, he said, there were very few bedrooms, but which on fair days and market days did a very considerable trade that brought the proportion of their liquor receipts to over one-third. These houses, in our judgment, are not really the class of houses that ought to be brought within the terms of the Clause. The houses to which the hon. Member referred are the ordinary village public-houses—[an HON. MEMBER: "No."]—the ordinary public-houses in little country towns, of which I know many, and which are frequented every night by their ordinary habitués of the town, and on market days by farmers and their friends, who sit down to the market ordinary and have their refreshments. The hotel business of such houses is extremely small. They have a few bedrooms patronised by commercial travellers occasionally, and practically by no one else. They are not places which, in our opinion, ought to be taken out of the category of public-houses and brought within the category of bonâ fide hotels. The proportion of one-third, after careful inquiry, is in our judgment a very fair dividing line between premises of that character and those places which are really hotels, except in the special case of seasonal hotels, which has been specially met, and to which the hon. Member has just referred. The reason for the distinction between seasonal hotels is that they are shut up for a part of the year, while the bars remain open for the supply of the inhabitants, as in the case of very small houses in the Highland villages. They are perhaps a little above the one-third, but nevertheless they are bonâ fide hotels, which during a large part of the year do mainly an hotel business to which the liquor trade is subordinate. The special provision is intended to meet that case, but it is by no means to be taken as a precedent, and it cannot be applied to hotels generally. The hon. Member opposite quoted figures, but he did not give us any in regard to the liquor receipts, which are
  1032
  really a very important item in this matter, and the danger is that this Clause, as I have said before, may be used as a means for what are in essence ordinary public-houses escaping the duties which their neighbours and competitors have to pay, merely on the ground that they have two or three bedrooms, and the Commissioners could not refuse to class them as doing, to some extent, a bonâ fide hotel business. The genuine and typical London hotels are far below the 33 per cent. Here are four hotels—I am not authorised to give their names, but they are very familiar to hon. Gentlemen opposite—information in regard to which has been supplied to the Government under the seal of confidence. In the case of a very well-known London hotel, doing an extremely large business, an hotel where there are supper parties, the proportion of liquor receipts is 21.6 per cent. The second hotel has a proportion of 15 per cent.; the third 6 per cent., and the fourth 5 per cent.
  Mr. GOULDING: I spoke on behalf of the small hotels in provincial and market towns.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have one case, and it is in Surrey, the total turnover of which is £10,736, and the annual purchases of excisable liquors amounts to £2,000. There are other cases, but I have not the figures by me for the moment, as I did not know that this special case was going to be brought up. The London hotels are far below 33 per cent., and even those who have the higher liquor receipts have only a proportion of 20 per cent., and most of them 10 per cent., 11 per cent., 12 per cent., and some 15 per cent. In the country, our information is that 33 per cent. is a very fair dividing line between a house which does mainly an hotel business and the public-house which incidentally does some hotel business. By charging a little more for meals and so on, and charging a little less for the liquor served with the meals, it might be easy in the case of a house that has at present a good deal above 50 per cent. in liquor receipts, to bring these below the line, so that, although it is really mainly a public-house, it can come within the benefit of this hotel clause. In view of that danger, I must ask the House to adhere to the figure which we propose.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I have heard the reply of the right hon. Gentleman with considerable regret and astonishment. The right hon. Gentleman failed alto-

  1033
  gether to deal with the character of the case brought forward by my hon. Friend. The illustrations which he gave are outside altogether the point which we are trying to bring before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to hotels with a turnover of £10,000. They are not to be compared with the class of country hotels, on behalf of which my hon. Friend moved this Amendment. When the Government started on this crusade they laid down several principles. Their intention was to draw a wide and broad line between those places which were for the accommodation of man and beast, and those which were merely drinking shops. The right hon. Gentleman says that the hotels on behalf of which this Amendment is moved are practically represented by the cases he quoted, namely, the larger kind of hotels. He actually took London, and I do not suppose that in any parts of the Larger London that we are familiar with, since the Local Government Act came into operation, that you would find one single hotel of the class referred to by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). Supposing there are some of them—there may be a few—the right hon. Gentleman, when he had done with London, went to one case in Surrey. That was the case with a turnover of £10,000. The hotels which we ask relief for are the hotels that were described in the Government's own language as places of accommodation for man and beast. Where do their receipts in a very large measure come from? Does not every hon. Gentleman conversant with our country towns know perfectly well that most of those hotels confine their sales of liquor to a particular class? There is very often in the larger country towns the club which is used by the country gentlemen, and there is sometimes the working men's club, while there as a very large class of tradesmen and of the middle class who have no club to go to, and who frequently use these hotels as a sort of club. That at once adds to the consumption of liquor and penalises them, although it is the most respectable kind of trade you could wish for, and it ought to be encouraged, and not discouraged, by the Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that it is really the village public-house. I venture to say he confesses by that argument to a complete ignorance of the facts in our country districts. They are not village public-houses in any sense of the word. There is no comparison to be made between
  1034
  the houses to which we are referring and the village public-houses mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. There is an aspect of this case quite apart from whether you are doing justice or injustice to the publican. There is the general interest of the locality and the trade of the locality, and I venture to say that these hotels are essential to the industry and to the trade of the districts. I can confirm what my hon. Friend said an regard to many cases. I am not going to give the particulars, but I will say a word about two or three of the cases he mentioned. I have made inquiries myself, I have been to some of those hotels, and asked them for the facts. They are naturally very chary of having their figures produced, because although they feel that the rope is being put round their necks, they naturally do not want to help to tighten it until their fate is absolutely decided. Surely the fact speaks for itself. Does anybody here believe that in these small country hotels the profits are so large that you cannot once raise their outgoings, as in the three cases quoted by the Member for Worcester, from £50 to over £200, from £70 to nearly £300, and from £40 to £122? Does anybody believe with a knowledge of our country towns and the smaller class hotel that the profits are so large that you can treble, quadruple, or multiply four or five times one outgoing, and that there is the smallest prospect of their being able to carry on business? We know perfectly well those are the class of houses in respect of which the profit is probably the very smallest.
  My hon. Friend drew a distinction between the case of those smaller hotels and some of the public-houses. Yesterday, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy was referring to the recommendations in regard to local government, he forgot that although it was not part of the recommendation of the Royal Commission it did form a large part of the recommendations made by the Members of this House and outside. They recommended this change that the control of those public-houses and the fixing of the amount of their licences should be vested locally. That was a proposal which met with no favour here because the majority of this House resented any attempt to remove the control of Parliament in fixing the amount to be paid. The reason given for that change was that it is only locally that you can know the distinction and the difference between the different class of houses; between the one

  1035
  that makes money and the one that does not. Simply to take a hotel at random and to say that because it is a hotel and presents a better appearance, and looks a better house than its neighbour and therefore ought to be more heavily rated, is to jump at a conclusion for which there is no solid foundation and to inflict a very great injustice on this class of house. I made inquiries, and without any exception they resulted in the uniform reply that, "If the Government persist with this grave and heavy increase in all Licence Duties the only result must be that we shall have to close our houses, as it would be quite impossible to carry them on." My hon. Friend quoted hotels with 45 or 50 bedrooms, but I am thinking of smaller hotels, and there are a great many hotels which are not public-houses, and where the bedroom accommodation is probably not more than 12 or 15 rooms. How are those hotels used? They are used at the present time by everybody who has no place to stop in the neighbourhood, and who was visiting the locality either for business or for pleasure, or for any other purpose. They will be all included under the new charge. They will not come under the exemption. The figure of one-third is one which will bring all those hotels in, and will, for this small difference, impose on them a charge which it is impossible that they could bear, the charge of the extra Licence Duty.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Their rateable value would not be high.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: Really it is very difficult to argue with the Government, as they rely for their answers on statements which are entirely in the air.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman has not quoted a single figure or given a specific case.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I referred to three cases given by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. I said I had brought no case with me, but surely the people who conduct those hotels are as respectable and as well worthy of credence as we are ourselves. I have been to some of them and they have given me figures. Perhaps is is my fault that I have not brought them. I know their statements are correct and can be relied on. They have told me that the result of this Bill, so far as they can make out, will be to increase their duties as indicated in the cases quoted by my hon. Friend. Surely they must be given some credit for knowing
  1036
  their own business. I admit the difficulty of applying the new provisions of this Bill, as many of them are extremely vague and doubtful, but they have arrived at these figures for themselves, and they make the statements definitely, and statements which cannot be met by saying that their rateable value would not be so large. They know what their rateable value and position is. They have taken it into account, and they have estimated that their licences will be increased two or three or four times the amounts they are now. In face of those facts, and the Government cannot deny them, it is no use saying you must produce the figures in each case and show what the rateable value is. They stand on the authority of the people who occupy houses and know the facts of the case.
  I venture to say if this Clause stands, and if the Government proceed with this Bill and pass it into law as it stands that the result must be to put an end to a great many of those places and to do something else which I think will be even worse. The very policy of the Government is to expose those places to two alternatives. The first is, to close because they cannot live. The other is to strain every point, and every single detail, of their business so as to make the profit which would be necessary if they are to meet their liabilities. Is that what the House or the Government want to do? To expose the publican to temptation in order not to give up business to make profits by all sorts of methods in order to get the money necessary to pay the licence. Do they want to deteriorate the quality of the goods or to make those houses less respectable than they are now? That is the only other alternative, and unless they increase their profits by methods such as those there is nothing else left for them to do. I venture to say in no part of this Bill containing many injustices is there injustice so great as the one we are trying to remove. When the Chancellor of the Duchy meets us by vague and general statements and tells us he cannot accept this Amendment because he is afraid it might be stretched in a particular direction or used improperly, I say that is no reason whatever to justify the Government in doing this. For my part, I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I do not think that this House with its eyes open should bring ruin on respectable men who have carried on an honourable trade and business with the sanction of Parliament.
  Mr. E. B. BARNARD: I am a little doubtful whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are not exaggerating this position. I rather thought from the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Worcester, and he will correct me if I am mistaken, that he was dealing with the Bill as it stood before the Chancellor of the Duchy yesterday brought in his new proposal.
  Mr. GOULDING: None of the proposals, as I understand, brought in yesterday would be at all available for these little houses.
  Mr. BARNARD: It would appear to me that that is hardly the case. What I thought was that the new proposal yesterday as regards these houses which are called "small country hotels," and which, in a great many cases, take out the ordinary public-house licence——
  Mr. YOUNGER: They have to.
  Mr. BARNARD: That clearly will come under the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Duchy proposed and carried last night. That Amendment took the form, and I understood it to be that you would arrive at what was structural value, and you then would arrive in another way at what was the value for all the purposes of the business. Then you deduct one from the other, and I understood that the difference is the figure on which you calculate your Licence Duty. Am I right? If that is the case, I put it, with all respect, that the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Worcester are not dealing with that idea at all. The hon. Gentleman told us that he himself had not gone into this matter, but that some of those hotel-keepers had told him something, and, no doubt, they ought to know their own business. May I quote something that happened to me? A hotel-keeper gave me certain figures. When I went into the matter I could not decide exactly what be would have to pay. I found that on this hotel his figure would come, according to the trade he was doing, to something not less than the minimum of £35 and not more than £52 10s. in the other direction. I will give the name of the hotel to the hon. Member if he desires it, and he can test it. I believe personally that these small hotels in country places will not suffer nearly as much as many other people will suffer under the Act. I know a great many will suffer, but I do not believe that this particular case is one of them. I have got some figures here which are correct,
  1038
  inasmuch as they have been agreed to by the valuers for the brewers and by the valuers acting for the assessment committee of which I was chairman. I have got the figures for the two principal hotels in the principal town in the district in which I live. According to my calculations, taking the trade they are doing on the basis of the suggestion made last night, I do not believe they will suffer nearly as much as is feared. I take the view that the smaller houses will not be much worse off than they are to-day, except in the case of the beerhouses. The larger houses will suffer immensely, but I cannot agree with the view that there is anything to be feared so enormously in regard to the position of the smaller country hotels.
  Mr. A. J. SHERWELL: I think some of us quite sincerely sympathise with the object aimed at by the Amendment, but nevertheless we cannot commit ourselves to the precise arithmetical formula suggested; because by fixing an arbitrary formula of that kind the House might relieve injustice in certain cases, but would be showing an excess of generosity in other cases where there is a reasonable taxable capacity. At the same time I feel personally that unless there is some discretionary power or some safeguard, hardship may result from the particular formula in the Bill. It is perfectly true, as the Chancellor of the Duchy has pointed out, that under the Amendment a certain evasion of duty or loss of revenue might result where there is no reasonable cause for such loss of revenue. On the other hand, the Government have not sufficiently allowed for the fact that many of these country hotels which provide bedroom accommodation will undoubtedly, under the provision of the Bill, have their gross rateable value assessment, on which they will be taxed, enhanced by accommodation which does not strictly relate to the sale of alcoholic liquor. Could not the Government meet the case by inserting after the words "business…carried on in the premises" some such words as "or such special circumstances exist as justify in the opinion of the Commissioners exceptional treatment?" If the matter were placed within the discretionary power of the Commissioners the interests to the Revenue would be fully safeguarded, and I believe that cases of hardship or injustice might in that way be avoided.
  Mr. BALFOUR: While sympathising with the tone and temper of the speech

  1039
  just delivered, I confess I should look with considerable alarm on a method under which it was to rest entirely with the Inland Revenue to decide in which of two separate categories a particular place of business is to be taxed, the difference to the individual being quite enormous according to the choice made. That responsibility is apparently to be exercised by the Inland Revenue without instructions of any sort whatever.
  Mr. SHERWELL: My intention was not to give to the Commissioners a discretionary power to place them in the category of public-houses or in the category of hotels, but to give the Commissioners a discretionary power to make a greater allowance than that prescribed in the Bill if in their judgment special circumstances justify it. My intention was to approximate to the object of the Amendment without erring on the side of excessive generosity where such generosity was not required by the circumstances of the case.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I understand the object of the hon. Gentleman, and I need hardly say I am in general agreement with it, but I cannot see how it is to be carried out. What is the sort of argument brought before the Inland Revenue? They say to a man, "This is a public-house, and we must ask you to pay to the Exchequer half the total amount of your rateable value." The hotel-keeper thereupon says, "I have eight or ten bedrooms, which are very important at certain times of the year to people in the neighbourhood; it will be quite impossible for me to carry on my business." The Inland Revenue officer will then have to consider out of his own head, as I understand, what allowance he shall make. He is under no obligation to consider that there are two categories in one or the other of which every licensed premises must be placed. It is to be left entirely to the discretion of the Inland Revenue officer. I cannot help thinking that that is very dangerous finance. In the case of places on the doubtful line between the public-house and the small hotel it will be left entirely to the discretion of the Inland Revenue officer whether there shall be charged half the rateable value, or a quarter, or some other fraction. Though the plan aims at an object with which I heartily sympathise, I do not think I could recommend the Government to adopt it as any solution of the rather difficult problem before us.
  May I put before the Government this
  1040
  argument, which I do not think has been brought to their attention in this Debate? In another part of the Bill they have made a special arrangement for seasonal hotels; that is, hotels which are almost entirely hotels at certain periods of the year, and are almost entirely public-houses at another part of the year. I do not see any distinction between a season in which all the days occur together, say during July and August, and a season consisting of one day a week during 52 weeks in the year. In one case the season is split up, but it amounts to 52 days in the year, and if those 52 days came consecutively they would count as a season. I do not see any inherent distinction in equity between those two cases, and why one should receive a privilege and the other not passes my understanding. Perhaps the Government will consider whether the privilege they have given to seasonal hotels ought not to be extended to these other hotels in cases where there is a special necessity in a market town for hotel accommodation, but only occasionally, and where, when that accommodation is not being used, the chief work of the establishment is to supply alcoholic refreshments to the inhabitants of the district.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: In the first part of his speech the Leader of the Opposition dealt with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), who is very familiar with all these matters, and who studies them, as everybody recognises, perfectly impartially. I understood the hon. Member to suggest that it might be left to the discretion of the Commissioners not absolutely to say what the proportion was to be, but to stretch the 33 1–3rd to approximate to what we have allowed in the case of seasonal hotels. Against that is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is one which ought not to be left to the Inland Revenue officials. I make that statement simply in defence of my hon. Friend, because I think that that was what he meant, and that he did not go quite so far as the right hon. Gentleman thought. This matter is a very difficult one. Practically the same arguments which have been used to-day could have been used if we had fixed 40 per cent., or 30 per cent., or 25 per cent. It is very difficult to draw the line. One thing is certain. The Government have never had it in their mind to do anything unnecessarily harsh or injurious to this class of business. But in order to get your

  1041
  revenue you must somewhere or other have a dividing line between the genuine bonâ fide hotel and the establishment which approximates more nearly to an ordinary public-house. Certain hard cases have been put. The Government have, perhaps, some reason to complain that the people in this class of business, who are very well organised, have not brought particulars of this kind before them. The Chancellor of the Duchy mentioned the representations which were made by representatives of the restaurant-keepers. They put their case with regard to 40 per cent., and we have been able to meet them. But the case has not been fully put in regard to this matter by those who have all the facts at their disposal. You must have all the facts within your knowledge before you can say whether or not any particular provision will work unfairly. It is not a question of the number of bedrooms. When the right hon. Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long) was putting the illustration of a small hotel or high-class public-house with 12 or 15 bedrooms, I asked what was the rateable value. It is the rateable value in that case which fixes the amount of Licence Duty which will have to be paid, and it is obvious that the rateable value of a house with 12 or 15 bedrooms would not be anything like the rateable value of the houses mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment. That is the reason for the difference between seasonal hotels and this class of hotel. From the very necessity of the case the seasonal hotel must be a big place. The hotel at a seaside or fashionable resort must be a big palatial building. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not at all."] Ordinarily speaking, the seasonal hotel is a big building to accommodate a very large number of people during a short season of perhaps two months. That is the difference between
  the seasonal hotel and the market town hotel with which we are now dealing. The Government have been approaching this matter from the point of view of doing what is fair in reference to these houses, desiring beyond everything not to be harsh upon those houses which are clearly a great convenience to the community, while at the same time bearing in mind that it is necessary to get duty from the places which are really public-houses. We have not been assisted quite so much as we ought to have been by those who are interested in this branch of the trade. In dealing with a matter of this sort much the best way is to put your cards on the table, and to place an the facts before the authorities. But with the facts at our disposal, we consider that we have adopted a plan which will work out fairly. If a strong case were made out, and if he were really persuaded that this class of hotels would, so to speak, be burdened out of existence, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer even now would be compelled to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But up to the present they have not had a complete case made out against the 33 1–3rd per cent. I can assure the Committee that we have done our best to do what is fair to this class of hotel, and up till now I do not think anything has been said in the course of these arguments to show that we have not done the fair thing. I repeat, in the presence of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-George), that if anything like a complete case is laid before us before the passage of this Bill that shows a change should be made it is, I am sure, the desire of my right hon. Friend to meet such particular case.
  Question put, "That the word 'one-third' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 82.

  Division No. 848.]

  AYES.

  [5.0 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork', N.E.)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brace, William

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Branch, James

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Agnew, George William

  Bright, J. A.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brooke, Stopford

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Crossley, William J.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Barker, Sir John

  Cameron, Robert

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Beale, W. P.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Clough, William

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamont, Norman

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Erskine, David C.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Essex, R. W.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sears, J. E.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seely, Colonel

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Glover, Thomas

  Massie, J.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Summerbell, T.

  Gulland, John W.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hall, Frederick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Napier, T. B.

  Toulmin, George

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Verney, F. W.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hodge, John

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hooper, A. G.

  Radford, G. H.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rees, J. D.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Robinson, S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rowlands, J.

  NOES.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Oddy, John James

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Percy, Earl

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Renton, Leslie

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Renwick, George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cave, George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fletcher, J. S

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Forster, Henry William

  Mooney, J. J.

  Younger, George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Goulding and Mr. Fell.

  Ginned, L.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Gretton, John

  Drafting Amendment made.
  Mr. YOUNGER (for Mr. Goulding)Mr. YOUNGER (for Mr. Goulding) moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "bearing" ["be a reduced duty bearing the same proportion"], and to insert
  1044
  instead thereof the words "of one-half of."
  This Amendment is moved in order to make it quite clear to the Government that the class of hotel now exempted by this

  1045
  Clause is not in any degree satisfied with the concession made. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy, in speaking yesterday, stated to the House that he was under the impression that those who were interested in this question as representing the associated hotels were perfectly satisfied with the concession he had made. That is not at all the fact. I have this morning received a letter from a gentleman who represents these hotels. He listened to that speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy last evening. He says:—
  "Mr. Samuel has repeated the old story about the hotels requests being complied with. The whole thing in a nutshell is we asked for compensation value as the basis of 45 (1) and not annual value. We do not believe an hotel has any compensation or monopoly value in the same way as a public-house. The hotels committee sent a letter to Mr. Samuel saying they were not satisfied, and asked for exemption on the lines of the old duties. So it is quite unfair to speak as he did."
  I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is probably mistaken in what he said, and he may have forgotten the fact that these I refer to sent a letter protesting against the Clause as it now stands. The difficulty, of course, in which we are now placed is to quite recognise or understand the new basis upon which the annual licence value of the hotel will be estimated, and how the percentage proposed will apply. I confess while the Kennedy judgment gives us a fair idea of what will be that basis with regard to on-licensed houses, it gives no guidance whatever in estimating the annual licence value of hotels like the Hotel Cecil, the Savoy, and the Metropole. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can say that he thinks it does. I wish to make it perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment which is now proposed is, in the view of that hotels committee, which has very large hotels—railway and other—connected with it, something like the sort of duty which it will not be unreasonable to charge them under the circumstances. It is a very large advance upon the duties they are paying now, and in their belief quite fully satisfies any obligation which they may have to pay towards the increased income which the Government requires to carry on the affairs of the nation. I pointed out last time I spoke how extremely harsh the hotels were treated in this country compared with their treatment abroad. I pointed out what the taxes and the duties were, and how very seriously the burden does affect these large hotels here, without which we could not carry on our business and provide the accommodation which strangers require.
  1046
  Under those circumstances I move this Amendment as a formal protest against the position taken, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration that we put forward and make some concession.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I beg to second the Amendment. The whole question has been very thoroughly debated on previous occasions, but I should like to emphasise the point put by the last speaker as to the necessity for meeting the difference between this country and places abroad in regard to taxation of hotels. It must be obvious whether we consider the amount of taxation is fair or not, that the difference between the taxation of hotels in this country and hotels abroad is one that must cause considerable amount of harm to the hotels of this country. I am quite sure it is not the desire of the Government to curtail the hotel business of this country, and therefore I would ask them to approximate the taxation upon our hotels with those of other countries so as to prevent unfair competition.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think that I said in my remarks yesterday that the hotel-keepers of this country were satisfied by our proposals. On the contrary, I said that no one who is asked to bear an increase of taxation is ever satisfied, but always says he would much rather be left alone
  It was stated on the authority of the memorandum circulated to the Government and to all Members of the House, from the hotel and restaurants committee that if fresh taxation had to be imposed upon the lines of the Bill, then certain drastic Amendments, as they described them, would have to be included unless serious injury was to be done to their industry. And I pointed out that all their Amendments except one, which was incomprehensible, and another which was accepted in part, had, in fact, been put into the Bill. Take this particular points as the Bill stood we proposed that the proportion of liquor receipts to total receipts should be taken into consideration in assessing the tax, but that that proportion should be doubled in order to arrive at the duty. Take a concrete case. Take a hotel that has one-fourth of its receipts from liquor. The Bill said you should take a proportion equal to double the proportion that one-fourth bears to the full duty. In other words, take the full duty, which is half the rateable value. Take one-fourth of that which makes one-eighth of the

  1047
  rateable value, and then you double it and get one-fourth of the rateable value, and that should be the duty. They proposed to omit the words "double that," and we did omit them, and in that respect we have, as I contend, met the request of the hotel and restaurant proprietors.
  Hon. Members opposite propose not merely to omit the words "double that," but to insert the words "half that." That would not only reduce our original proposal to one-half, but reduces it to one-fourth—that is to say, it goes twice as far as the hotel and restaurant keepers demanded. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Of course, when the Government make one concession, those who receive it say, "Now double it." But they made their representations to the Government and to the House on 6th July, 1909. I hold the pamphlet in my hand now, and hon. Members will see that on page 18 they propose as an Amendment to delete the words "double that." Hon. Members opposite would make that an excuse for asking the Government to go twice as far and to insert the words "one-half." Of course, that is a proposal the Government cannot possibly accept. If the hotels choose to pay under this Sub-section well and good, but they have a choice of two options. If they chose to pay this tax, it can never be more than one-sixth of the rateable value, and it might be much less. For example, take a hotel I know. The proportion of the liquor receipts to the total receipts is only 6 per cent., that is, one-sixteenth, so the duty they would have to pay would be one-sixteenth of the full public-house value. The full duty would be one-half of the rateable value in public-houses. They would have to pay one thirty-second part of the rateable value, but the minimum will come in, and there they will have to pay one-thirtieth. No one can say that that is excessive. Of course, if their receipts from liquor are one fourth, then these very few hotels would have to pay one-fourth of the full duty or one-eighth of the rateable value. In cases of very large hotels like the Savoy or the Cecil, where the sum would be large, the hotel has the option, and need not pay upon its rateable value at all, but upon its licence value. Only hotels with a proportion of less than 33 per cent. of the liquor receipts may pay if they choose, not under this Subsection, which we are now discussing, on the rateable value; but may pay upon the licence value. Hon. Members opposite
  1048
  say it is impossible to assess the licence value as between the value of the premises licensed and the value unlicensed. In the first place, they are required to do so at present under the Act of 1904 in the case of all new hotels.
  Mr. GRETTON: That is quite another point.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not another point. The Act of 1904 says assessment is to be made of all new hotels of the difference between the value of the premises with a licence and the value of the premises without a licence. That is precisely what we ask here. The same assessment should be made between the value of the premises licensed and the value of the premises unlicensed. If it is impossible now it must be much more impossible in the case of new hotels where you have no basis of actual trade to go upon.
  Mr. YOUNGER: In the case of new hotels it is a question really between the local authority and the people who apply for the licence as to what they think they can afford to pay. It is a question of bargain. It is a very different thing when you come to hotels without any formula.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not a question of bargaining. The justices are required by statute to say what is in their opinion the value of the premises with a licence and the value without a licence, precisely as the Commissioners are required to say under the provisions of this Bill, and if it is impossible in this proposed Act, it is as impossible and might be more impossible under the Act of 1904. In such matters as arise under that Act scores of hotels have had assessment made year after year in London and elsewhere in these circumstances.
  My second answer is that in the case of a certain number of existing hotels, the Government valuer acting in conjunction with valuers appointed by the hotel-keepers, have as a matter of fact made assessments in the case of typical hotels for the guidance of the Government——
  Mr. YOUNGER: Has the right hon. Gentleman informed the hotel-keepers, because, if so, he will agree with me they are not satisfied.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The assessment has been made in several hotels by a valuer nominated by them in conjunction with the Government valuer and they have arrived at figures which have been taken

  1049
  into consideration by the Government in fixing the rates of duties in this and in other Clauses relating to hotels, and that proves that the hon. Member's contention that such a thing is impossible is one that the House cannot possibly be expected to accept. An hon. Member opposite said that we ought to approximate our taxes on hotels to those charged on hotels in other countries. If we were to do that and to approximate our taxation on hotels to the taxation which they are required to pay in many American States the hotel proprietors would have to bear a far heavier tax than we propose to put upon them.
  Sir HENRY KIMBER: I should like to enter my protest against an observation that fell last night—I hope inadvertently—from the Chancellor of the Duchy, He said he bad invited Members from the Opposition side to give figures in particular cases, and that he had had no figures put before him. I sent him in a couple of weeks ago specific figures of two cases at least.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was then speaking of public-houses.
  Sir HENRY KIMBER: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of licensed premises, and I thought that he meant hotels. The right hon. Gentleman admits then that he has got figures for hotels?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Oh, yes.
  Sir HENRY KIMBER: And he does not challenge the accuracy of them? In one case I put figures before ham bearing upon the very point which we are now discussing. So far as I recollect, there is no case determined on the principle of the Kennedy judgment relating to hotels; no compensation has ever been assessed upon that principle in respect of hotels. I understand the Chancellor of the Duchy to say that at least in scores of hotels compensation had been assessed. [An HON. MEMBER: "New hotels."] Yes; large new hotels; but as regards hotels already in existence, he will admit there has been no case in which the compensation value has been assessed. The greater hotels were subjected to a compensation levy of £100 a year, and it was considered at that time that that was real security for their position—a security, not that they should receive compensation if deprived of their licences, but a security against being deprived of their licences altogether. These large hotels are let subject to that compensation value. I think the sense of proportion has been lost sight of in dealing with
  1050
  the large hotels of this country. The large hotels of this country are places of entertainment for our foreign and Colonial visitors, and for people of commerce who come to this country. They are really entertainment residences for those with whom we have commercial dealing abroad, and I think a very different principle ought to apply to them. They ought to be put into a very different category. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that the duty has been computed upon a principle laid down in this Bill; that is, upon the compensation value. It is quite true that I accepted the right hon. Gentleman's offer to send an expert from the Treasury to one of the largest hotels which cost about a million and a half of money, and it is true also that an expert on behalf of the company was deputed to meet that gentleman. They did meet, but if the right hon. Gentleman means to say that they agreed upon the method of computation or the method of the figures he is very greatly mistaken. Sir Robert Thompson was the expert on behalf of the Treasury, and Mr. Vigors on behalf of the hotels. They went into certain figures from the balance-sheet of the hotel, and a figure was arrived at assessing the hotel, as we understand verbally, on the lines of the Kennedy judgment which would be given consideration. In the instance I mentioned £3,300 was the sum I referred to. But that does not bring us any more forward.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is not the figure of the duty payable.
  Sir H. KIMBER: No, that was what was intended to be the annual compensation equivalent of the compensation value. The Amendment which was carried yesterday started with a much fairer criterion, and its effect was to substitute for the compensation value and for the necessity for ascertaining the compensation value and its annual equivalent, the words "annual Licence Duty." If the right hon. Gentleman had stopped there it might have been all right, but his next Amendment carries us back again by striking out of the Clause as originally framed the words in reference to compensation value and its equivalent, and he says that in ascertaining the annual Licence Duty we must go back to the Act of 1904, and make our calculation upon the principles laid down there for ascertaining the amount of compensation under that Act. The method to be applied to hotels has never been tried before. I want to give a few figures on this point which I have already

  1051
  communicated to the Chancellor of the Duchy. I want to show by statistics that many of these large hotels in London are daily and nightly the residences of many hundreds of persons. In the case of the hotel I quoted 750 people can make their residence there, and a large proportion of that number do make their residence there. This particular hotel covers a couple of acres of land, and it cost £1,500,000. That is the actual expenditure laid out upon the hotel, and there has been no "watering" of the capital. The criterion now laid down upon which the compensation value is to be ascertained is that you strike out the paragraph which provided that the value of the premises, other than that in respect of the licence, shall not be taken into consideration.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
  Sir H. KIMBER: Then you left in that paragraph?
  Sir S. EVANS: Yes.
  Sir H. KIMBER: Nevertheless, the disparity to which I have alluded still remains. Of the £1,500,000 capital only a very small proportion would be attributable to the liquor receipts. In the case of hotels, the fair thing to do would be that the duty should be ascertained in proportion to the receipts from liquor as against all the other receipts of the establishment. In ascertaining the gross receipts it is an easy matter, but it is not easy to ascertain what is the profit out of those respective receipts unless you are allowed to charge against the liquor profits a proportion of the general expenses of the entire establishment. Take for example the Savoy Hotel or the Hotel Cecil. The gross receipts now amount to about £200,000, and the liquor receipts are about £35,000. If you attribute all the general expenses, rates, taxes, wages, and everything in the whole establishment in proportion then the profits on the liquor receipts will vanish altogether.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is not discussing the Amendment before the House. He is suggesting a totally different method. He must confine himself to the Amendment we are now discussing.
  Sir H. KIMBER: I was dealing with the proposals in the Clause.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes. We are not discussing the Clause now, but this particular Amendment.
  Sir H. KIMBER: The question is the reduction of the duty by one-half which is given by this part of the Clause. I think when the question of the proportion has to be determined in the manner provided by this Clause the hotel companies ought to be allowed to deduct the general expenses of the establishment on the liquor receipts. The effect of the present proposal without this Amendment will be that the new Licence Duty will be just 14 times as much as it is now in the case of these large hotels.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: What is it now?
  Sir H. KIMBER: It is now £60. I am not arguing whether that is a fair amount as between hotels and other establishments, but I am contending that 14 times is an excessive increase, and this Amendment would give some relief. Besides the Licence Duty of £60 which is now imposed on this hotel it has to pay £100 for the supposed immunity or security against being deprived of its licence.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I do not think it is either necessary or worth while to recapitulate all the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of hotels. The Government have told us that they have no intention of listening to them, they claim that they are right and that we are wrong, and that the results we allege will not follow. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that the hotels as a body were satisfied. We never put those words into the right hon. Gentleman's mouth. I recollect, however, that the Chancellor of the Duchy said that the Government had met all the demands made by the hotels up to that particular date, and he quoted the document issued by the hotels in support of that statement. He quoted only one part, and not the main part, which made it perfectly clear that the hotel companies thought that hotels offered no justification for increased taxation, and that any increased taxation would be an injustice. The poundage system has not been adopted, and I submit that you are placing upon hotels an excessive burden. My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth (Sir H. Kimber) has just pointed out that you are increasing the Licence Duty on hotels to 14 times as much as it is now. I do not think it is denied that the larger hotels do not present a fair case for increased taxation, having regard to the position in which they stand as an investment. The hotel people have made it perfectly clear in their statement that they

  1053
  are not in any way satisfied with the Amendment which is now suggested, although it will reduce somewhat the injustice which the Government are about to perpetrate. The right hon. Gentleman says because the Government have made a concession hon. Members now return to the charge and endeavour to extort more. That is not fair, because the hotel companies pointed out that the proposals of the Government were so unjust that they would do enormous damage to the hotel business. The statement which has been issued points to the poundage system as the only way in which you ought to extract revenue, and it states clearly that the Amendments proposed will not remove this difficulty. We believe that even under this Amendment you are doing hotels an injustice, and in this case, as in the other, you are relying far too much upon your own calculations, and you are not paying sufficient attention to the figures presented by those who have practical knowledge of what is going on. All we can do is to make our protest and divide the House upon those points where we think it is necessary.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: As one of those who took an active part in supporting the plea of the large hotels, I think it is only fair to the Government to say that they have gone a long way to meet their demand. I wish they had gone as far to meet the case of the small hotels under the last Amendment. There was under the Act of 1904 a monopoly value charged every new hotel, and under that monopoly value two large new hotels have each had to pay £1,000 a year in addition to a duty of £40 or £60, as the case may be. The figures given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth (Sir Henry Kimber) brought the compensation value of the Hotel Cecil, which is doing £35,000 worth of liquor per year, down to £3,300. A fourth of that is £800, so that the Hotel Cecil, which is doing more liquor trade than either of the new hotels, which are each paying £1,000 and £60, will actually only have to pay £800. Hotels which have hitherto paid £1,000 for the monopoly value under the Act of 1904 will only, as I reckon it, have to pay £650 or £700.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They will pay nothing for Licence Duty. They pay nothing more under this Bill.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I hope we are going to get it reduced under Section 62, but, assuming they are under it, they
  1054
  would pay £650 or £700. It is absurd that the Hotel Cecil, which is doing £35,000 worth of liquor per year, should think it was very hardly dealt with. It is, of course, absolutely ridiculous, that one hotel which is doing more sale in liquor than all the public-houses along the Strand should only pay £60. They cannot complain of a reasonable duty, and for myself I should think £700 or £800 would be a fair enough duty to charge on a turnover of £35,000. These hotels are very necessary to our large towns. London could not get on without them. Do not let the Government forget that every £1,000 you charge on an hotel is equivalent to £25,000 capital, and, if it had been known that this burden would have been put upon the capital, there would have been great difficulty in getting the capital subscribed. I think the old hotels ought not to be privileged any more than new hotels, which are a necessary adjunct to a commercial town like London.
  Mr. BARNARD: The figures given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth (Sir Henry Kimber) are very valuable. He says the hotel to which he referred will pay 14 times more than it had been paying, and that comes to £814. He then said that they are selling about £35,000 worth of liquor per year. That means they are to be charged £24 for every £1,000 worth of liquor sold. I think a great many of the public-houses would be very glad if they got off at that price. These hotels are being charged very much less in proportion to the liquor they are turning over than public-houses, and I hope the Government will adhere rigidly to their position.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The only point the House has to consider is whether they are putting an undue burden upon an industry which is of importance to the commercial and international position of London and other great towns of this country, and, when the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down compares the turnover of hotels like the Hotel Cecil of £35,000 with, let us say, the turnover of ordinary licensed premises in the Strand, he is really attempting to compare two things which are not at all comparable. Our whole licensing system has, no doubt, grown up rather haphazardly, producing very great difficulties. One of the difficulties is that a monopoly value has been accidentally created by the State. That has produced a great number of legislative difficulties for everybody who has to

  1055
  deal with the licensing question. I regret that the Government have not boldly said with regard to these hotels, which more and more, and more since 1904, are recognised on all hands as being of national and international importance, that they ought to stand in a different category. Their monopoly value is not the same, even with all the qualifications, and they were very great, of the Act of 1904, and they stand in a different category. What we have to consider is whether we are not by this Bill putting a special fine upon a special form of trading that has nothing of a true monopoly about it at all. I should have said, even on the figures given, that there is an undue burden put upon the industry. Remember, it is an industry that requires enormous capital and enormous enterprise, and that it involves considerable risks. I believe there is actually a case now before everybody's eyes as an example of what may occur. There is a case of an hotel on which, I believe, £1,700,000 was spent. It is now in the hands of the Receiver, and I believe it is being bought for £500,000, less than one-third of what was originally spent upon it. Whether it will succeed on this new system or not I cannot say. Let me in this connection remind the House of what fell from the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson). He seemed, on the whole, to approve of this tax. He gave the House a statement of fact which surely should have given him and other hon. Gentlemen pause before they support the Government. He said that if the debenture holders, out of whose pockets so much of the necessary capital expenditure had been made, could have foreseen that there would be a new tax put upon them of something between £800 and £1,000, there might have been a real difficulty in raising the necessary funds. He pointed out that £800 or £1,000 represents, roughly, a capital of £20,000, and undoubtedly, however great the scale of these transactions, to require £20,000 more to be found by those who make hotels after this Bill passes than before really must be a serious burden on an industry of this vital and essential character. I am sorry the Government have not seen their way to meet the case. The House knows how strongly I feel the injustice to the ordinary licence holder. This is an injustice of a totally different kind, and affects quite different interests. I am sorry the Government have found themselves unable to meet us with regard to the ordinary licence
  1056
  holder and have not been able to see that the case we are now presenting is a wholly new case, presented upon wholly new and different considerations, and touching interests of a very different kind. It is certainly deserving of more tender treatment. I feel that this question of the great hotels is one in which this country has been too long too far lagging behind the enterprise and energy of our Continental neighbours. We have suffered greatly by the delay which has occurred in adequately meeting our national obligations, if I may use such strong words in this respect. Even now those who have come forward and have gone so far to meet these national obligations are not making a fortune out of their enterprise, and I think the Government would have been well advised if they had refrained from throwing an additional burden upon an important and even necessary industry which is not making too large profits.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel) both yesterday and to-day very considerably overstated the acquiescence of those representing the hotels. I do not think that either yesterday or to-day he quoted the resolution passed on 27th September by the hotel committee, which concludes with these words:—
  "Seeing that the proposals as they stand must work oven greater hardships than the hotels committee were aware of when their memorandum was issued, the committee are bound to adhere to the view contained in their report that no grounds exist for further taxation of bonâ fide hotels."
  The acquiescence, such as it is, was undoubtedly based on the theory that there was no monopoly value, or next to no monopoly value, attached to hotels at all. That is disputed by the Government, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman when they discovered, and by what process of valuation, that these hotels had a monopoly value? Were these monopoly values agreed to by valuers on behalf of the hotels? My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth (Sir Henry Kimber) says they were not agreed to. Was it on one valuation or was it after a second valuation that these figures were arrived at? It is denied by representatives of the hotels that they gave any figures as to monopoly value to the Government valuers.
  Question put, "That the word 'bearing' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 77.

  Division No. 849.]

  AYES.

  [6.0 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Agnew, George William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Malley, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Alden, Percy

  Glover, Thomas

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Gulland, John W.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Hall, Frederick

  Radford, G. H.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barker, Sir John

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Beale, W. P.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Robinson, S.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bennett, E. N.

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Rowlands, J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hodge, John

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Brace, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Branch, James

  Hooper, A. G.

  Sears, J. E.

  Bring, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Seely, Colonel

  Bright, J. A.

  Horniman, Emslle John

  Shackleton, David James

  Brodle, H. C.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hudson, Walter

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jowett, F. W.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Summerbell, T.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Clough, William

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Toulmin, George

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Verney, F. W.

  Collins, Sir Win. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Wadsworth, J.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Walsh, Stephen

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Wardle, George J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Waring, Walter

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Crossley, William J.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Massie, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Mond, A.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Myer, Horatio

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Napler, T. B.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Nuttall, Harry

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Doughty, Sir George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cave, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fell, Arthur

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Forster, Henry William

  1058

  1059

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Ginnell, L.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanier, Beville

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Gretton, John

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Starkey, John R.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Oddy, John James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Percy, Earl

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Younger, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Renwick, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. D. Faber and Mr. S. Roberts.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Mr. FELL Mr. FELL moved to add, at the end of Sub-section (1), the following words: "and, in case the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor are less than one-eighth of the total receipts from the business of all descriptions carried on on the premises, then the duty payable under this Act shall be assessed upon such premises as if they were a registered club."
  This Amendment is intended to meet cases of a very exceptional character—the cases of large residential blocks and flats in London, to which the holding of a licence is a mere adjunct and not the principal object of the business. Residents in these blocks have the privilege of entertaining their friends in public rooms. The most typical case is that of Whitehall Court, which must be well known to many hon. Members. I will give the figures very shortly. The gross receipts of that building amount to about £35,000 a year. The annual value at which it is assessed is £23,727. The present Licence Duty is £20, and the sales of liquors last year produced £2,385, which I am informed may be taken to be a fair average. The manager has carefully gone into the facts, and he says that if the Bill is passed in its present form the Licence Duty will in future be £790 18s. instead of £20 as now, or nearly 40 times the present duty, on sales but slightly exceeding £2,000. That is not merely an exceptional increase: it amounts to a revolution. I do not think the Government realise these facts. Some questions were put on the subject to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury the other day, and he replied that he was not so sure that under the provisions of the Bill the figures would work out in this way. But I do not think there can be any doubt about it, because the Government have inserted a provision to the effect that the exemptions and abatements must in no case result in the payment
  1060
  of less than one-thirtieth of the annual value of the premises. In this case the annual value is £23,000 and the thirtieth of that is £790. If the case is governed by these words there can be no doubt whatever as to what will be the Licence Duty in the future. It is simply an arithmetical calculation from which you cannot get away. This building consequently will have to pay £800 for the privilege of selling liquors to the amount of £2,000. It will be impossible for the owners to do it, and they will have to surrender the licence and form themselves into a club, or take some other step to avoid the payment. The profits could not possibly cover the duty, and in consequence the tenants of the block will be put to very great inconvenience. I hope some means will be found of remedying this.
  It was suggested that we might have met the case by proposing that instead of one-thirtieth it should have been one-hundredth, but when we looked into the figures we found we should have to suggest one two-hundredth, and that seemed such an extreme from the Government proposal of one-thirtieth that I did not like to put down an Amendment to that effect, and thought it would be better to entirely exempt this place from the provision. Another suggestion was made that they should only pay upon the amount of liquor that they purchased the same as a club, and that they should pay the 6d. upon it as a club would, but that would in the case of Whitehall Court increase the present Licence Duties by about 50 per cent., as it would raise them from £20 to £37 10s., and that again is a considerable increase. The sale of liquors is merely an auxiliary to the business of the residential flats, and unless some such provision as this is agreed to, the licence will, of course, have to be abandoned. I think this is the most reasonable plan that could be suggested. I

  1061
  think that one-tenth would have covered this case, but as there may be other cases in which the proportion may bear a higher ratio to the income, I think one-eighth would cover a building of this exceptional nature.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I should like to second this Amendment. I see the Solicitor-General is smiling, and I do not know whether he is going to accept it as it is moved by the hon. Member for Yarmouth or agree to some Amendment which will meet this particular hard case. I have always understood, and since the Budget was introduced the Government have made a plan of telling the House, that so long as the Budget is upheld in its general principles they were not only willing, but extremely anxious, to meet any hard case which might be brought forward. This is an especially hard case, and a case which stands out almost by itself. Here is an undertaking carried on in the heart of London which no one can deny is a great advantage to London. I have lived at Whitehall Court for many years, and it is very ably and skilfully managed, and in spite of that good management there has been no dividend paid to the shareholders in the past few years. Therefore, when it is proposed in this Bill to put on a charge of £790, and when their takings from alcoholic liquors only amount to £2,000 I do not see how the Government are going to justify a proposal of that kind. We have heard in the Debate this afternoon that the Hotel Cecil, with a sale of £35,000 of excisable liquors, under the Bill will have to pay £800. The argument was put forward that that was unjust and excessive, and if an argument can be brought forward against proposals under which the Hotel Cecil pays £800, how about Whitehall Court having to pay £790, when their takings from alcoholic liquors only amount to £2,000! It seems to me that it cannot be the intention of the Government to impose this charge, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as the hon. Member for Yarmouth has said, stated in the House last week that in the opinion of the Government this tax would not fall upon Whitehall Court. Therefore, the Government must clear up that answer of the Financial Secretary or accept some such Amendment as this.
  I do not think it would be fair to call upon the proprietors of Whitehall Court to give up their licence. It is a great convenience to the tenants who occupy Whitehall Court, and they will either have to give up their licence or pay a burden
  1062
  which is on the face of it quite unfair. I hope the Government is not going to rely upon its friends as it has relied upon me in the past to keep this particular provision in the Bill, but will listen to reason in this matter, and that my seconding this Amendment, having supported them in so many Divisions, will have some weight and induce them to meet this very hard case. It is not fair for the Government to say that they ought to give up their licence, and I do not think it is fair for the Government in a Budget to take such steps to compel licences to be given up, and as this case does not interfere with the ordinary business of the Budget, I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment moved by the hon. Member, and I hope the Government will give it favourable consideration.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think I shall be able to convince my hon. Friend and the hon. Member who moved this Amendment that their fears are, to a large extent, groundless, and that the amount of duty that they imagine will be charged upon these premises is very greatly in excess of what Whitehall Court will have in fact to pay. Let me say, in the first place, that a minimum is essential, and hon. Members who wish to get away from the minimum Which is imposed under this Clause and charge Whitehall Court very much less, must remember that the minimum is essential in this Clause in the case of hotels for this reason: that there are a considerable number of hotels where the monopoly and the licence value is extremely small—very small indeed—and if you have no minimum duty, and they have to pay one-fourth of their licence value—licensed and unlicensed—that may be less than the small hotel duties which hotels now have to pay. Therefore we have to insert a minimum, and it is only by the minimum that Whitehall Court is hit. If there were no minimum they could only be charged upon their licence value, which would be very low, and a minimum of one-thirtieth of the rateable value is a fair and reasonable one, which meets the case of the ordinary hotels. But we come to this very anomalous case of Whitehall Court, which is not really an hotel at all. People do not go—a traveller does not go to Whitehall Court and stay the night. I do not know whether there are restaurants there, but I think practically there is no regular hotel or restaurant business carried on in Whitehall Court.

  1063
  It has an enormous rateable value, because it is an important block of residential flats on a valuable site, and it has a low liquor sale, because the tenants of those flats are not of a particularly bibulous character. Now it pays a duty, which even in comparison with the low amount of liquor consumed is absurdly inadequate. It pays only £20 a year, for which it has the privilege of supplying all these tenants with liquor. They are very large in number, and the advantage which the proprietors enjoy is that in addition to their general business there is the convenience for residents of obtaining a supply of liquor. The hon. Member proposes by his Amendment to increase the duty in the case of Whitehall Court from £20 to £37 10s., which again I submit is quite an inadequate sum; but incidentally, by his Amendment, he would also enable a very considerable number of real hotels to escape with a Licence Duty quite inadequate. This not only applies to Whitehall Court, but it would apply to a considerable number of hotels a Licence Duty quite inadequate, and in many cases even below the £20 or £60 which they are now paying. The case is so anomalous that really for my part I doubt whether the justices ought properly to have given a licence as an hotel to these premises at all. It is very doubtful whether they were entitled to do so. If Whitehall Court has a licence, then I do not see why any block of flats in any part of London should not have a licence, and I think the Government might have suggested that the right course in such a very exceptional case would be to surrender the licence and be on the same basis as other blocks of flats in other parts of London. But that is not the argument which I propose to address to the House. The figure which the hon. Member has quoted and the hon. Member behind me also mentioned as being the amount of duty chargeable to Whitehall Court, £790, is wholly wrong, as indeed most of the figures applied by the critics of these Licence Duties have been all along.
  Whitehall Court need not claim to be assessed under this Clause at all. They can come in as ordinary licensed premises. They may say we are fully licensed premises as though they were a public-house. In any case they must have a public-house licence and they need not ask for a special abatement under this Clause, because they can claim to be assessed on their licence
  1064
  value and to pay one-third of their licence value as a public-house subject to the minimum of £250 as a public-house under the Schedule. That is, of course, what they will do. I have caused inquiries to be made and I find that the licence value is very low, and one-third would be below the £250 minimum. They would therefore have to pay the sum of £250 and not £800. That is the sum that Whitehall Court would have to pay under the Finance Bill. Hon. Members are wrong in their figures by no less than 70 per cent. by no means an unusual thing in our experience. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will not say by no means unusual but occasional, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was quite right in the answer which he gave when he disputed the accuracy of the figures quoted for Whitehall Court. He was not able to give the correct figures, because the inquiries had not been completed. I think if the proprietors of Whitehall Court still wish to take out a licence at all, considering the vast scale of the business which is conducted £250 is not an unreasonable sum for them to pay the State.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I put a question, and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was extremely unsatisfactory. The Secretary to the Treasury said he did not know what the licence would cost until the annual compensation value was fixed, but he did not think it would be as high as that suggested in the question. That answer was not at all satisfactory, and the present answer of the right hon. Gentleman was also unsatisfactory. I am told by my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that if this block of buildings is to pay as much as the right hon. Gentleman says, £250, the licence will have to be surrendered, with the result that there will be great inconvenience. My hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment has told us that this company has paid no dividend for the last two or three years, and they cannot afford to pay this large sum of money, £250, for the sake of selling only £2,300 worth of liquor. It will be a very great disadvantage not only to the company, but also to all those residents who are residing in that block of buildings, and I venture to think that the Government are making a very great mistake in the decision which they have come to.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 213.

  Division No. 850.]

  AYES.

  [6.30 p.m.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Oddy, John James

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Percy, Earl

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Renwick, George

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Cave, George

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. S. Roberts.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Agnew, George William

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lambert, George

  Alden, Percy

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lamont, Norman

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Erskine, David C.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Essex, R. W.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Barnard, E. B.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Barnes, G. N.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lynch, H. B.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Beale, W. P.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ginnell, L.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldan)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Massie, J.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Gulland, John W.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hall, Frederick

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brace, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mond, A.

  Brigg, John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Bright, J. A.

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Napier, T. B.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Brunner, J. F. F. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  Byles, William Pollard

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cameron, Robert

  Henry, Charles S.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Radford, G. H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hodge, John

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Clough, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hudson, Walter

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robinson, S.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  1066

  1067

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Summerbell, T.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Toulmin, George

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Sears, J. E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Seely, Colonel

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wilson. Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Vivian, Henry

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wardle, George J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Waring, Walter

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Waterlow, D. S

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "compensation" ["the annual compensation value"], and to insert instead thereof the word "licence."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Mr. H. STAVELEY-HILL Mr. H. STAVELEY-HILL moved to leave out Sub-section (4).
  The object of this Amendment is to do away with the minimum. I am not sanguine enough to suppose for a moment, at this late stage, that we shall succeed in accomplishing that, but there is, I think, a question to be asked of the Government. I should like to know what is the difference between one-thirtieth of the annual value and one-fifteenth of the full duty? In the case of fully-licensed premises the full duty is half the annual value, and one-thirtieth of this is equal to one-fifteenth of the full value, and they would apparently be the same.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS seconded the Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The words "one-thirtieth of the annual value" were put in originally because it was desired to make it perfectly clear to the parties interested, without troubling them to make any calculation, precisely what the minimum would be that they would have to pay. It was then discovered that those words would not meet the very exceptional case of a restaurant which has only a wine licence, and has not, therefore, a full licence, and consequently the additional words were put in to cover that case.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 74.

  Division No. 851.]

  AYES.

  [6.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Erskine, David C.

  Agnew, George William

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Essex, R. W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Alden, Percy

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ferens, T. R.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cameron, Robert

  Findlay, Alexander

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Astbury, John Meir

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ginnell, L.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clough, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Glover, Thomas

  Barnes, G. N.

  Collins, Sir Win. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Beale, W. P.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gulland, John W.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hall, Frederick

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Brace, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Brigg, John

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Bright, J. A.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Massie, J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Henry, Charles S.

  Mond, A.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Napier, T. B.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hodge, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nuttall, Harry

  Summerbell, T.

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Horniman, Emsile John

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hudson, Walter

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Toulmin, George

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Verney, F. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Vivian, Henry

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wardle, George J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Waring, Walter

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lambert, George

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Robinson, S.

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rowlands, J.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Sears, J. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Seely, Colonel

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Gretton, John

  Oddy, John James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renwick, George

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carille, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Seville

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Clive, Percy Archer

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fell, Arthur

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Younger, George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Forster, Henry William

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Staveley-Hill and Mr. S. Roberts.

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move to insert the following words at the end of Sub-section (4): "but shall not in any case to which a minimum duty is applicable under Scale 3 in the First Schedule to this Act be less than that minimum duty."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to make clearer what undoubtedly would be
  1070
  the effect of the Bill as it stands. A hotel licence is a hotel licence in name, for the purpose of discussion, but in form it is a publican's licence, except in rare cases under the existing law. An ordinary hotel licence under this Bill will be a publican's licence, and consequently it would come under the duties stated in the third scale of

  1071
  the Schedule. As the Bill now stands, a court would certainly hold that no hotel, no matter what this Section might say, could be exempted from the scale of duties stated at page 73 of the Bill, which applies to all publicans' licences, and these hotel licences being publicans' licences. Some confusion might, however, arise as to which of the minima applied to them, and the Amendment is proposed purely for the sake of clearness and in order to prevent this misunderstanding. If it were held to impose a higher charge, it could not be moved, but I am advised that it certainly will not impose a higher charge. It merely expresses what is already the effect of the Bill.
  Amendment made.
  Drafting Amendments also made.

  CLAUSE 46.—(Distribution of Payments on Account of Licence Duties in Certain, Cases.)
  Where the licence holder is bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking, or is otherwise under any direct or indirect obligation of any kind, to obtain a supply of intoxicating liquor from any person or persons, the licence holder shall be entitled to recover as a debt due from or deduct from any sum due to any such person such part of any increase of the duty payable in respect of his licence occasioned by this Act as may be agreed upon, or in default of agreement determined by the Commissioners to be proportionate to the benefit obtained by such person from the licence.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The series of Amendments to this Clause standing in my name on the Paper may seem rather formidable, but they are very simple. The first proposal is, after the word "entitled" ["shall be entitled to recover"], to insert the words: "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary." The Amendment supplies words which must have been omitted by oversight in the drafting of the Clause. These words are taken from a similar provision in the Act of 1904. The same principle will apply exactly in this case. With regard to the other Amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) will remember the discussion we had on this Clause. He was anxious to make as clear as possible what the ties were, and the form in which the ties would be established. I said it was a difficult matter, but that I would do my best to carry out his wishes. I invited his kind co-operation, and I am
  1072
  very pleased to acknowledge the help which he gave. As the result of our cooperation we have hit upon these Amendments, which satisfy my hon. Friend. When these Amendments have been made the Clause will read: "Where the licence holder is bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking, or is otherwise under any direct or indirect obligation of any kind, to obtain a supply of intoxicating liquor from any person or persons, the licence holder shall be entitled, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, to recover as a debt due from or deduct from any sum due to any such person so much of any increase of the duty payable in respect of his licence occasioned by this Act as may be agreed upon, or in default of agreement determined by the Commissioners to be proportionate to any increased rent of the licensed premises, or increased prices of intoxicating liquor supplied, or other benefit obtained by such persons by reason of any such covenant, agreement, undertaking, or obligation as aforesaid." I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment proposed: After the word "entitled" ["shall be entitled to recover"], to insert the words "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Mr. GEORGE CAVE: If these words satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs, it shows that there is something reasonable in the Amendment. This is the Clause which throws upon the brewer or owner of the house some part of the Licence Duty to the relief of the tenant. As the Bill now stands the owner has to pay a sum proportionate to the benefit he receives from the licence. That means a sum bearing the same proportion to the total duty as the benefit which the owner gets from the licence bears to the total value of the licence. But I do not quite follow the meaning of the Amendments. He has now to pay a sum proportionate to the benefit he gets from his tie. That means a sum bearing the same proportion to the total duty as the benefit which he gets from his tie bears—to what? I think anybody reading the Bill would find it difficult to see what the tenant is to be relieved of. Will the Solicitor-General or some Member of the Government be good enough to explain to us what the Amendment means, and to work it out in a concrete example, showing in a given case what amount will fall upon the owner and what amount will

  1073
  fall upon the tenant? Unless the Clause makes it clear, difficulty will certainly arise. In regard to the other point, how are you to ascertain the part of the increased rent which is due to the tie? It is extremely difficult to ascertain that, and I can see that a very difficult inquiry will have to be made. I should have thought it better to leave the words as they stand, and to allow the persons interested to work out how much benefit each gets from the licence, having regard to all the facts of the case. For these reasons I prefer the words of the Bill to those of the Amendment.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I thank the Solicitor-General for allowing me to make some suggestions to him in regard to this matter. But I disclaim having anything to do with the words of the first Amendment. With regard to the other Amendments, may I explain to my hon. Friend (Mr. Cave) that the object is that wherever the licensed premises are being supplied on ordinary market terms—that is, free trade terms—with liquors, the tenant should not then be entitled to have any recourse against another in respect of the Licence Duties now being imposed. In point of fact, unless the brewer is getting benefit by increased prices or increased rent, obviously he ought not to be asked to pay any portion of the increased duty. The Prime Minister adopted that as being a perfectly fair suggestion and the words which are now being included in the Clause, as I understand it, make that perfectly clear.
  Mr. GRETTON: I really do not think that these words are of any great value. A very considerable proportion of the free houses will either be extinguished or become tied. Of course, in the ease of tied houses all those matters as to proportion of taxation, prices paid for liquor, and so on are matters of agreement between the owners and the tenant, and can be adjusted between them according to the conditions of trade. The words suggested no doubt are intended to carry out the purpose which my hon. Friend has explained, but I doubt very much if they will carry out that purpose. I think that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) deserves some consideration.
  Mr. CAVE: How is the proportion to work out?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: In proportion to the benefit which the owner receives. He gets the benefit from an increased rent, or
  1074
  by reason of charging an increased sum over and above the market value, or by getting a higher rate of interest if he has a mortgage.
  Mr. CAVE: That is one side of the comparison. What is the other side? He is to pay a sum varying in proportion to the whole duties as the benefit which he gets bears to what?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: There are two people in the case who benefit from the licence. The one is the licence holder carrying on business subject to the tie. The other is the person who owns the tie. Between them they get certain benefits. This increased duty is put on that business, and it is distributed according to the benefit accruing to one and to the other.
  Words proposed there inserted in the Bill.
  Drafting Amendments also made.
  Mr. ARNOLD HERBERT Mr. ARNOLD HERBERT moved, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words, "Provided that where the unexpired term of a licence holder does not exceed one year the Commissioners shall allow the whole of such increase of the duty to be recovered or deducted from any such person or persons in manner aforesaid."
  The object of this Amendment is to enable the tenant of a house subject to a tie who has an unexpired term which does not exceed one year to deduct the whole of the increased Licence Duty from any payment that is due to the person owning the tie. It is common ground that the whole of this duty should not be paid by the tenant but divided proportionately between the owner of the tie and the person subject to the tie. You may have an owner of a tie for all articles that are sold by the person carrying on the business, but you may also conceivably have a person who is subject to a tie to one person for beer and to another for spirits and to another for cider, and so on. Then the benefit would be proportionate to the value of the tie on the articles sold by these different owners of ties as well as the proportion of it obtained by the person who is subject to the tie. The Government proposal is to leave it in all cases to mutual agreement, and, failing mutual agreement, to leave it to be settled by the Commissioners. My Amendment proposes, in cases where the person subject to the tie has a precarious tenancy, and is, therefore, a person not in a position to make a free bargain to lay down once for all that he is to be enabled to deduct the whole

  1075
  of these duties from any payments that are due to the owners of the tie. It may be said that it is really unnecessary to lay this down in the Bill, because the Commissioners will naturally do this themselves; but I think that we should lay it down in this Bill, because it is a most important principle that this House should, wherever it can, and especially where they are laying charges on the subject, lay down the precise terms on which these charges are to be made, and not leave it to the caprice or discretion of any officials to settle what the amount of those charges would be. I think that all parties who are interested in this matter would really prefer that, wherever it can be done, it should be laid down in clear terms so as to avoid all uncertainty. This provision is taken from the analogy of the provision with regard to compensation levy in the Licensing Act of 1904. It does not go into all the details of the Schedule which are contained in the 1904 Act, because it may be there are many cases where it would be better to leave the Commissioners to settle these matters; but I have taken the first provision from the Schedule to the Act of 1904 as it applies exactly to this, which is an entirely analogous case.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Mr. T. H. D. BERRIDGE Mr. T. H. D. BERRIDGE moved, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words: "Such deductions from rent as are set out in the Second Schedule to the Licensing Act, 1904, may, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be made by any licence-holder who pays the Licence Duty in respect of any increase of such duty occasioned by this Act, and also by any person from whose rent a deduction is made in respect of the payment of any such increase."
  This Amendment is intended to meet the case of those who are under covenant to keep the premises. The result of this Bill will be that they will have to pay an increased Licence Duty which will mean an increase of the burden that they undertook when they entered into their lease or agreement of tenancy, I propose to apply to the increased Licence Duty precisely the same principles which are applied in the Licensing Act of 1904. This Act gives statutory authority for exactly the proposals which are put forward in this Amendment. It appears to me to be a very reasonable arrangement. The tenant who by agreement or lease is under liability
  1076
  by covenant to keep the licensed premises will have imposed on him by this Act of Parliament greater obligations than he had at the time when he entered into the agreement or lease, and, therefore, I submit that it is only right and fair that the owner of the premises for whose benefit the licence has to be kept up should bear a proportionate part of the increased duty.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: In seconding this Amendment I may give a concrete case so as to show its justice. Take a house the normal rental of which, when used for the business of a haberdasher or any other business, is £100 a year. The moment these premises get licensed the landlord charges £150. I have a case in my mind which came under my notice. If the licence is withdrawn, this landlord is entitled to compensation based upon the difference between the value of the licensed premises and their value if unlicensed. The benefit which the landlord receives is £50 a year. It is only to enable him to keep that benefit that this Licence Duty is raised. It is not fair that the licensee should have to pay the whole of that increase. Yet he would have to bear it and the landlord would still have nothing to pay and the £50 would still be received by him as the benefit from that licence. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the tenant under the Act of 1904 is now paying, I should think, about £7 or £10, according to what the licensing justices may fix the figure at, but, if he has an extra £10 to pay the landlord has to contribute towards that, according to the scale my hon. Friend has cited. Surely it is fair, when you are increasing the duty, and putting another obligation upon him of £45, that the landlord who is receiving the continuous benefit by the way of rent, should have something to contribute towards this additional sum, which if is absolutely necessary should be paid to the Government if he is to continue to receive his £50. I have an Amendment on the Paper which would carry the same benefit. As the Licensing Act of 1904 does not affect Scotland I have put down the Amendment so that Scotland may have a similar benefit to that which the Amendment before the House now proposes. Of course, if my hon. Friend's Amendment be carried mine must necessarily follow, because you cannot give a benefit to England which would leave out Scotland, at least, not with my consent. Therefore, if this Amendment is accepted I shall go on with

  1077
  my Amendment, to which I think there is really no answer in equity. Under this Sub-section you are already breaking contracts, because if the man who owns the ties has got to pay surely the man who gets continuous benefit, and who may obtain the capitalised value of the £50 on a sale, ought to pay something towards that benefit according to the old schedule of compensation.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This suggestion has received very careful consideration by the Government, not merely on this Amendment, but before the Bill was introduced. The matter was very fully considered in all its bearings. But there are several objections to the proposal. The chief objection, and that on which I mainly rely, is this: Here you have the case of a publican who is a free tenant, and you propose to tip some part of the burden on him upon persons who are wholly unconnected, or not directly connected, with the trade. They receive their rent in no sense as a profit on the trade, like the brewer or the owner of a tied house, who receives a profit on the trade. Take the example of a beerhouse in London. The publican has been able to recoup himself by throwing the duty on the public; but under this Amendment you will nevertheless give him the right, having recouped himself for increased duty, to throw the charge upon his landlord. Similarly, in other parts of the country, where the price of spirits has been raised and the consumption has not declined, there the publican, who has been reaping a profit, will be able nevertheless to charge the duty on his landlord—perhaps the widow or the orphan, who may be the owner of the house. If, again, by reducing the quantity sold, by reducing the size of the vessels, or stopping the "long-pull," or in any other way, the licence holder recoups himself for this burden, it is obviously wrong that he should be able to shift his burden on to the landlord. We say that the burden ought to be borne by the people who profit directly from the trade. If it is the publican who gets the whole of the trade profit, he will have to pay; or, where the house is run by a brewer, if he obtains the profit, or some part of it, or probably the whole, then the burden will be on the brewer.
  There are several other objections to this Amendment. First, as to the scale of deductions under the Act of 1904. That has not proved satisfactory in practice. When I was at the Home Office we had many cases brought to our notice where
  1078
  persons who practically had no interest at all in the licensed premises and received nothing from the compensation, nevertheless had to pay sometimes a considerable share of the compensation levy. They were exceptional cases, but they were fairly numerous. Consequently, in the Bill last year we asked Parliament to amend the whole of that scale of deductions, and to put in another safeguarding the provisions of the Act of 1904. On that ground alone we could not accept a scale of deductions which, in the view of the Government, is in many respects unjust. While the injustice will be of comparatively small effect in respect to the compensation levy, when it comes to these Licence Duties, which are higher than the compensation levy, the injustice will be increased. The hon. Member lastly proposes that it is only where the licence holder himself pays the duty that he is to be entitled to shift the burden on to the landlord. Take the case of a brewer. He may rent a house from some landlord; he may pay a full rack rent for it, but because the duty in that case is paid by him, and not by the actual publican, is the brewer, who really pays the duty, not to be allowed to shift any of his burden on to his landlord? That would clearly be a very great inequality, if you compare that brewer with another person who has a tied house paying the same rent, and who would be allowed to shift his burden on to the landlord. For these reasons it is necessary to charge those who are able to gain a profit from the trade carried on, and who have, further, recouped themselves for these increased burdens. It is mainly for that reason, and also for other reasons, that we cannot see our way to accept the Amendment.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 47.—(Reduction of Monopoly Value Payments in Certain Cases.)
  (1) Where it is shown to the Commissioners that the amount of any annual payments to be made, or of any capital sum which has been paid, in pursuance of conditions attached to the grant of a new on-licence for securing to the public monopoly value under Section four of the Licensing Act, 1904, exceeds the amount which should reasonably be required having regard to the increase in the duty on the licence under this Act, the Commissioners shall, after giving the justices by whom the conditions have been attached to the licence an opportunity of reporting to them

  1079
  on the matter, reduce in such manner as shall be just the amount of any payment to be so made, or in cases where a capital sum has been paid allow such a reduction from the duty to be paid for the licence as shall be just, having regard to the decrease of the monopoly value owing to the increase of the duty on the licence, but any decision of the Commissioners as to the reduction to be made under this provision shall be subject to the like appeal as that to which the determination by the Inland Revenue Commission of the amount to be paid for compensation under Sub-section (2) of Section two of the Licensing Act, 1904, is subject under that Act.
  (2) Any amount by which the duty on the licence is reduced under this Section shall be deducted, in accordance with directions of the Treasury, from the next payment made out of the local taxation account to the council of the county or county borough who have had the benefit of the original capital sum paid, and the amount to be paid into the local taxation account on account of the proceeds of the duties on the licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be reduced accordingly.
  Mr. GRETTON (on behalf of Mr. Clavell Salter)Mr. GRETTON (on behalf of Mr. Clavell Salter) moved, after the word "paid" ["capital sum which has been paid in pursuance of conditions"], to insert the words "or the value of any licence or licences which has or have been surrendered."
  The purpose of this Clause is to enable the Commissioners to take account of capital payments or annual payments for monopoly value. The object of the Amendment is that account shall be taken of those cases where licences have been surrendered on obtaining the grant of a new licence. Since the Act of 1904 some justices made it a condition of granting new licences that certain old licences should be surrendered. There was some doubt about the legality of that course, and I believe the matter was several times appealed, but the action of these justices has not been upset. I think it is important that the Government should adopt the words of the Amendment or similar words in order that these licences which are surendered may be treated as valuable considerations.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment. There are three ways in which consideration has bean given for monopoly value under the Act of 1904. It has been given either in the way
  1080
  of a capital sum down, or an annual payment, or a surrender of old licences, or perhaps partly one and partly another. I have got here a list of houses for which new licences were granted, and the conditions which the justices laid down varied very much indeed. The Government in this Clause have included two ways in which monopoly value has to be paid, namely, by way of a capital sum or by way of annual payments, but they have neglected to take into account the surrender of old houses, which really are as valuable as the payment of money. The object of this Amendment is to say that the value of surrendered houses is every bit the same as a capital payment. The Government ought to make this allowance, because in some cases there has been no money paid at all. I have got a list of a good many houses where the surrender of several old beerhouses has been given and no consideration of money has been paid for the new licence. I think it is a very valuable practice for the justices. I have had the honour myself of adjudicating in some of these cases, and we valued the ability to say to the applicants with these old beerhouses in a congested district, and some of them not needed, and to lay down as a condition to granting a new licence where an on-licence is needed, that the applicant should surrender one or more of those old licences. Surely this House ought to encourage a practice of that kind because it is a practice which is useful and convenient to the public. In some cases there has been the surrender of those old licences and a money payment as well. Other conditions have been laid down also. My Amendment only covers cases of the surrender of licences, but justices have made other conditions in granting new licences, and there is another Amendment which will cover those cases. It is a very useful practice, and one which has been followed by the justices, to enable them to do away with licences in districts where they are not needed, and give one in a district where the new licence is needed.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Amendment now before the House is very much narrower in its scope than the Amendment which was moved in Committee dealing with the same matter. This Amendment, of course, is as to cases where there have been surrenders of licences since the operation of the Act of 1904. The Clause to which the Amendment is moved is one which deals only with the mitigation of the hardship which might arise where mono-

  1081
  poly value has been fixed, either by way of annual payment or, as sometimes has been done, by way of capital sum in respect of the grant of a new licence since 1st January, 1905. This matter may be dealt with in or two ways, either the Commissioners may make a suitable and just reduction from the annual payment or else they may make a reduction from the duty which is to be paid. If the capital sum has been fixed, bearing in mind that this deals with the case of monopoly value, I think I shall be able to show the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment and the House that the surrender of licences does not touch the question of monopoly value at all. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment said that the practice had been followed by benches of justices of insisting or, at any rate, making it some sort of condition that there should be a surrender of one or two or more old licences, before the granting of a new licence, and that it was a very valuable practice. I entirely agree with him. The justices no doubt look at the circumstances of the whole locality, and, although in some cases within my own knowledge they sometimes accepted the surrender of a house far away from, and which had nothing to do with the immediate locality, in most cases, no doubt, they, looking at the needs of the locality, said, "We think that before a new licence is granted here, some of these old licences ought to be extinguished." That practice, valuable as it was, was invoked long before the Act of 1904, and long before there was any question of monopoly value.
  We knew nothing of monopoly value in legislation until the Act of 1904. Indeed, before the Act of 1904 it had been decided in the courts of law that the justices could not exact a sum of money as a condition for the grant of a new licence. It never was doubted that they had a perfect legal right to ask for the surrender of other houses, but it was distinctly held that it was illegal for the justices to say, "If you will give us £1,000"—that is the sum mentioned in the Newport case—"for public purposes we shall grant this licence." Therefore there could be nothing in the nature of monopoly value until the Act of 1904. When the Act of 1904 came in it secured to the public for the first time in respect of these new licences the monopoly value, and really the reason why we are making an adjustment in this Clause now is that because the very foundation of those increased duties is that the people themselves have granted certain privileges
  1082
  which are worth so much. Then, they are not entitled to have, as we say, so much of the increased duties. The other was done since the Act of 1904, and it means the monopoly value, so that we think it would be a hardship, having secured it within the last year or two, that the whole of the new duties should be charged, and that, therefore, some such adjustment is necessary. The hon. Member said that the surrender of old licences was the surrender of something valuable; that it was a valuable consideration, and was as much part of the consideration of monopoly value as the payment of money itself. He is there under an entirely wrong impression. I pointed out that before the Act of 1904 it would be illegal to exact money. And he is under a wrong impression for this reason, that it is not the case under the Act of 1904 that the justices may fix the monopoly value partly in money and partly in the value of surrender licences. Supposing the justices said that the monopoly value is £5,000, and that the surrender of the licences which they asked to have surrendered was of a value of £2,000, and that, therefore, they would only ask £3,000, they could not do that under the Act of 1904. They can still insert as a, condition, amongst many others, the surrender of licences. But they must, in addition to every other condition, secure for the public the monopoly value of the new licence. [An HON. MEMBER: "In money?"] Yes, in money.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I know of cases.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I cannot say what justices have done, but the Act off Parliament clearly says that in addition to all the other conditions they may make they must attach a condition which is to secure to the public the fair monopoly value of the new licensed premises in respect of which the licence is to be granted. That clearly shows, I think, that it is not correct to say that the value of the surrender of the licence is part of the monopoly value at all, or that it can be discharged in any way or in part by the surrender of existing licences. I have had many cases of this kind in my own professional experience before the Act of 1904. I have never in those days, nor have I ever heard since 1st January, 1905, that the justices took any value at all in figures of the surrender of licences. People who wanted a new licence before the Act of 1904, with convenient premises, sought to induce the

  1083
  justices to give the licence by saying that they would surrender other licences. I have appeared on behalf of applicants for licences, and agreed to surrender licences before I could induce the justices to grant a new licence. I have never in any case that I appeared in, nor have I heard from anybody else, that the justices have taken any evidence of the value of the old licences, or that they have ever, when the offer was made of the surrender of a licence, asked what is the value of the house. They regard the matter solely from the public point of view, and to see if they can secure the closing of what perhaps may be undesirable houses. Therefore, the value of the surrender of licences does not come into the question of monopoly value at all. I agree it is quite clear under the Act of 1904, whatever the conditions as to surrender or as to early closing, so far as other conditions which may be laid down, the justices are bound, if they are complying strictly with the Act of 1904, to secure the monopoly value of the new licence itself apart from those other considerations.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I am rather surprised at the argument of the learned Solicitor-General, who did not adopt that view when the matter was in Committee. In Committee he rested his case upon this, that it would be very difficult to ascertain the value of the beerhouses which have been surrendered.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS expressed dissent.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I have practically a quotation as to the argument adopted by the learned Gentleman, and then the Government fell back on saying that it would be impossible to estimate the value of the licences surrendered.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That may have been stated, but that was not the only argument I used.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I do not remember myself the particular argument, but I understand now the argument is that under the Act of 1904 the justices, in granting new licences, take the monopoly value in money, and in nothing else. What we have contended, and still contend, is that they can take monopoly value, not only in money, but in other things, such as the surrender of other licences, or, in other words, that they can take monopoly value "in meal or in malt." The Solicitor-General said there were no such cases. I have here a case from Blackburn, which
  1084
  was quoted in the licensing statistics of 1907. This was a case of a fully licensed house and a beerhouse. The justices wanted to get rid of the beerhouse and to alter the situation of the fully licensed house. The lessee of the fully licensed house undertook to buy out all interests in the beerhouse and all interests except his own, in the fully licensed house. Then he built a new house on a site selected by the justices, and both the other licences were extinguished. There is a case distinctly of the extinguishing of a licence where no money really passes, and where the new licence was granted in consideration of the extinguishing of the licence of the beerhouse and the full licence. In face of those cases, since 1904, I hardly think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled or can, in fact, maintain the argument he has put forward just now. It would be against commonsense, and, after all, commonsense will rule us in this matter, or ought to. All the magistrates have got to do since the Act of 1904 in granting new licences is to see that they get proper consideration. Money is not the only consideration. I can well imagine a much more valuable consideration might be secured through the extinguishing of an old licence, which would be a public advantage, and to the advantage of the locality. It do not think that the hon. Member has satisfied me that it is no according to law to adopt such a course. Here, if we are right, the consideration will have taken the shape of extinguished licences, and yet now, in the face of that, the Government propose to exact a much higher form of Licence Duty based upon monopoly value, having already received full value in kind for that very monoply value.
  Mr. BALFOUR: This is a point with which I must have been extremly familiar when I was conducting the Act of 1904 through the House; but I admit that my recollection of it now is somewhat rusty, and therefore I should have liked the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General in the late Unionist Government, who would have given me advice upon what I admit to be a rather difficult point. But I find it very hard to believe, on the statement of the Solicitor-General himself, that he has really presented to the House an accurate or adequate review of what has gone on since 1904. He says that the magistrates are bound to get for the public the full monopoly value of the house. That, no doubt, is the case. But he interprets that general

  1085
  proposition to mean that they must have in actual rent or in a lump sum for the lease, seven years or whatever it may be, the full equivalent of the monopoly value. If we are to take the Solicitor-General's interpretation of the Act in its literal sense, evidently the magistrates have robbed the licensees in the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend. It appears from those cases that the magistrates have acted certainly according to the spirit of the Act when, as a substitute for a cash payment or a consideration in rent, they have taken certain licences which had themselves a monetary value. The example just given by my hon. Friend is a case in point. There the magistrates said to the licence holder, "You must pay us such and such a rent, or such and such a lump sum down." That would have been in the strictest accordance of the Act of 1904. But the magistrates said something more. They said, "You must put your hand into your pocket, and provide the necessary sum to buy out two other licences"—which had evidently a value in hard cash. That was an additional charge to the amount already imposed on the applicant for the licence. Either that was counted as part of the monopoly value, or else, if it is in addition to the monopoly value, they robbed this unfortunate man of something over and above the monopoly value. I have rather forgotten the details of the prolonged controversy of 1904, but I should have said that the magistrates were acting in the spirit of the Act when they said "We insist that the public shall have the whole of the monopoly value, but we think it is expedient that it should be taken in the form partly of cash or rent and partly of licences which have themselves a cash value." If I am right in that broad contention, there is substance in the proposal made by my hon. Friend that that should be taken into account. The essence of the Act of 1904 was that the public should be in a position in regard to new licences to say, "We make certain terms which will secure that when your lease comes to an end you will have no claim for compensation or anything else." That is taking care that no new claim for compensation should grow up. That has been secured in all these cases. My hon. Friend points out that there is nothing in the Act stating that the payment should be in money. I do not wish to enter into controversy on a matter of law regarding a statute as to the details of which I have not refreshed my mind for some years. But I think, on the broad lines of equity and policy which I
  1086
  have endeavoured to expain to the House, that my hon. Friend's Amendment is one of substance, and it has not been fully met by the statement of the Solicitor-General.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Act of which he was the parent. I dealt with the other arguments in Committee, and I need not repeat them. I have to-day put quite clearly the position before the Act of 1904 and the position since. The practice with regard to calling for the surrender of licences has continued for many years, and was not varied by the passing of that Act. The right hon. Gentleman says that surely you can secure to the public the monopoly value either in money or in some other form—for instance, by the surrender of licences. This is the difference. The monopoly value must be secured to the public. The surrender of licences does not secure anything to the public at all by way of monopoly value. Since the Act of 1904 it costs a man something to surrender the licences, just as it cost him something to do so before. But that is not securing as monopoly value to the public the value of the old licences. This is not the only ground on which I opposed the Amendment; but I think there is no doubt that I am right in my construction of the Act. It is, perhaps, hardly worth following the controversy, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that there was a difference between his Bill as introduced and the Bill as it became law in regard to this very matter. I think the surrender of licences was put in originally in the draft, but struck out after discussion in this House. Whether that is so or not as a point in the history of legislation upon this question, I think it is abundantly clear that the monopoly value must be secured to the public in addition to any other conditions such as those to which I have referred, including the condition of calling for the surrender of old licences.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The real question is not whether the monopoly value was or was not to be secured to the public, but whether the Act of 1904 precluded the possibility of the value being secured to the public in a form other than money. It is obvious, on the face of Section 4 of the Act of 1904, that Parliament intended that that should be possible, for the Sub-section imposing on the justices the duty of securing the monopoly value to the public does not use the word "money," but the words "such conditions." Later on it provides that the

  1087
  amount of any payments—thereby contemplating that the monopoly value might not consist wholly of sums of money—imposed under this provision should not exceed the total amount of the monopoly value. That shows that Parliament contemplated that the public might receive the value in a form other than money, and that the moral benefit of the suppression of licences should be taken into consideration by the justices and be held to form a part of the monopoly value which the statute requires to be secured.
  Mr. CAVE: What the Section says, before you come to monopoly value at all, is: "The justices on the grant of a new on-licence may attach to the grant of the licence such conditions, both as to payments to be made and the tenure of the licence, and as to any other matters, as they think proper in the interests of the public."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: But shall in any case secure the monopoly value.
  Mr. CAVE: Yes, but they may attach any other conditions which they think proper in the interests of the public. Among those conditions is the surrender of licences. It is suggested that that is not in the interests of the public.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I never said that.
  Mr. CAVE: I understood so.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I said it was very much in the interests of the public.
  Mr. CAVE: If it is in the interests of the public, surely it is within the express words of Section 4 (2) of the Act of 1904. There is no answer to that. The Solicitor-General says that it does not secure money to the public. I agree; but it is very much
  in the interests of the public. It enables the county committee in confirming licences to take a view over the whole of the county and to say, "There are too many licences here and too few there. If you give up some in the place where there are too many, we will give you one where there are too few." It is very much even in the money interests of the public, because one effect is to spare the Compensation Fund. You save money which but for this arrangement would have come out of the Compensation Fund for the purpose of compensating the licences surrendered. It is in the interests of the public, because it liberates so much money, very often a large sum, and enables that money to be applied in refusing other licences in other parts of the county. In that way the public gains at once by the early suppression of unnecessary licences, or of licences which are to some extent redundant, and also by saving the Compensation Fund, thereby enabling other licences to be suppressed. The action of the Government in this matter is a very severe blow to the system hitherto pursued, which surely has been a wise system, very much to the benefit of the public. It is a great pity that, where men have been encouraged, to some extent almost coerced, to spend money in buying up licences in order to get a new licence, they should find that men who have paid money directly are considered, but that men who have paid money indirectly are to receive no consideration at all. I am confident that the construction we put on the statute is correct, and that the Solicitor-General is mistaken.
  Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 168.
  Drafting Amendments made.

  CLAUSE 49.—(Grant of Licences and Date of Expiration of Licences.)
  (1) The licences specified in the First Schedule to this Act shall be in such form as the Commissioners direct, and any such licence may be granted on payment of the appropriate duty by any officer of Customs and Excise authorised to grant the licence by the Commissioners.
  (2) Manufacturers' licences shall expire on the thirtieth day of September and wholesale dealers' licences shall expire on the thirtieth day of June in every year, and any other licences specified in the First Schedule to this Act which are to be taken out annually shall expire in England and Ireland on the thirtieth day of September and in Scotland on the twenty-eighth day of May in each year.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "shall" ["to be taken out annually shall expire"], to insert the words "subject as hereinafter provided."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  At the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words: "Provided that where a retailer's off-licence for the sale of any liquor is held by the holder of a wholesale dealer's licence for the sale of the same liquor, the retailer's licence shall expire on the same day as that on which the wholesale dealer's licence expires."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved to add at the end of the words last inserted:
  "(3) Where the duty payable by any person under this Part of this Act on any licence exceeds the sum of sixty pounds the licence may, at the option of the licence-holder, be granted upon payment of one-half only of the duty so payable, and in that case the other half of the duty shall be paid immediately after the expiration of six months from the commencement of the year for which the licence was granted, or, in case the licence was granted after the month of September, on the first day of March next after the commencement of the year for which the licence was granted, and in default of payment of the second half of the duty the licence shall cease to be in force.
  "This provision shall apply to two or more licences granted in respect of one set of premises as it applies to a single licence."
  This Amendment carries out an undertaking which I gave in Committee. The point of it is this. Some people may desire to pay the duty in two instalments instead of one. With reference to the dates which have been inserted they have been kept as far apart as possible, but the instalments must both come into one financial year. I see some Amendments are on the Paper to reduce the duty, which may be paid in instalments of £50. I cannot accept that Amendment, and must adhere to the figure of £50.
  Mr. GRETTON Mr. GRETTON moved to leave out the words "sixty pounds" in the proposed Amendment and to insert instead thereof the words "duty which would have been payable in respect of the same or the corresponding licence before the passing of this Act."
  The object of the Amendment is to give some relief to the smaller houses. I quite admit that the Amendment of the Solicitor-General meets the case of the larger houses under this Act, but I think the smaller houses are also deserving of some consideration. The smaller houses are within the hands of small men, and they should receive as considerate treatment as the larger one or as the houses which are the property of syndicates. It is for that purpose I move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Mr. CAVE: I beg to second the Amendment. In the case of a relatively small house now it is a small duty, but they will have to pay a very much larger duty under this Bill. Therefore, it is just as important in their case that they should be allowed to pay by instalments as in the case of the larger houses. This point I know would be met by reducing £60 to £20 or £30, but unless that is done it is obvious that to a man carrying on quite a small trade, who may not be making more than enough to keep himself and his family, it is a serious matter to provide even £30 or £40, or may be £50 more than he has had to pay in the past.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Amendment which I have moved was pressed upon the Government because a large amount of money would have to be paid in a lump sum. It is quite true that it is a question of degree and of the actual person with whom you are dealing. To one person
  1096
  £80 is as much as £800 is to another, and that was the main reason why I was pressed to move this Amendment to my Amendment. I do not think any real hardship will arise, and as a matter of convenience we must stick to the Amendment, as we have now recommended it to the House. Take a case where there is an increase of duty from £8 or £8 10s. to £10. Now the £8 has to be paid down, but because there is an increase of £1 or £2 the effect of the Amendment will be that only half of the increased duty will be paid down and the balance will be paid at the end of the year. This would add enormously to the work and would not produce anything like an equivalent of convenience to the people affected. In many cases it would do away altogether with the payment which is now made.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I believe the Government are really sticking to their Amendment because they hope the effect of it may be that the smaller house will not get the benefit which the larger house is going to receive under this Amendment. The smaller house may come under the swingeing duty which some hon. Members desire to impose in order that they may be crushed out.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is not the Amendment.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No; the Amendment is to give them some possible chance of not being crushed out. You are granting a privilege to the larger house and to the rich men, and this Amendment is intended to extend the same privilege to the small house and the poor man. I cannot see why a man who is going to pay £60 Licence Duty and has a large house should have this privilege when a small country beerhouse with a small trade will not be allowed to have the same right of paying his Licence Duty by instalments in the same way as the well-to-do publican will be permitted to do. The object of the Bill is to place a larger duty on the publican. The effect of this proposal will be to send the smaller man to the money-lender to enable him to pay this sudden increase of duty. If it is fair to remove this inconvenience from the well-to-do publican, with a large house paying a large duty, there is absolutely no reason why the same privilege should not be accorded to the smaller house doing a smaller trade.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 53.

  Division No. 852.]

  AYES.

  [8.0 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, W.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

  Oddy, John James

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanler, Beville

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Fletcher, J. S.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gretton and Mr. Cave.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Agnew, George William

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Alden, Percy

  Gulland, John W.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Radford, G. H.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Haldane Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Hall, Frederick

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beale, W. P.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Robinson, S.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bethell, T. B. (Essex, Maldon)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Brace, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Brigg, John

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Bright, J. A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hodge, John

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Holt, Richard Burning

  Sears, J. E.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Seely, Colonel

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Shackleton, David James

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Slicock, Thomas Ball

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Cameron, Robert

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Summerbell, T.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Clough, William

  Lambert, George

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamont, Norman

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lay land-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Toulmin, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Vivian, Henry

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Wadsworth, J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Waring, Walter

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lynch, H. B.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Massie, J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Middlebrook, William

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Mond, A.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Napier, T. B.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Nolan, Joseph

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Ferens, T. R.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Findlay, Alexander

  Nuttall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Division No. 853.]

  AYES.

  [8.35 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Glover, Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Agnew, George William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gulland, John w.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Alden, Percy

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hall, Frederick

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Robinson, S.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Beale, W. P.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bennett, E. N.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Rowlands, J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Brace, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Brigg, John

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Sears, J. E.

  Bright, J. A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Seely, Colonel

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hodge, John

  Shackleton, David James

  Brooke, Stopford

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Silcock, Thomas Bali

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Summerbell, T.

  Cameron, Robert

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Clough, William

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lambert, George

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lamont, Norman

  Toulmin, George

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Vivian, Henry

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Waring, Walter

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Massie, J.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wiles, Thomas

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Middlebrook, William

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Mond, A.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Napier, T. B.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Nuttall, Harry

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Norton and Mr. Fuller.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, W.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Oddy, John James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Cave, George

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Craik, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Fletcher, J. S.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gretton and Mr. Arkwright.

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Gardner, Ernest

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

  CLAUSE 48.—(Duty on Statement of Purchases of Intoxicating Liquor to be Supplied in a Club.)
  (1) It shall be the duty of the secretary of every registered club to deliver to the Commissioners, in the month of January in every year or within such further time as the Commissioners may in any case allow, a statement of the purchases during the preceding calendar year of intoxicating liquor to be supplied in or to the club or on behalf of the club to the members thereof, in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Commissioners, and every such statement
  1090
  shall be charged with an Excise Duty of sixpence for every pound of the purchases shown in the statement.
  (2) If the secretary of a club fails to deliver a statement in accordance with this Section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both, and if he knowingly delivers a statement which is in any material particular untrue, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months, or

  1091
  to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both imprisonment and fine.
  (3) If any duty under this Section remains unpaid after the first day of March in any year, the duty may be levied by distress on the premises of the club in respect of which the duty is due, and the collector of Customs and Excise may, for that purpose, by warrant signed by him, authorise any person to distrain upon the premises, and to sell any distress levied by public auction, after giving six days' previous notice of the sale:
  The proceeds of the sale shall be applied in or towards payment of the costs and expenses of the distress and sale, and the payment of the duty due, and the surplus, if any, shall be paid to the secretary of the club, and treated by him as part of the funds of the club.
  (4) If any duty payable under this Section remains unpaid after the first day of March in any year, or if the secretary of a club fails in any year to deliver a statement as required by this Section, the supply of any intoxicating liquor in the club shall, so long as the duty remains unpaid, or the failure continues, as the case may be, be deemed to be a sale of intoxicating liquor without a licence.
  (5) The Commissioners may make regulations for adapting the provisions of this Section to the case of a club which is discontinued as a registered club during any calendar year, and for procuring a statement under this Section of the purchases of intoxicating liquor up to the date of the discontinuance of the club as a registered club, and for charging the duty under this Section in respect of that statement.
  (6) The clerk by whom any register of clubs is kept shall send notice to the Commissioners of the entry of any new club, and of any case in which a club ceases to be registered, upon the register kept by him.
  Mr. HUNT Mr. HUNT moved, to leave out Sub-section (1).
  I move this Amendment to a Clause which adds still further taxation to the beer and spirits consumed by working men in their clubs. The additional taxation of the Budget on spirits is already about 100 per cent., and in the case of very cheap spirits even more, and certainly it seems to me to be outrageous that the Government, having already put very heavy taxation on the beer and spirits consumed by the working men, and not a halfpenny on the importation of champagne and the wines of
  1092
  the rich people, should still put further taxation on working men in their clubs I am free to confess that I cannot understand even a Radical Government doing that. I should be quite willing to put heavier taxes than are put on under the Budget on the wines that are used in clubs, if only because there is no new import tax put on the wines at all under the Budget. But it seems to me that the new double tax on the forms of alcohol used by the poor in their clubs must be entirely wrong, and I shall be very much astonished if the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite me does not see it. How this part of the Budget can be called democratic is altogether beyond me. I do not believe anybody can explain it. Of course it may possibly make whisky and other spirits so very dear that working people will either have to buy very bad spirits or else will not be able to buy them at all. In the latter case—which seems to have happened all over the country—the Government really are tyrannising over the working classes. I cannot believe that any Government has any right to make one class, and one class only, sober by Act of Parliament. It is grandmotherly legislation, and that of the very worst sort. It penalises the kind of alcohol that the poor drink and lets the rich practically off altogether.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Amendment is not one which I think the House will be disposed seriously to consider. The Government have been attacked again and again from the benches opposite for their unfair discrimination in favour of clubs. But it is the first time that in this Finance Bill a tax is imposed upon the intoxicating liquors that are supplied in clubs of all classes. Now comes the hon. Gentleman opposite—speaking from benches from which so many of these denunciations have previously been heard—proposing to abolish this tax altogether, except on wines, cider, and sweets or British wines. Beer and spirits are to be free altogether. Even more strange, this Amendment is seconded—it is true, merely by a gesture—by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joynson-Hicks, who last year was one of the most impassioned and bitter of the opponents of working men's clubs who addressed this House. The hon. Gentleman proposed last year to charge every working man's club the same Licence Duty as public-houses, and to impose upon the clubs precisely the

  1093
  same conditions. It is true that when the moment came to move the Amendment
  "he folded his tent like the Arabs,
  And as silently stole away."
  But the fact remains that on various occasions be did vigorously denounce the Government for their favouritism of clubs, and now he seconds an Amendment to take the new Licence Duties altogether off working men's clubs. Of course the Government cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. Member who moved it made his speech on the question of differentiation between the rich man's wine and the poor man's beer and spirits. That may be a proper subject for debate, but it is certainly not a proper subject for debate upon this Clause, because this Clause treats the rich man's club in precisely the same way as it treats the poor man's club. The bottle of champagne will have to pay precisely the same ad valorem duty as a glass of beer.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I, with the permission of the House, as the right hon. Gentleman referred to me, say a word. I seconded the Amendment pro forma because I thought my hon. Friend was entitled to have some reply to his Amendment on a point with which I have some little sympathy in regard to differentiation between the rich man's wine and the poor man's beer and spirits. I am not going into the whole question of clubs, but I really protest against the description the right hon. Gentleman gave of me as being a bitter opponent of workmen's clubs. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to my speech, he would see I only declaimed against badly conducted clubs. I never said anything against ordinary working men's clubs, and my endeavours this year and last were to make restriction on clubs so efficacious as would interfere only with the badly conducted clubs. My action had nothing to do with well-conducted workmen's clubs.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "Section" ["a statement in accordance with this Section"], to insert the words "after a notice in writing from the Commissioners requiring him so to do has been served on him, either by leaving it at the club premises or by sending it to him by post addressed to the club."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  At the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words: "Provided that a distress shall not be levied under this provision unless
  1094
  notice in writing requiring the payment of the amount of duty unpaid has been served on the secretary of the club by leaving the notice at the club premises or by sending it to him by post addressed to the club."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

GENERAL.

  CLAUSE 51.—(Relation of Licences Granted Under Act to Licences Abolished.)
  (1) Any reference in any Act or document to any description of Excise licence for the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor which is expressed in the First Schedule to correspond to any description of licence which may be granted under this Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the description of licence to which it is expressed to correspond.
  (2) The additional retail licences for the sale of spirits or liqueurs or beer granted to a dealer in spirits or beer, and the licence for the sale of table beer, and the combined licence for the sale by retail of wine and beer shall cease to be granted, without prejudice to the continuance of any such licence which is in force at the time of the passing of this Act until the date when the licence expires in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
  Mr. W. MITCHELL-THOMSON (on behalf of Mr. Staveley-Hill)Mr. W. MITCHELL-THOMSON (on behalf of Mr. Staveley-Hill) moved, at the end of the Clause, to add the following new Sub-section: "(3) Where any existing Excise licence may be granted without a justices' licence being required, no justices' licence shall be required for the issue of the corresponding Excise licence under this Act."
  I understand that the Government have expressed their strong view that no change in regard to the existing law will be made. It is possible in such a case as a wine merchant who does not require to take out one of these licences——
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We will accept the Amendment. I said in Committee that I thought it unnecessary, and, after further looking into the matter, I am still of that opinion; but the words can do no harm, though it is sometimes inadvisable to put in Acts of Parliament words which are unnecessary.
  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

  CLAUSE 52.—(Definitions.)
  In this Part of this Act—
  The expression "beer" includes ale, porter, spruce beer, black beer, and any other description of beer, and any liquor which is made or sold as a description of beer or as a substitute for beer, and which on analysis of a sample thereof at any time is found to contain more than two per cent. of proof spirit;
  The expression "wine" means foreign wine;
  The expression "sweets" means any liquor which is made from fruit and sugar, or from fruit or sugar mixed with any other material, and which has undergone a process of fermentation in the manufacture thereof, and includes British wines, made wines, mead, and metheglin;
  Any reference to cider shall include a reference to perry;
  The expression "registered club" means a club for the time being registered under the Licensing Act, 1902, and in Scotland and Ireland a registered club within the meaning of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, respectively;
  The expression "passenger vessel" means a vessel of any description employed for the carriage and conveyance of persons going as passengers from any place in the United Kingdom to any other place in the United Kingdom, or going from and returning to the same place on the same day;
  The expression "publican's licence" means the on-licence to be taken out by a retailer of spirits, and the expression "beerhouse licence" means the on-licence to be taken out by a retailer of beer;
  The expression "fully licensed premises" means premises to which a publican's licence is attached, and the expression "beerhouse" means premises to which a beerhouse licence is attached;
  The expression "premises" in relation to the value of licensed premises includes any offices, courts, yards, and gardens occupied together with the house in which the liquor is sold;
  The expression "full duty" means the duty which would be charged under the First Schedule to this Act without taking into consideration any reduction or allowance or, in cases where duty may be charged under that Schedule by reference to annual value, any alternative mode of charging the duty.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved to leave out the words "foreign wine" ["The expression 'wine' means foreign wine"], and to insert instead thereof the words "wine imported into Great Britain or Ireland."
  This Amendment is to meet a purely sentimental, but proper, objection raised in Committee. It is unnecessary to amend it, as hon. Members opposite propose, in order to deal with wine made in Great Britain and imported into Ireland and wine made in Ireland and imported into Great Britain, because the term "imported" is a term of art, and means imported from parts beyond the seas, and parts beyond the seas do not include any part of the United Kingdom. The words hon. Members propose to move are therefore unnecessary, and they would also be objectionable as implying a meaning to the word "imported," which under the Customs Acts it does not possess.
  Mr. GRETTON: The real point of substance which was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield has been hardly met, but there is something gained, and I do not propose to move my Amendment.
  Question, "That the words 'foreign wine' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Words proposed there inserted in the Bill.
  Mr HERBERT SAMUEL Mr HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in the paragraph "The expression 'passenger vessel,'" to leave out the words "persons going as" ["passenger for any place"].
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This is something more than a drafting Amendment, and we are bound, I think, to spend a certain amount of time upon it. At the request of the Solicitor-General the question of international law which is involved here was postponed until this stage. I should like to know what is the intention of the Government with regard to the case of cross-Channel steamers—vessels which ply from a place in the United Kingdom and return on the same day. Among them are cross-Channel steamers which fly the flags of other Governments. Is it the intention of the framers of the Bill to apply the provisions of this Act to these steamers, or not? Take the case of the steamers running between Dover and Calais, crossing and re-crossing every day, the "Nord" and the "Pas de Calais." When this point was raised in Committee there was a certain amount of hesitation on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to whether the Government had or had not jurisdiction over these vessels. Admittedly this is one of the most complicated
  1102
  points of international law which it is possible to raise. It is not easy of solution, and it does not become any the more easy when you look at Schedule 1, Sub-schedule D, because there it is provided that "for the purpose of giving jurisdiction any sale of liquor on a passenger vessel shall be deemed to have taken place either where it has actually taken place, or in any place in which the vessel may be found." I want to know if it is proposed to apply these provisions to cross-Channel steamers. I do not think the point will arise in the case of the Belgian steamers, as they are in a sense State vessels, but I want to know the position of cross-Channel steamers not flying the British flag. Apparently the Solicitor-General does not appear to know whether or not they will come under the Bill.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I know perfectly well.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Then perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us at once.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply. Since the discussion in Committee on this point, and, indeed, in consequence of it, careful inquiry has been made, and it appears to us clear that there would be jurisdiction over vessels flying a foreign flag if they came within the provisions of this Clause. But, so far as we know, there are no cases which do come within the provisions of this Clause. There are English vessels which cross and re-cross between Dover and Calais on the same day, but there are no foreign vessels which ply from the United Kingdom to a foreign country and return here on the same day. They may come from a foreign country and return to it on the same day, but that does not bring them within the purview of this Clause. I am informed, in fact, that there are no cases which can be brought within it. If there were cases, there would, of course, be jurisdiction, but whether it would be wise to exercise it is another question. Our vessels are not charged foreign licence duties abroad, and it would be a matter for careful consideration before the Government could decide to apply the provisions of this Bill to foreign ships plying between our ports and a foreign country.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think the position the Government have taken up is perfectly correct, but I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is not reckoning on possibilities which may happen. It

  1103
  is quite possible a case may arise where, in consequence of stress of weather or some ether cause, a French vessel may actually leave the coasts of England and return to them the same day. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has recognised that there is a difficulty in the way, and I am gratified at the decision at which the Government have arrived. Under the circumstances I shall not press my Amendment.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Although I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has made careful inquiry, I rather question the correctness of his facts, because it was only the other day I had occasion to go abroad for a week during the temporary holiday this House was allowed. I crossed the Channel in the steamer "Nord" at half-past one in the morning, and to the best of my knowledge the same steamer returned here in the afternoon. Therefore, I would like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his facts are somewhat precarious.
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved, after the word "sold," at the end of the paragraph beginning "The expression 'premises,'" to insert the words "except any such offices, courts, yards, or gardens as are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be used for any trade or business distinct from any trade or business carried on upon the premises by the licence holder."
  Mr. G. D. FABER Mr. G. D. FABER moved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment after the word "courts" to insert the word "stables."
  I think a point of material importance is involved in this, as the stables may have nothing whatever to do with the licensed premises.
  Mr. CAVE: I second the Amendment, and as a matter of fact the case which gave rise to the Debate was the case of livery stables.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying that the case of stables was raised as an illustration in the course of the Debate, but the word "stables" would be included in the word "offices." The reason why it has not been specially put in this is this: The House will see that the expression
  1104
  "premises" is defined as including "any offices, courts, yards, and gardens occupied together with the house in which the liquor is sold," and we could not put "except any such stables, offices, courts, yards, or gardens" without inserting it the other way. Under the Act of 1830 which fixes the Licence Duty under a scale it is enacted that in the annual value of the dwelling-house the offices, courts, yards, and garden occupied with the premises would be included, and we have followed these words both in the definition which we here give of premises and in the exceptions. I think, in substance, the point has been met.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
  Mr. GRETTON Mr. GRETTON moved to add at the end of the proposed Amendment ["carried on upon the premises by the licence-holder"] the words "by virtue of his licence."
  This is very much a drafting Amendment, and does not alter the substance of the Government Amendment. The words make it quite clear that this exception should extend to any trade which is carried on on the licensed premises, but not as part of the licensed business. It is no uncommon thing for a licence holder to have two businesses, and the premises may adjoin. It would certainly be unfair and unreasonable, and I believe it is not the intention of the Government, to tax the licence holder in respect to any business which he carries on on premises adjoining the licensed premises because they are contiguous. What they want to tax is the licensed premises in which he carries on his business.
  Mr. G. D. FABER Mr. G. D. FABER seconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This is more than a drafting Amendment, and it is one which I am afraid the Government cannot accept, because a business might be carried on upon the licensed premises. For instance, a person who is the proprietor of an hotel business, and who carries on a livery stable business does not carry it on by virtue of his licence, but he occupies his stabes and so forth in connection with his premises, and it would not be at all right to exclude any such case as that, although the business carried on is not carried on strictly by virtue of his licence.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider this. We must have some such words added. The words proposed by the Solicitor-General exempt

  1105
  premises which are carried on by someone else than the licensee, but as to him this Amendment will have no effect. This Amendment is not going to give the licence holder any relief at all. Surely it cannot be suggested that in the case of a man who has a licence and carries on a business which does not require a licence in an office, court, yard, or garden adjoining the licensed premises, that the value of the premises in which it is carried on are to be included.
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The case which I put in reply to the Amendment now proposed is unanswerable. At any rate, we never intended, and I never held out any hope, that we would change the law to such an extent as to say that any part of the licensed premises occupied by the licence holder, and used in the business of the licence holder, would be excluded because it was not a business carried on under the licence.
  Mr. CAVE: I do not think the Government went so far as that, but supposing a man who is a licensee has also livery stables, and carries on in those stables a business totally distinct from his business as a publican, he does some part of his business as a livery stable keeper upon the licensed premises, but not under his licence.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: In connection with his business?
  Mr. CAVE: I am putting it entirely without any connection with his business, and that is the case we want met. We do not want, because a man has two businesses, one as a publican and the other as a livery stable keeper, and carries on part of that business in his own home on his licensed premises, he is to have the whole of his premises, whether public-house or livery stable, rated as a public-house. I think this is a distinct and substantial point which would be covered by the words of the Amendment, and in accordance with the words of the original Amendment, "distinct from any trade or business carried on upon the premises by the licence holder." I think the words now suggested make the proposed Amendment clear.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Supposing a man who is a licence holder is also an undertaker. That would be a perfectly distinct business, but we cannot go further than we have. We have carefully and anxiously considered the Amendment and the question
  1106
  of giving relief under the Act of 1880, and this is the utmost extent to which we can go.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

TEMPORARY PROVISION.

  CLAUSE 53.—(Temporary Provision as to Expiration of Licences.)
  (1) All Excise licences for the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor which are to be taken out annually and are in force at the time of the passing of this Act (in this Section referred to as existing licences) shall cease to be in force on the thirtieth day of November next after the passing of this Act, and the Commissioners shall repay or allow to the holder of any such existing licence an amount of duty proportionate to the time by which the period of the currency of the licence is diminished under this provision after deducting in the case of licences granted since the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, any additional sum which the licence holder may be required under the provisions of this Act to pay as duty for the period since the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and nine.
  (2) Where any licence granted under this Act in substitution for a corresponding existing licence expires by virtue of the provisions of this Act before the expiration of a full year the duty payable on the licence shall be proportionately reduced.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "thirtieth day of November," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty-first day of December."
  At the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words, "If the additional sum to be paid by the licence holder exceeds the sum to be repaid or allowed the excess shall be treated as an addition to the duty to be paid in respect of any licence granted in substitution for the existing licence."
  At the end of Sub-section (2) to add:
  "(3) The duty upon a licence to a brewer of beer for sale granted to expire on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and ten, may be paid if the licence holder so desires, as to the last one-fourth part thereof, upon the first day of July, nineteen hundred and ten, and if the payment is not then made the licence shall thereupon cease to be in force."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

PART III.
  DEATH DUTIES.

    CLAUSE 55.—(Limitation of Relief from Estate Duty in Respect of Settled Property.)
    For the purpose of any claim to relief from Estate Duty under Sub-section (2) of Section five or Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-one of the principal Act, in the case of persons dying on or after the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine, payment of or liability to duty, whether the payment was made or the liability attached before, on, or after that date shall not be deemed to be a payment of or liability to duty in respect of settled property if the payment was made or the liability attached in respect of an interest in expectancy in any property on the death of a person (other than the settlor).
    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved to leave out the word "whether" ["whether the payment was made"], and to insert instead thereof the word "where."
    The effect of Clause 55 is to impose in a certain case a new duty. The object of the Amendment is to omit the words which make that retrospective. It may very well happen that under the existing law the person who has paid the first duty has cleared the estate, and he has the estate free of any further charge of duty. Unless the word is altered as I propose he will be subject to a further charge. I do not think it is the wish of the House to disturb existing rights which have already accrued and crystallised. I do not think in that case that there ought to be a new duty. I propose to confine the operation of the Clause to cases where the payment was made or the liability attached on or after the date mentioned in the Clause.
    Mr. J. W. HILLS: I beg to second the Amendment. I think there is a very strong case for it. In certain eases the interest that is free from duty will have been dealt with on the basis of being duty free. It may be that the interest has been settled, and arrangements have been made which would not have been made except upon the assumption that the interest was duty free, and I think it is a very hard case that where it is now free from duty the property is to be specially taxed.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): If the hon. Member will look at Clause 64 he will see that the case is provided for. The particular point raised was discussed frequently in Committee, and applies to a great many cases
    1108
    other than this. The point is this, stripped of all technicalities, that where there has been a deed which has created a succession of interest prior to the passing of this Bill, and the death on which the duty falls to be collected takes place after the date of the passing of this Bill, the duty can be collected. The Amendment would make it impossible to collect the duty unless the disposition was also subsequent to the passing of the Act. In other words, the purpose is to say that the principle ought not to apply to old deeds, but only to new deeds. That question is covered by the principle which has been laid down over and over again. In the Succession Duty Act of 1853, when Mr. Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he negatived the view of the two hon. Gentlemen who have moved the Amendment and laid down that where there was an old disposition, and death took place after the passing of the Act, the duty should be collected. In 1881, when Mr. Childers was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the same principle was followed, and there—in the case of these duties—they were collected in the case of old instruments, the death being after the passing of the Act. The same practice was followed by Mr. Goschen with the additional duties of 1889, and by Sir William Harcourt in 1894, and it is really too late now to depart from it. We are only following the exact principle which was adopted in the principal Act which we are amending here, and it would be contrary to all the precedents of dealing with these things to go back, to make the date of the disposition necessarily subsequent to the date of the coming into operation of the Act under which the duty is collected. For these reasons we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 57.—(Limitation on Debts Deductible from Value of Estate.)
    When a debt or incumbrance has been incurred or created in whole or in part for the purpose of or in consideration for the purchase or acquisition or extinction, whether by operation of law or otherwise, of any interest in expectancy within the meaning of the principal Act in any property passing or deemed to pass upon the death of a person dying after the passing of this Act, and any person whose interest in expectancy is so purchased, acquired, or extinguished becomes (under any disposition made by, or through devolution of law from or under the intestacy of, the deceased) entitled to any interest in that

    1109
    property, then in determining the value of the estate of the deceased for the purpose of Estate Duty no allowance shall be made in respect of such debt or incumbrance, and any property charged with any such debt or incumbrance shall be deemed to pass freed from that debt or incumbrance:
    Provided that—

    (a) If part only of such debt or incumbrance was incurred or created for such purpose or as such consideration as aforesaid, this provision shall apply to that part of such debt or incumbrance only; and

    (b) If a person whose interest in expectancy in the property so purchased, acquired, or extinguished becomes entitled to an interest in part only of that property, this provision shall apply only to such part of the debt or incumbrance as bears the same proportion to the whole debt or incumbrance as the value of the part of the property to an interest in which he becomes entitled bears to the value of the whole of that property.

    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved to leave out the words "for the purpose of or" ["in whole or in part for the purpose of or"].
    The object of the Clause is that when a life tenant, in order to avoid payment of duty on his own death, purchases the reversion, not paying cash, but giving a charge on the estate or making himself a debtor for the amount of his purchase-money, and then afterwards devises to his successor, that procedure shall not result in evading the duty. That particular point is fully dealt with in other words which I do not propose to move out of the Clause, but if these words remain the Clause will affect a totally different proceeding. Take the case of a man who bonâ fide wishes to buy a reversion upon his own life estate, and to become the owner in fee simple. He, for that purpose, borrows, not from the reversioner, but, say, from bankers, the amount of the purchase-money which is required, and he then, perhaps years afterwards, makes a will devising the estate to the person who has previously been the owner of the interest in expectancy. If these words stand, in that case the person to whom the estate will be devised will have to pay duty, not upon the estate as it comes to him, but upon the estate without deduction of the debt incurred to the bank. In a case of this kind the ordinary rule ought to hold that the debt ought to be deducted from the value of the estate.
    1110
    The real object of the Clause would, I think, be fully effected by the words "in consideration for the purchase or acquisition or extension." You do not want the words "for the purpose of" at all.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HALDANE: My hon. Friend (Mr. Cave), who knows this subject very well, is familiar with the case which this Clause is designed to meet. I have not the least complaint to make of the course which he advises us to take in reference to this matter. I have always held in this House that where the law allows a certain course to be taken you ought to be allowed to take it, but it does not follow that when a hole is discovered in the law you should not try to stop it up. The hon. Member invites us to stop one hole and to leave another open. I will take the simple case of the English tenant for life. The case against which this Clause is directed is the case of a man who in England, being a tenant for life, buys the remainder in fee from his son. He effects the transaction in either of two ways. He may say to his son, "Convey the remainder to me for the value of your expectancy," in which case the hon. Member for Kingston takes no exception to the Clause. The hon. Member asks why a tenant for life who borrows money from an outsider should not get exemption. I will tell him why. Suppose you only stop the first hole and leave the other, the tenant for life would then go to his bankers and borrow from them, or from somebody else, the amount requisite to compensate the expectant heir for his expectancy. He would give a mortgage on the property for the amount, and then he would devise the estate so encumbered to the heir, who would already have got the amount of the encumbrance money. Consequently the heir would have got the property. Therefore the Clause would be absolutely nugatory unless we keep in these words.
    Mr. CAVE: The ingenious suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman might be taken advantage of now that he has made it. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 58.—(Amendment of Rates of Legacy Duty and Succession Duty.)
    (1) Any Legacy or Succession Duty which under the Stamp Act, 1815, or the Succession Duty Act, 1853, or any other Act, is payable at the rate of three per cent. shall be payable at the rate of five per cent., and any Legacy or Succession

    1111
    Duty which under the said Acts is payable at the rate of five per cent. or six per cent. shall be payable at the rate of ten per cent. on the amount or value of the legacy or succession.
    (2) The Legacy and Succession Duty payable at the rate of 1 per cent. on the amount or value of any legacy or succession under the Stamp Act, 1815, and the Succession Duty Act, 1853, or any other Act, shall be levied and paid notwithstanding any repeal effected by or anything contained in the principal Act or any other Act, and the duty shall also be levied and paid in cases where the person taking the legacy or succession is the husband or wife of the testator, intestate, or predecessor as in cases where the person taking the legacy or succession is a lineal ancestor or descendant of the testator, intestate, or predecessor:
    Provided that the duty shall not be levied—

    (a) Where the principal value of the property passing on the death of the deceased and chargeable with Estate Duty (other than property in which the deceased never had an interest) does not exceed fifteen thousand pounds, whatever may be the value of the legacy or succession; or

    (b) Where the amount or value of the legacy or succession together with any other legacies or successions derived by the same person from the testator, intestate, or predecessor does not exceed one thousand pounds, whatever may be the principal value of the property so passing and chargeable; or

    (c) Where the person taking the legacy or succession is the widow or a child under the age of twenty-one years of the testator intestate or predecessor, and the amount or value of the legacy or succession together with any other legacies or successions derived by the same person from the testator, intestate, or predecessor does not exceed two thousand pounds, whatever may be the principal value of the property so passing and chargeable.

    (3) In this Section the expression "deceased" means in the case of a legacy the testator (including a person making a donation mortis causa) or intestate, and in the case of a succession arising through devolution by law, the person on whose death the succession arises, and in the case of a succession arising under a disposition, the person on whose death the first succession thereunder arises; and the expression
    1112
    "legacy" includes residue and share of residue.
    (4) This Section shall take effect in the case of Legacy Duty only where the testator by whose will the legacy is given or the intestate on whose death the Legacy Duty is payable, dies on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and in the case of a succession arising through devolution by law, only where the succession arises on or after that date, and in the case of a succession arising under a disposition, only if the first succession under the disposition arises on or after that date.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    It is perfectly clear what will be the effect of the words in this Subsection to which I take exception. We are sometimes accused on this side of the House of attempting to fritter away these taxes, and so make the proposals of the Government futile. If there is one tax for which there is less justification than another it is that tax now to be imposed from which the widow and orphan have hitherto been free. It is upon that most afflicted class that you wish, even in the case of comparatively small inheritances, to impose a new burden. It is unnecessary to insist upon the hardship which this Sub-section will involve. The part to which we chiefly object is that which imposes upon the direct lineal descendants a burden from which they have hitherto been granted relief, even under the Finance Act of 1894.
    Mr. W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to second the Amendment. In the Committee there were only two defences made for this novel proposal. One was the old defence, "We want money." In regard to that defence. I should like to know what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury estimates as the yield from this particular tax. I think before reliance is placed on the financial defence we ought to have some figures with regard to the expected yield of the tax. The second defence was made, if I remember rightly, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asked, "Why should we not charge Death Duties in this case?" He said a son had no better right to the property than his father. Nobody knows better than the Secretary of State for War that, however that may be in the case of England, it is not the fact in the case of Scotland. Take the position in the case of a Scotsman who dies leaving, let us say, a widow and son. By the law of Scotland he can only dispose of one-third

    1113
    of his movable property. One-third goes to the widow and one-third goes to the son. The testator can only make a will with regard to one-third of his property if he leaves a widow and son. Look at the position of a man under these circumstances who has to leave a certain amount of his property to his son. The law says he must do it, and because he does what the law says he must do, you propose to tax him under this Bill. I should like to hear the legal opinion of the Secretary of State for War in regard to that. Before we finally pass from this Clause we ought to have a statement from the Government firstly, as to the expected financial yield of this particular tax, and, secondly, what is going to be the position in regard to those in Scotland, who, under the present law, have rights which are indefeasible, and whom you propose by process of law to penalise.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seemed to think that this was a novel proposal. If he had looked at the words of the Clause he would have seen that this is not a novel proposal at all, but is a revival of an old law dating back to the year 1815. A more serious question which the hon. Member asked was what is the financial effect of this proposal. To the first part of the Sub-section the amount we calculate would be about £600,000, and so far as the widows alone are concerned the uniform duty is expected to be about £300,000. There was rather a suggestion that there were hard cases in this proposal. But these are met by the provisions (a) (b) and (c). I confess I do not see any particular hardship in proposed taxation of this sort, in taking a small sum in the case even of lineal descendants. I do not see why a lineal descendant should not contribute, undoubtedly in a much less degree, than a mere distant relation for the purposes of State.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: The failure to exact it in the case of husbands who succeed to wives, or vice versâ would result in a loss of £600,000. Does that mean that wives succeed husbands and husbands succeed wives to the extent of £60,000,000 sterling.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The calculation we made as to the Sub-section (2) down to the word "and" ["any other Act, and"] was a sum of £600,000. The second part means a sum of £300,000.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's answer has at all met the point of my hon. and learned Friend that in Scotland the wife has an inalienable right to get one-third of the husband's moveable property as a matter of debt. It does not seem fair when that is the state of the law that the Succession Duty should be exacted from them as if the matter was not truly a debt. The right hon. Gentleman probably does not know about that, and I cannot blame him; but I think that the Secretary of State for War in a former state of existence did know about it, and I would ask him if there is not some substance in my hon. Friend's point?
    Mr. HALDANE: We are not dealing with Legacy Duty here, but with Succession Duty only. In England a great deal of the property to which a wife or husband succeeds is separate, and it passes from the wife to the husband, and the husband to the wife in exactly the same way as it passes under the compulsory provisions of the common law of Scotland.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: As regards the husband and wife I do not see that any adequate explanation has been given of why they are put on a different basis for Legacy Duty and for Income Tax. The answer given to this point in Committee was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not responsible for its existence. I wish that he could more often plead that some of his proposals were old proposals and sound proposals, because most of them are exceedingly new, unsatisfactory and unjust. But to tell us that he is not responsible seems to me to be a very feeble answer. Surely if he pioneers this Bill through the House and it passes into law he is responsible? The distinction I object to is that as regards Income Tax the incomes of husband and wife are counted as one because by that means you get a higher tax out of them. Here you go on a different principle, and say that for Legacy and Succession Duty husband and wife are to be treated as separate in order that you should also get more money out of them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot ride off by saying that he is not responsible. If he unites the purses of husband and wife for the purposes of Income Tax to charge them higher, let him also unite them for the purposes of Legacy and Succession Duty, even though it might cost him a little money. Let us have the same principle in both cases. I

    1115
    cannot follow any explanation that have been given us from the Treasury Bench up to the present, because he does not pretend to recognise these inconsistencies, and he will not produce any adequate argument to justify them in this Bill.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'or' ["for the purpose of or"] stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 25.

    Division No. 854.]

    AYES.

    [9.35 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Glover, Thomas

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Agnew, George William

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Radford, G. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Alden, Percy

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Rea, Rt. Hoi. Russell (Gloucester)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hall, Frederick

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Astbury, John Meir

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Beale, W. P.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Robertson, Sir J. M. (Tyneside)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Robinson, S.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rowlands, J.

    Brace, William

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Brigg, John

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Bright, J. A.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Hodge, John

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Brooke, Stanford

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Sears, J. E.

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Seely, Colonel

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Shackleton, David James

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Byles, William Pollard

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Cameron, Robert

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire).

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Clough, William

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Summerbell, T.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lambert, George

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Lamont, Norman

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Toulmin, George

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Verney, F. W.

    Crossley, William J.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Vivian, Henry

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Wadsworth, J.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Marnham, F. J.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Massie, J.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Middlebrook, William

    Wiles, Thomas

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Moiteno, Percy Alport

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Elibank, Master of

    Mond, A.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Erskine, David C.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Essex, R. W.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

    Falconer, James

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Findlay, Alexander

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Ginnell, L.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    NOES.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Cave, George

    Gretton, John

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Starkey, John R.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hills, J. W.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir H. Craik and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

    Forster, Henry William

    Joynson Hicks, William

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE moved to leave out of paragraph (a) the words "and chargeable with" ["and chargeable with Estate Duty"], and to insert instead thereof the words "in respect of which."
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the Amendment?
    Mr. HALDANE: This is really to make a further exemption. Under the Finance Act of 1894 estates under £1,000 were exempted, and if the drafting of the Bill stood as it is they would not be exempt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the view that this would not be just, and he put down the Amendment to save that exemption.
    Mr. CAVE: Would not proviso (a) cover estates under £1,000?
    Mr. HALDANE: No; I do not think so. There are exceptions within exceptions.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Words proposed there inserted in the Bill.
    Drafting Amendments also made.
    Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE moved, in paragraph (a), after the word "interest" ["in which the deceased never had an interest"], to insert the words "and property of which the deceased never was competent to dispose, and which on his death passes to persons other than the husband or wife, or a lineal ancestor or descendant of the deceased."
    The effect of that will be to give an additional exemption. This is a proviso in which we say duty is not to be paid on certain estates—that is to say, an estate which does not exceed £15,000. There might be other property over which the deceased had no competency to deal. The exemption is a little too narrow as it stands now, and therefore we propose to alter it by putting in the words which I now propose.
    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and which on his death passes to persons other than the husband or wife, or a lineal ancestor or descendant of the deceased."
    I venture to suggest that the Amendment proposed does not go quite far enough or cover the point which the Secretary of State for War desires to cover. Let me put a case to raise the exact point. Supposing a man's own estate is small, but that apart from that
    1118
    he is tenant for life of a large estate, and that upon his death that estate, under a settlement over which he has no power, goes to his eldest son, if the Amendment passes in the form in which it has been moved the effect would be that the younger children and the widow would not get the benefit of this exemption. They would have to pay the duty under this Clause. In that case there is the same moral claim to protection as in the case where there is nothing but a small estate of under £15,000.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL Mr. EVELYN CECIL seconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. HALDANE: When this came before the Committee we framed the Amendment we had here to meet what was asked for and the case put by the hon. and learned Member for Lanark (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson). The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) puts a still further case. The variations are innumerable, but the Government feel that they have gone as far as they could in meeting the case which was put by the hon. and learned Member for Lanark. I do not think they could go as far as the further case put by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, which would exempt a great deal not intended to be exempted.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am grateful to the Government for meeting us so far as they have done in their Amendment, but I am bound to say that I think the case put by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston is a better case than the case I put, and if I had thought of it I should have put it.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Drafting Amendments made.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON moved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "first succession under the disposition arises," and to insert instead thereof the words "disposition is made."
    This Sub-section deals with three different cases. First, where the testator by whose will the legacy is given dies after 30th April, 1909; second, where the succession arises through devolution by law; and, third, that of a succession arising out of a disposition.
    The only questions really of importance are the case of a will and the case of a disposition. You provide that this Act

    1119
    shall not be retrospective in the case of a will beyond 30th April of the present year. If, however, a man has made a disposition, the Act is to be retrospective to an extent apparently indefinite. The Secretary of State for War's defence of that was one purely of precedent. He referred to the Acts of 1853, 1889, and 1894, and I quite admit the force of his argument. But if the argument holds good in the case of a disposition, why not in the case of a will? If you make a definite date beyond which the Act cannot be retrospective in the case of a will, why this arbitrary distinction between successions under a will and successions under a disposition? We raised this point in Committee, but did not get an answer. I think it will be very difficult for the Secretary of State to find an answer, because I do not believe there is one.
    Mr. J. W. HILLS Mr. J. W. HILLS formally seconded the Amendment.
    Mr. HALDANE: The Clause deals with three cases. The first is the case where the legacy simply arises when it is a gift under a will. The next is the case of an intestate. In both those case you have a simple succession on death. In the third case you have a succession under a disposition which limits the property, so that on death it shall descend. It makes no other difference. In substance there is no difference between the three cases. Death has to take place after the Bill becomes an Act and comes into operation. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has principle on his side. Now turn to the precedents. My right hon. Friend is a very conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer in the way in which he has followed illustrious precedents. He is following here what Mr. Gladstone did as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1853, what Mr. Childers did in 1881, what Lord Goschen did in 1889, and what Sir William Harcourt did in 1894. I am not certain that I cannot also pray in aid Mr. Pitt in his Legacy Act of 1783. My right hon. Friend being so strongly intrenched both in principle and in precedent, I should be very sorry if he gave way to the revolutionary views of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 59.—(Provision as to Gifts and Dispositions inter vivos.
    In the case of a person dying on or after the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine the period preceding the death of the deceased before which a disposition
    1120
    purporting to operate as an immediate gift inter vivos must have been made, or a surrender, assurance, divesting, or disposition must have been made or effected in order that the property taken under the disposition or affected by the surrender, assurance, divesting or disposition may not be included as property passing on the death of the deceased shall be three years instead of twelve months before the death, and accordingly paragraph (a) of Subsection (2) of Section thirty-eight of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881 (as amended by Section eleven of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, and applied by paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the principal Act), Subsection (3) of Section two of the principal Act, and Section eleven of the Finance Act, 1900, shall be read as if three years were substituted for twelve months:
    Provided that this Section shall not apply to any gift inter vivos, surrender, assurance, divesting, or disposition made or effected before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and eight, or made or effected for public or charitable purposes.
    So much of paragraph (c) of Sub-section one of Section two of the principal Act and this Section as makes gifts inter vivos property which is deemed to pass on the death of the deceased shall not apply to gifts which are made in consideration of marriage, or which are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been part of the normal annual expenditure of the deceased, and to have been reasonable, having regard to the amount of his income, or to the circumstances, or which, in the case of any donee, do not exceed in the aggregate one hundred pounds in value or amount.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL Mr. EVELYN CECIL moved to leave out the Clause.
    10.0 P.M.
    I rise with a little more confidence than I should have clone but for the speech just made by the Secretary of State. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so conservative and so much disposed to follow precedent, I hope he will consent to omit Clause 59, which certainly does not strike me as being an extremely conservative clause. To my mind, it is a very unusual clause, one entirely without precedent, and savouring of revolution. Since the Bill went into Committee the Clause has undergone considerable modification. In the first place, the period of five years has been changed into three years. The Chancellor of the

    1121
    Exchequer has also introduced various exceptions to the application of the three years' period, exceptions which I notice are largely the result of criticisms made from this side of the House in Committee. He excepts marriage settlements, charitable gifts, gifts which may be considered by the Commissioners to be reasonable and to be justified by the circumstances—such, I presume, as voluntary pensions to old servants—and gifts not exceeding £100. These constitute a large number of exceptions. To a large extent I approve of them, but I cannot help thinking that the number of exceptions introduced proves how extremely bad the rule is. While some persons are no doubt disposed to think that the present period of 12 months ought not to be diminished, as I moved in Committee, a large number of persons think it ought not to be increased, and a still larger number think it grossly unjust to increase it to so long a period as three years. In Committee we challenged merely the period. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer still maintains what we believe to be a wholly unjust and unreasonable period, we shall at this stage challenge the whole method. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will attain his object by this unfair extension. Not only will the increased severity of the duties encourage avoidance of the tax, but the increased period of time will also have that effect, and, so far from stopping the leakage of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer complains, he will probably add to it. It is not easy for any Government or any human being altogether to prevent leakage in connection with a tax such as this, and I fear—circumstances will show—that if a tax of this sort is introduced it will produce such irritation that lawyers and others will find means of driving a coach and six through this Clause. I am certain that many people who have never done so before will think of doing so now, whether they succeed or not. Another objection is that, in addition to trying to avoid the unreasonable imposts of the Treasury simply because they think them unjust and irritating, people will do so by giving sums to their children somewhat earlier than they probably would have done naturally. We all know by this time that Mr. Gladstone and others entirely approved of disposition inter vivos of this character; that he rather desired to encourage them; that he thought it was a good plan. There are many parents who train their children to
    1122
    manage sums of money when they become of sufficient age to entrust them with these sums by way of preparing them for their future career in life. That is an estimable object, and I do not suppose that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be against it. But I fear putting on this very high, this irritating, period of time which is imposed by this Clause will make people think Whether they ought not to give their children these sums at a somewhat earlier age than is really good for the children—and if it is not good for the children, then I think it is not good for the community. It makes them, instead of being careful, apt to be wasteful and luxurious. If we want genuinely to encourage gifts inter vivos, as I personally should do from the point of view of good citizenship, I do not think this is the way to do it. I think it produces on the one hand great irritation, and on the other hand the danger that children will be entrusted with money at an age when they should not be entrusted with so much. I again desire to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for introducing the exceptions which he has done, because I think they were very necessary. But that does not do away with the fundamental objection to this false attempt by the Government to stop the leakage which I think will do more harm than good.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I beg to second the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Though, of course, the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer does meet some of the more glaring cases raised in it, yet at the same time the Section as a whole is still very unsatisfactory. I do not think we have ever had any explanation from the Government as to the principle which underlies their action in extending this period from one to three years. It seems to me that there is no principle in it at all. One can quite understand these provisions for one year. It was, I think, to prevent gifts being made when a donor was in articulo mortis. That is quite understandable. But why it should be extended to three years when it is not at all reasonable to suppose that the donor will have in view his immediate demise, I cannot for one moment understand. It seems to me that it lays people open to a very great difficulty. For instance, supposing the donee dies shortly after the gift has been made. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplate the fact that the executors of the donee

    1123
    will then be unable to wind up his affairs until after three years have elapsed; because they will not know whether that property which he leaves at his death really was his to leave, or whether, as a matter of fact, a large proportion of it will not have to go to the State in the form of Death Duties? So you come to this absurd position: that a man who has been giving property in this way, if he dies, cannot have his property handed over to those to whom he may leave it until three years have gone by—that is if he dies shortly after the gift has been executed. I think that is a very grave difficulty and inconvenience to put upon anybody, and especially when it is wholly unnecessary, as it appears to be in this instance. Because, after all, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer suppose for one moment that he will stop anybody making these gifts inter vivos by this provision? What would happen? It seems to me that people will make the gifts earlier than they have hitherto done.
    The tendency at the present time among people who intend to make over portions of their property during their lifetime to their descendants is to delay making over that property until perhaps they themselves have got beyond the period when they can enjoy it to the full, as formerly. But now there is an inducement to make over the property very much younger, because they will realise that unless they take time by the forelock and make it over when life still seems to have some reasonable prospects of continuance, the object of their doing so will be frustrated. So the net result of it all very likely will be that people will make these gifts inter vivos at a younger age than hitherto. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers whether or not it is desirable that these gifts should be made. If he considers it desirable, then it seems to me that he might just as well have left alone the Sub-section of the Bill which deals with this matter, which is a very reasonable Section, and which provided quite enough against any possibility of fraud, or, as it were, collusion in the matter. I do not really know why the three years has been fixed upon instead of five. The original proposal of the Government to make five years was, I think, perfectly absurd. It was generally recognised as such. But even three years is far too long. Short of any explanation by the Government why three years has
    1124
    been fixed upon; short of any explanation as to this matter of executors which I venture to raise—though I believe it has been raised before—I shall myself certainly go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend against this Section.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): This very point was discussed at almost, I will not say inordinate length, because that might be regarded as a reflection upon hon. Members, but at very considerable length during the Committee stage. In fact it was one of the longest Debates we had in the Committee stage, and it ended in what might be regarded as a compromise. The Government were strongly of opinion that five years was the right time. There was a great deal of criticism of the period. Some of my hon. Friend's behind me took the view that five years was an excessive period. The Government offered three years as a compromise between the views which they still adhere to and the views expressed by hon. Members on this side of the House. I do not say hon. Members opposite accepted that, but hon. Members on this side who criticised the five years were, on the whole, satisfied with the three years which we eventually adopted. I would also like to point out to the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, pretty fairly, I think, that we have introduced very substantial exemptions. The one is in relation to gifts effected for public or charitable purposes, whilst there is a new exemption, not in the original Clause at all, in respect of property passed over in consideration of marriage. That is a very considerable inroad upon the original proposition, and introduced by the Government as it appears in the Act of 1881 and amending Acts. These are two very considerable exemptions. I may also say that we propose to accept in principle the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston; not, perhaps, in the words put down, but in effect. We cannot accept it in the same words as it is on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member, but I think he will admit that the form in which we are prepared to accept it is also quite a substantial concession. Therefore I think the Government have really gone out of their way to meet the objections which have been raised against the Clause. On the merits of the Clause I should like to say one or two words. I quite agree that gifts inter vivos are desirable, and I cannot for the life of me understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite should oppose a Clause

    1125
    which, according to them, would have the effect of inducing the donor to make these gifts at an earlier period of his life. The criticisms of both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment were directed to the belief that one of the effects of this Clause would be to induce men to part with their property a little earlier than they otherwise would have done. That is a very desirable thing to do.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Not for the Exchequer.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand from the Noble Lord that these gifts inter vivos were very desirable in themselves, and if they are desirable in themselves the sooner they are made the better. Would it not be infinitely better, instead of waiting until he thinks he is nearing the end of his life, and has probably, say, twelve months or two years to live, that a man should part with his property to his sons and daughters at an earlier stage, when they will make better use of it than that he should wait until they also are advanced in years, and have not the same period of life in which to enjoy it. It is because I agree with the principle of hon. Members opposite that I deprecate their Amendments. I am a supporter of the Clause, and I was a supporter for five years, because I think it is very desirable that a man should make a fair disposition of his property and give generous gifts to his immediate relatives long before he attains a very old age, and when it will be of more service to his sons and daughters. Hon. Members have argued upon the assumption that this is a prohibition of gifts. It is nothing of the kind. Supposing a man wishes to part with his property, this will not deter him. What difference will it make? If he parts with it and dies within a year, the person to whom the gift is given has to pay Death Duties. We say if he dies within three years the person to whom the gift is given will have to pay Death Duties, but there is always the chance that he may survive three years. If he does not part with it at all, Death Duties will have to be paid in any event, so that so far from being a deterrent there is always the probability that Death Duty will be evaded. With regard to the executor, who is the person to whom the gift is made, he will have to bear the burden.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Supposing the person to whom the gift is made dies within three years, supposing he dies a month after the gift is made to him.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That might arise now in the case of the donor, and the chances of it happening will be increased when you extend the period. There was one notorious case where there was a death, and within 12 months the property went back to the original donor. It is absolutely essential in the interests of the Exchequer that there should be some protection in regard to these gifts inter vivos.
    Mr. J. F. MASON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Committee stage said it made very little difference in the case of a man making a gift, because the Estate Duty would have to be paid, and if he had not made the gift the Estate Duty would equally have to be paid. May I point out that it would be paid by a different person? When a gift has been made the duty has to be paid not out of the original estate, and not out of the pocket of the big man's estate, but by the man who receives the gift or by his executors. That will operate in some cases very hardly, and not in a manner which is at all desirable. Supposing a rich man gives a poor man £1,000 to pay off his debts in order that he may start again on a fresh footing. If he dies you come down, not on the rich man's estate for the duty but on this small man who has just managed to get straight by having his debts paid for him. That would hardly be what is intended. That was distinctly pointed out in Committee, and I had been hoping that some alteration would have appeared in the Bill to rectify what seems to me to be obviously a weak point in the Clause. This point has not been in any way met, and it can hardly be desirable that it should be paid by the donee and not by the donor.
    Mr. D. S. WATERLOW: I want to know if it is perfectly clear that gifts to hospitals exceeding £100 in value are exempt under this Clause from Death Duties, and are they also exempt under the existing law? If they are not exempt under the existing law and they are exempt under this Clause, then this gives an advantage to hospitals which they do not now possess. I do not know what the law is, but I should like a definite pronouncement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they are under this Clause exempt absolutely from the Death Duties when they come to be made, if they are made at once.
    Mr. CAVE: The answer to the hon. Member is that they are exempt from the additional duties imposed by this Clause, but not exempt under the existing law.

    1127
    Supposing a man gives money to a hospital exceeding £100 and dies within a year, the hospital has to pay duty, but, if he lives a year and dies within three years, then, under this Clause, duty would not have to be paid. It is a somewhat absurd result, and one which I think is intended to be met by an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir Henry Kimber), which would have the effect of exempting gifts to hospitals entirely from the duties imposed by these two Acts together. With regard to the general question, I want to say that there was no compromise of any kind with any hon. Member on this side of the House. There was strong pressure from the other side of the House either to omit the Clause altogether or to reduce the period to two years, or something of that kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, not by way of a compromise, but as the most he would yield even to the very urgent pressure from his own side of the House, consented to three years. That was accepted by them with some grumbling, but it was never accepted by us. We always held the view that one year, the present time fixed, was quite enough for all purposes. Surely the object is to prevent evasion of the Death Duties. It is clear, I think, to all of us that, speaking generally, no one looks forward, except in rare cases, more than a year to the probability of his own death. A year is a longish time, and, if you say that gifts within a year shall be liable to Death Duties, you really go as far as the needs of the case require, unless you are putting upon the individual so strong a pressure by increasing your Death Duties to an abnormal amount that in order to evade duties so heavy he will look forward even to a longer period; and I think that is the origin of this Clause. The Government know the new Death Duties are far too heavy, and that they are near to breaking-point. People will do anything rather than pay duties so heavy, and the Government feel that if they press this great increase they are more likely to lose than to gain revenue. That appeared even on the change of 1907, and you will find it more so under the present Bill. The Government realise that men will give all their property away in their lifetime in order, I will not say to evade, but to prevent their estates coming under the burden of these very heavy duties. That is the meaning of this otherwise inexplicable
    1128
    —and, I still think very unreasonable—Clause. The period of three years is far too long for any ordinary purpose. Just see what inconvenience you cause. A man perhaps owes a large sum of money, and his father pays his debts, or he is going into business and his father finds the capital, or for some other reason a father provides money for his son or someone else dependent on him, and the Clause will mean that for three years the son or whoever it may be will be liable to pay these duties. He cannot risk the money in his business, and he cannot pay all his debts because his father may die in the period, and he may have to pay the duties. In every case the donee is liable for three years to pay the duties, and to pay the duty, not upon the basis of the value of his own estate, which may be very small, but upon a rate fixed by reference to the estates of the person from whom the gift comes. You have the estate aggregated, and both the donee and the donor pay duty on the value of the whole, although for practical purposes they are separate estates. Suppose the donee dies within the three years. The estate cannot be distributed until the end of the three years, and nobody can take property under the will because of the various contingencies in regard to the payment of the duty. Again, there is a serious risk of a double death. Both the donee and the donor may die within a very short period, so that by this fiction of the law you get a double duty on property which really only devolves once. The more one looks at this Clause the more unreasonable it appears to be. I am quite sure that the law as it stands is sufficient. I do not anticipate securing a change in the law, but I am glad of this opportunity to make a protest against this Clause, which, I think, of all the Death Duty proposals, is the most unreasonable.
    Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE: There is no doubt that this period of three years has been fixed upon with the object of preventing evasions of the Death Duties. But if you fix a time which a person who owns the property deems to be an unfair time he will set his mind to work to see in what way he can avoid your duty, and he may put his investments in the form of "bearer" securities instead of "registered" securities. Human life is very uncertain; one cannot tell at what period death may take place, and naturally a man will distribute his gifts in a form in which

    1129
    they are not readily traceable. This provision will give an enormous stimulus to the creation of bearer securities at the expense of registered securities, and stamps will suffer thereby. I cannot conceive that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes that operation to take place. As far as my humble judgment goes, the law as it stands is sufficient to meet all the cases that may reasonably be expected to arise.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I wish merely to point out that this is no longer a provision to add to the actual Death Duty, but it is a new tax upon gifts which are made not in expectation of death at all. This will be a distinct tax upon gifts which has never been levied before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a most curious answer. First of all, he agreed that the result of this provision would be that there would be a large passing of property before death—that there would be distinct encouragement of that practice, and that it would be a desirable thing that property should pass before death. I would point out, however, that it would not be a very desirable thing for the Exchequer, although the very point upon which this proposal was defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others was that it would be good for the Exchequer. Later on, in his speech, moreover, the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the proposal on the ground that it would be good for the Exchequer, but he cannot depend upon both his arguments to-day. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not know actually of a case in which the donee had died, and there was a difficulty on the part of the executor. I would mention one case in which a rich man—he is known to be rich—gave a considerable sum of money to a brother or a relation of his who was in bad circumstances, his health having broken down and his business capacity having failed. He gave him a considerable sum of money to help him out of his difficulties. A month after the donee died, and the executor is wondering what he is to do. Until the donor dies he does not know what the amount of the estate is, and it will have to be held up until some years have elapsed or until the donor dies. It is obvious that there must be constant cases of this kind of great difficulty and hardship which will
    arise under this alteration of the law. I am certain within the purview of the three years' limit this will cause great hardship.
    Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: The speech which we have just heard is characterised by the hon. Member's knowledge of his subject and by his usual moderation of statement, and he has made it clear to the House that this Clause means really a very considerable amount of addition to the Death Duties and the proportion which is to be paid to the State. I should like to say a few words upon that in regard to labour, because as regards labour it is most important to consider the matter. Here we have an addition to the amount taken from capital, and I would rather prefer to speak of it in regard to businesses which are always founded upon capital and regarded as investments. It is very common for a father to start a son in business, and in doing so he invests a sum of money in that way. How can this act otherwise than as a hardship upon labour and upon investment in new undertakings, and as an additional burden upon such industries? I have heard the argument that these Death Duties are only an inconsiderable increase of existing Death Duties. That is not so. They are raised by 50 per cent.—from an average of something like 4½ per cent. they have gone up to 6½ per cent. That is most serious. A fruit tree bears every year if it is properly protected. It is right, perhaps, to take part of the fruit of the tree every year, but how foolish to cut away part of the trunk of the tree. It is a piece of wood which may be useful, but it is cutting away the tree which yields the fruit. I think experience of the Death Duties, started on what is considered a moderate scale by Sir William Harcourt, has already demonstrated, by the actual cases which have occurred, that they have gone as far as they ought to go, and that to carry them further will only be penalising labour and adding to the army of the unemployed.
    Question put, "That the words of the Clause, to the words 'nineteen hundred and,' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 67.

    Division No. 855.]

    AYES.

    [10.45 p.m.

    Abraham William (Rhondda)

    Ainsworth John Stirling

    Ashton Thomas Gair

    Acland Francis Dyke

    Allen A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Astbury John Meir

    Agnew George William

    Allen Charles P. (Stroud)

    Balfour Robert (Lanark)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Barker, Sir John

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Beale, W. P.

    Haworth, Arthur A

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Brace, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Brigg, John

    Hodge, John

    Robertson, Sir J. M. (Tyneside)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Robinson, S.

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rowlands, J.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Clough, William

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Seely, Colonel

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Shackleton, David James

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Keating, M.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Crossley, William J.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lambert, George

    Summerbell, T.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lamont, Norman

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Elibank, Master of

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Toulmin, George

    Erskine, David C.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Verney, F. W.

    Essex, R. W.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lynch, H. B.

    Vivian, Henry

    Everett, R. Lacey

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Falconer, J.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Ferens, T. R.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Massie, J

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Middlebrook, William

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Mond, A.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Glover, Thomas

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gulland, John W.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Hall, Frederick

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Harcourt Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Radford, G. H.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Harrison-roadley, H. B.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hills, J. W.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Starkey, John ft.

    Cave, George

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Craik, Sir Henry

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Viscount Helmsley.

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Question, "That the word 'eight' stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved, in the second paragraph of the Section, to omit the word "eight;" and to insert instead thereof the word "nine."
    In the discussion on the financial Resolution dealing with this Clause, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Clause was intended to be retrospective, and his answer was, Certainly not. But the Clause as it stands is retrospective; that is, it applies to gifts made before the introduction of the Bill. My Amendment is to confine the operation of the Clause to gifts made after the 30th April last. This very point no doubt has arisen in many cases. It certainly has arisen in one case I know of from personal knowledge. A man made a gift about the 1st or 2nd of May, 1908. Until the Bill was introduced he thought that if he succeeded in living for a year his gift would be safe. I am happy to say that he did succeed in living for a year, and he is living still, but if he dies within two years from this time the effect will be that duty will be paid upon his gift. I call that making the Bill retrospective. There would be a great hardship in such a case, and I think that the Government ought to accept this Amendment if for no other reason than to carry out their promise.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HALDANE: The question raised here has been discussed over and over again. Under Clause 2, Sub-section (1), (c), of the Finance Act of 1894, the same principle applies, with this difference: That in this case three years are substituted for one year, but it is obvious that, so far as the principle is concerned, what was true in the case of one year is true in the case of three, and vice versâ. The principle is that when a person dies after the Bill has become law, and there has been a gift, the duty is payable, now for three years, but formerly for one year before the Act came into operation. It is not for the first time this question has been raised, and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman would have the effect of divesting the proviso of its purpose, which is to save people who are already immune. The Amendment would turn the proviso to something wholly different and convert it into an exempting Clause, going back to the principle which was the principle of the Act of 1894. For these reasons, which were very fully discussed in the Committee stage, I am afraid
    1134
    that we are unable to accept the Amendment.
    11.0 P.M.
    Sir H. KIMBER Sir H. KIMBER moved, in the second paragraph, to leave out the words "or made or effected for public or charitable purposes."
    The object of this will, I think, appeal to the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. An hon. Member on the other side on a previous Amendment pointed out that gifts for charitable purposes ought not to be included in the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough in the next paragraph to amend the principal Act by making gifts inter vivos on consideration of marriage, or part of the normal expenditure exempt, and there is no reason when he has given that why he should not also be willing to Include charitable gifts and exempt from Death Duties money which has been parted with never to come back again.
    Mr. HILLS Mr. HILLS seconded the Amendment. I hope the Government will accept this, as it is surely a logical consequence of the other. If a man dies within the year, the hospital legacy will, if the Bill remains as it is, pay a tax that it would not pay if he survived a year and died in the second or third year. Surely, since you admit the principle that a gift to a hospital is on a different scale from other gifts, it is logical to extend the exemption to those that are made by a testator who dies within the year.
    Mr. HALDANE: The result of the concession made on this subject makes one almost despair of making any more. If there is one principle which has been laid down in the last 50 years, it is that charitable gifts should not, as a general principle, be exempt from Legacy and Succession Duties, or from duties analogous to the Estate Duties. That was the subject of a memorable Debate in 1853, and it has been the principle of Parliament ever since. We have made a slight concession in the preceding Sub-section, and it is seized upon as a reason for repealing the whole principle. Governments do not impose taxes for the pleasure of imposing them. If once you make the concession that gifts of charity are to escape Death Duties, there is no limit to the extent to which what you raise by Death Duties may be broken into. It is quite impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. WATERLOW: I was hoping that the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment. It is perfectly true that as the law stands at present a hospital has to pay Death Duties on any gift if the donor dies within 12 months. As I understand, that principle will continue, and the concession the Government have made is that the 12 months shall not be extended to three years. That is a very small concession. In view of the serious financial straits in which hospitals are placed, it must be to the public advantage that donors should be encouraged in every possible way to give their money to such institutions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that he would lose money if he made this concession. That may be so; but the amount would be extremely small, while the advantage to the hospitals would be great. On behalf of the hospitals I ask the Government to grant this concession.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think the Government have not quite realised the great change which has taken place since 1853. We more and more feel that the pressure upon charitable donors and great institutions is increasing. I do not believe for a moment that in 1853 the necessity for hospitals was appreciated to the same extent as now; I am absolutely certain that in 1853 the necessity for charitable gifts and other bequests for purposes of higher education was not appreciated. As civilisation becomes more complicated, as the demand for these institutions increases, and as we have to compete more and more with foreign countries who draw more freely upon the public purse than by our traditions and practice we do in this country, it is specially desirable that we should do all we can to encourage these private bequests, whether in the last year of life or any other. I do not in the least sympathise with the contempt and scorn which is poured upon those who give their money only when they are within measurable distance of the time when they will be no longer able to enjoy it. I quite agree that if I were to weigh their moral qualities in comparison with those who give at an earlier stage of life I should not put them on the same level. But I am looking at the matter, not from the point of view of the morality of the donor, but from the point of view of the institutions. We want greater gifts to be given to promote higher education in our universities and to help the prodigious work now done by hospitals, not merely in dealing with
    1136
    cases of sickness and accident, but in carrying out those important investigations upon which, in my opinion, so much of the future increased happiness of mankind depends. The need for the recognition of these modern necessities as compared with the recognition some 54 or 55 years ago is strengthened by the collateral effects of the present Budget. We need not from this point of view consider the fairness or propriety of the Budget, but undoubtedly it does, apart from the necessities of the national finances, press upon properties from which these contributions used chiefly to be paid. I merely desire, apart from opinion, to state naked, hard and undeniable facts. If it be as I have stated that is all the more reason for taking care in this Budget that we do all we can to promote at any time of life the liberality of those who are in a position to give for public beneficent objects, educational, medical, or otherwise. Under these circumstances, though it may be quite impossible to induce the Government to alter their decision, I cannot refrain from adding my voice to that of my hon. Friend's, by way of appeal to the Government to, if possible, make some concession which really cannot seriously hurt the Exchequer, but may aid those great institutions which may be in need of the subscriptions of those able to give.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should be very glad, if possible, to respond to the very eloquent appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I would remind the House that this Amendment is not altogether for educational or hospital purposes, but "for public or charitable purposes." That will include a very wide area of disposition which comes under the term charity.
    Mr. CAVE: The same words are in the Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree, but this is another thing, and I want the House to remember that we are not altering the law.
    Mr. BALFOUR: That is quite true.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: To an extent we are altering it by making the concession, but we are taking care in our proviso, in so far as we are altering the law, that gifts which are not applied for public or charitable purposes are not included; and we can hardly include hospitals. May I point out that the Government quite ap-

    1137
    preciate the importance of giving encouragement, more especially to hospitals, and part of the proceeds that we are raising will go towards the maintenance of hospitals. I have not the faintest doubt, so far as this Budget is concerned, hospitals will be very much better off as part of the general scheme, of which the Budget is only a portion, and therefore from the point of view of hospitals I do not think there is much to complain of. I wish the House to bear in mind that on the whole we are leaving charities better off than before.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I should like to ask a question which arises out of the answer the Chancellor has just given. Many of us on this side of the House were not aware that part of the funds raised by the Finance Bill were to be devoted to this form of insurance—sickness and sick pay. I should like, if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us, under which estimate that money comes.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 63.

    Division No. 856.]

    AYES.

    [11.17 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Agnew, George William

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hall, Frederick

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Rea, Walter Pussell (Scarborough)

    Barker, Sir John

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Brace, William

    Hodge, John

    Robinson, S.

    Brigg, John

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Rowlands, J.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Seely, Colonel

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Shackleton, David James

    Clough, William

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Snerwell, Artnur James

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Keating, M.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Summerbell, T.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lambert, George

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Crossley, William J.

    Lament, Norman

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Toulmin, George

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Verney, F. W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Vivian, Henry

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Wadsworth, J.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Walsh, Stephen

    Elibank, Master of

    Lupton, Arnold

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Erskine, David C.

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Marnham, F. J.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Massie, J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Falconer, J.

    Middlebrook, William

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Mond, A.

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Glover, Thomas

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Balcarres, Lord

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry N.)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Carille, E. Mildred

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Cave, George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Stanier, Beville

    Douglas, Fit. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Starkey, John R.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Fell, Arthur

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Forster, Henry William

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Gretton, John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Radford, G. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir H. Kimber and Mr. Hills.

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Question, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Sir HENRY KIMBER Sir HENRY KIMBER moved in the third paragraph, after the word "marriage" ["made in consideration of marriage"] to insert the words "or consanguinity."
    You have exempted any donation given by a testator during the three years in consideration of the marriage of a daughter, sister, or anybody, and I ask the Government whether it is not equally fair that a donation made during the three years to a son or a daughter for their advancement in life should be exempt. The money has been parted with out of the testator's estate, and it seems to me rather unconscionable that the Death Duties should be levied on it as if it still existed and was included in the money left behind. If you are to exclude the money he gives to his daughter upon her marriage, it appears to me the same equitable consideration should apply to a donation given to a son for his advancement in the army, the navy, or even in a mercantile business. The money will have been parted with by the testator, and certainly will not be part of his estate in reality, however much you may seek to include it for the purpose of calculating the duty. It is not the duty merely upon the gift which I seek to release. The inclusion of such a gift, whether upon marriage or not, may bring the total amount of the estate over one of the graduated steps at which the rate of charge for the Death Duties will be increased, not upon the part but upon the whole of the estate. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for War, whose knowledge of equitable consideration cannot be transcended, even if it can be equalled, whether they will not consider this and bring it within the exemptions made in the Clause.
    Viscount HELMSLEY Viscount HELMSLEY seconded the Amendment.
    Mr. HALDANE: Because we have exempted marriage contracts, the hon. Baronet seems to think we should exempt gifts to a man's third cousin once removed. The proposition is impossible.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Sir H. KIMBER Sir H. KIMBER moved in the last paragraph of the Clause to leave out the word "and" ["and to have been reasonable"] and to insert instead thereof the word "or."
    Mr. CARLILE Mr. CARLILE seconded the Amendment.
    Mr. HALDANE: This would make a huge gap. It proposes that where a man chooses to make a gift to his son it shall not pay duty. It would involve an enormous loss to the revenue and we cannot, therefore, accept the proposal.
    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved to add at the end of the Clause:—
    "Where property taken under such a disposition or affected by such a surrender, assurance, divesting or disposition as aforesaid is deemed to be property passing on the death of the deceased by reason only that the property was not, as from the date of the disposition, surrender, assurance, or divesting retained to the entire exclusion of the deceased or a person who had an estate or interest limited to cease on the death of the deceased, and of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise, the property shall not be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased if subsequently, by means of the surrender of the benefit reserved or other-

    1141
    wise, it is enjoyed to the entire exclusion of the deceased or such other person as aforesaid, and of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise for such period preceding the death of the deceased as is provided by this Section."
    The object of this Amendment is to get rid of an anomaly, and I move the Subsection in words which I understand are accepted by the Government.
    Mr. HALDANE: The position is simply this. Under the law as it stood, if a gift of a livelihood were made within a year of death the gift paid duty as part of the estate. In the year 1900, under the Finance Act, gifts of that kind were relieved of the duty; the actual life estate was released, it being found that if the life interest were released no property passes. No property could be deemed to pass, and the Government, in order to put that right, and in order to give an air of generosity to the transaction, passed a Clause which enacted that when the life interest was released in this fashion by death of the person whose estate paid the duty, no duty shall be payable. Now comes the hon. and learned Member who says, "If a life estate has this beneficial treatment, how can you refuse it in other cases?" I agree we cannot. We feel that, and now we have made the full concession with regard to all this class of case.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Sir HENRY KIMBER Sir HENRY KIMBER moved at the end of the Clause to insert the words, "Where the person making or effecting and the person taking a benefit under any such gift inter vivos, surrender, assurance, divesting, or disposition shall both die within such period of three years, any property which is the subect of such gift, surrender, assurance, divesting, or disposition, and which shall have been charged with Estate Duty on the first of such deaths, shall not again be chargeable with Estate Duty on the death of the survivor of such persons, or be liable to aggregation on his death." I think this, again, is a case in which the Government will concede the fairness and the equity of the concession which is asked.
    Mr. HALDANE: If there is one principle which has been firmly fixed in the Death Duties Act since the time of Mr. Pitt it is that you do not make an alteration merely because two people die near to one
    1142
    another. I do not say it would not be right to do it generally, but you cannot do it on an Amendment like this or at this stage of the Bill. It is a principle which has been observed before, but now comes the hon. Baronet and proposes his Amendment, but we cannot introduce it at this time of the day.
    Mr. BALFOUR: When the present Government find principles I always know there is something wrong. I put this simple point to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, do they think it right that if a man hands over his property to his eldest son three years before his death, and the son dies within three years, and the man himself dies within three years—that is the proposal which is now put—that you ought to charge the same estate at short intervals, and therefore amplify the Death Duties and mulct the estate. If you would deal with individuals as you deal with the corporations and charge them at fixed intervals every man who owns money and property would know where he was. They would be impoverished, but they would know when they were to be impoverished, but no man can know where he is if you impoverish that estate very frequently or every two or three years. It is a grave defect in the whole scheme, and the Amendment does something to remedy it, and I am sorry the Government, on the ground of principle, think so obvious an act of equity and justice cannot be performed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 60.—(Amendment as to Value of Property.)
    (1) In the case of any person dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the proviso to Subsection (5) of Section seven of the principal Act (which relates to the estimation of the principal value of property for the purposes of Estate Duty) shall cease to have effect.
    (2) In estimating the principal value of any property under Sub-section (5) of Section seven of the principal Act, in the case of any person dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the Commissioners shall fix the price of the property according to the market price at the time of the death of the deceased, and shall not make any reduction in the estimate on account of the estimate being made on the assumption that the whole property is to be placed on the market at one and the same time.
    (3) An appeal shall not lie under Section ten of the principal Act, where the question in dispute is a question of the value of any real (including leasehold) property, but if any person is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners as to the value of any such property, he may appeal against the decision in manner prescribed by Part I. of this Act, and the provisions as to appeals under that part of this Act shall apply accordingly.
    Mr. HILLS Mr. HILLS moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "cease to have effect" and to insert instead thereof the words "have effect as if the words 'be ascertained by reference to' were inserted therein in the place of the words 'not exceed twenty-five times.'"
    Section 7 of the Act of 1894 gives a special exemption to agricultural land, and states that the value of such land is not to exceed 25 times the annual value, with certain deductions. But Clause 61 in this Bill has removed that exemption, so when this Bill passes no number of years' purchase can be taken as the multiplier of the usual value of such land to find the capital value. If my Amendment is passed, the limit of 25 years is still moved out, and the basis of valuation is levied upon the annual value. Though you can take any number of years' purchase and find the annual value of agricultural property, you must proceed upon the basis of annual value, and surely it is a very reasonable thing to do. The scheme of the Act of 1894 proceeds upon the basis of annual value, and applies a certain multiplier to the annual value to find the capital value, and even though you have moved out the 25 years' limit, you do not intend to change the basis of valuation. Unless some such words as mine are moved into the Bill, it might be that the whole scheme of valuation under the Act is different from the Act of 1894. Since 1894 all valuers of farm property have gone upon the scheme of working out the annual value first, and then applying the multiplier of a certain number of years to find the capital value, and it is the only reasonable way of getting the value, and if you move out this proviso and do not insert the words which are in my Amendment, you change the scheme of valuation. It is reasonable in any case, but I wish to press it for this further reason. In Committee, the Government were expressly asked if they intended to change the scheme, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said No, the basis of valuation was still to remain the annual value. I
    1144
    think he will agre that some words of this sort are required to fulfil that promise. Without them we have no certainty that the basis will still be annual value.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment stated that his proposal would mean the elimination of the 25 years multiple. If that is so—and I agree with him that it would do so—there would be no multiple by which you could arrive at the value of the property. Therefore, the result of putting in these words would be that you would have no method of ascertaining the value of the property. Though he proposes the removal of the present 25 years multiple, he substitutes nothing for it. For that reason we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. CAVE: I think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is not sufficient. The point is this: In the Committee stage the question was asked, "Do you mean to alter the basis of assessment except by striking out the 25 years?" and the answer was, "No, we mean to keep the same method of assessment—that is by taking the annual value as defined in the Finance Act of 1894." In that way you would arrive at the capital value by multiplying the annual value by a certain number of years' purchase. It is quite true that my hon. Friend does not propose any new multiple. He takes it that the valuer will fix that, having regard to the nature of the property. His point is that if we are to have any adherence at all to the answers given in Committee, this matter must be dealt with in one way or another. The Bill, as it stands, throws over the method of assessment laid down in, I think, Section 7 of the Finance Act of 1894. That Section provides that you should take not more than 25 years' purchase with certain deductions, and 5 per cent. for expenses. If you do not accept this Amendment, or something like it, you throw over the whole of that provision, and leave the valuer to put his valuation on the property as in the case of other property which is not agricultural. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I know that some hon. Members care nothing for agriculture, but the Government profess to care for it, and to be desirous of treating agricultural property fairly, and not increasing the burdens upon it. Unless you accept the Amendment you are increasing the burdens on agricultural property, and you are not giving effect to the pledges which were given in Committee.
    Mr. HALDANE: The Bill, as it stands, strikes out the proviso in Section 7, Subsection (5), of the Finance Act, 1894. That proviso derived its force from the reference to the limitation to 25 times the value. That has gone. If you want some general words, such as suggested, to be ascertained by references without any period of years, what you get is a very general kind of rule, something wholly different for ascertaining the value. It has been thought much fairer to adopt the course in the Bill, remembering the concessions about ascertaining the value of property under Schedule A, which is directly germane to what we have here, and the other concessions which we make, and it would be very retrograde to lay down a kind of rule such as is suggested and to suggest a proviso which is useless, and would add nothing practically to the law as it stands with the absence of the 25 times proviso.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Are we to understand the right hon. Gentleman asks us to believe that striking out this proviso is a concession to agriculture? My recollection is that in Committee the Government gave some pledge to alter the Bill with regard to striking out the 25 times limit, and I am disappointed that they have not seen their way to carry out that pledge. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman what he meant by his reference to the valuation of Schedule A? I do not see that the difference, which has been made in collecting the Income Tax under Schedule A, has anything to do with the valuation of agricultural estates for the purpose of Death Duties. On what basis will the valuations proceed when they do value agricultural estates?
    Mr. HALDANE: Under the law as it stood the poorest classes of property used to pay up to the hilt, and the better and richer classes of property, which fetched 30 years' purchase in the market, would pay only 25 years. The plan we now adopt will put all property on the same basis as to its market value.
    Mr. M. HICKS BEACH: The question of the basis of valuation was debated in the early hours of the morning in Committee, and to the best of my recollection, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that though he was doing away with the 25 years' limit he was not doing away with the basis of valuation under Schedule A, under which certain deductions are allowed from the gross income before the
    1146
    assessment is arrived at. The assessment of agricultural property for Death Duties in the past has been based on a number of years' purchase not to exceed 25. Now the Government have done away with the 25 years. They promised, in Committee, that they were not going to do away with the exemptions that are allowed under Schedule A. So far as I understand to-night, the Government have not only done away with the 25 years' limit, but they have also done away with the allowance abatement in Schedule A, and by so doing they will materially raise the gross assessment of agricultural property for the purposes of Estate Duty. That is the impression forced upon me in the course of this short debate. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer clears up this point he will be doing a service to my hon. Friend and to the country at large, which is interested in the assessment of agricultural property.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Hitherto it has been understood that the valuation of agricultural properties has been rather lenient. The major premiss in taking the value of agricultural land is to take the annual value under Schedule A with certain deductions, and it was rather a lenient major premiss. Are you going to alter that major premiss in order to get at the market value? That may be a more stringent market value than we have been accustomed to in the case of agricultural property in the past. If that is your wish there is no more to be said. Let Members opposite who are interested in agricultural property, and there are, I believe, a great many of them, understand quite clearly the road down which they are marching. If we have an answer to that, at any rate we shall not approach the division under a misconception.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: At the present moment agricultural property is not treated equally. One class of agricultural property is probably over-valued, and another class is valued too low, though better able to bear the burden. Property worth 25 to 35 years' purchase gets off very lightly, and another class of property that cannot be sold at 20 years' purchase is rated up to the last penny. That is very unequal valuation. All we say is that agricultural property should pay on the real market value, whatever it is. When you come to deductions, they are bound to enter into the market value, and the valuation will be on a more equal basis than we have hitherto had. We have made a concession of £500,000, and

    1147
    we are quite willing to carry out the concession to the limit of our means. On this particular point we recognise that there are elements that ought to be taken into consideration, and they have always to be taken into account exactly as under Schedule A.
    Sir JOHN BRUNNER: I have made it apparent that my sympathies are rot entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave). I have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are two classes of agricultural land—one worth a few years' purchase and the other worth 30 or 35 years' purchase. I
    have been against putting the value of agricultural land at 25 years' purchase ever since it was proposed by Sir William Harcourt, and for the reason that there is a considerable amount of agricultural and which is worth not 25 or 30 or 35 years' purchase, but is worth 200 and 300 years' purchase; and that land has been exempted ever since 1894, and as I have been against it all that time the hon. and learned Gentleman will not be surprised that I do not sympathise with him to-night.
    Question put, "That the words 'cease to have effect' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 46.

    Division No. 857.]

    AYES.

    [12.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Agnew, George William

    Hall, Frederick

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Radford, G. H.

    Barker, Sir John

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Robinson, S.

    Brace, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

    Hodge, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rowlands, J.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hooper, A. G.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Byles, William Pollard

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Clough, William

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Seely, Colonel

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Shackleton, David James

    Collins, Sir Win. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Keating, Matthew

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lambert, George

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lamont, Norman

    Summerbell, T.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Crossley, William J.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Toulmin, George

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Verney, F. W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Walsh, Stephen

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Marnham, F. J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Falconer, J.

    Middlebrook, William

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Mond, A.

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Glover, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Carlile, E. Mildred

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cave, George

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fell, Arthur

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Forster, Henry William

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Starkey, John R.

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Renwick, George

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hills and Mr. Hicks Beach.

    Lane-Fox, G. R

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Stanier, Beville

    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS Mr. WALTER GUINNESS moved, in Sub-section (2) to leave out the word "market" ["according to the market price at the time"] and after the word "price" ["market price"] to insert the word "obtainable."
    The Clause as it stands lays down that in fixing the price of the property for the purposes of the Death Duties the Commissioners are to take the market price. So far as I can understand, in the case of stocks and shares the market price will be held to be the quotation in the official list of the Stock Exchange the day after death. As the House no doubt is aware the procedure is to take the official price and assess the value of the property at 25 per cent. up from the lower-price. That system is fair enough where there is a free market. It is all right, say, in the case of sales of Canadian Pacifies, where there are, it may be, many hundreds of transactions in a single day. But where there are no dealings in the stock, and no market at all, it is, I think, very probable that trouble and injustice may result. Where there is no market for stock the price published in the official list is quite unreliable. It is the practice where the stock is practically unsaleable to retain, as the official quotation, a price based on the last quotation for business. Take the case of brewery debentures. In a great many instances at the present time there is no market whatever for them. Particular stock may not have been sold for many weeks. The Stock Exchange quotation is fixed on the basis of the last bargain, and it is probably quite impossible to sell even £25 worth of the stock at a price within the limits shown in the Stock Exchange list.
    Apparently this is not an imaginary difficulty, because in the Committee stage a case was brought forward in which the Inland Revenue Commissioners had, since the introduction of the Finance Bill, refused to accept a certificate that the official quotation was not realisable, and they stated, although they did not intend to traverse the accuracy of that statement, that they had had instructions to be guided
    1150
    only by the official market price as published in the list. We understood in the Committee stage that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not hold that that was fair and reasonable procedure. He assured us that he was only anxious to take as the value what property would fetch if sold. Unfortunately this matter came on at 4 o'clock in the morning—it was discussed very hastily, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to drop the word "normal" and to leave it at "market price." I do not think that that meets the case at all. If you leave "market price" you will be bound by the official quotation of the Stock Exchange. I hope that the sober reasonableness which the right hon. Gentleman then showed will prevail now, and that he will be quite ready to modify these words. I think we can take as a guide Section 7, Sub-section (5), of the Act of 1894. It says: "The probable value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, such property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of death." This is obviously a far more favourable system than that proposed in this Bill There is no question of taking the official quotation if that quotation cannot be upheld in the open market. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should drop the word "market" and substitute for it the words the "price obtainable," and so prevent a grievance from arising.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment, especially as I understand there is some doubt about the legal meaning of the word "market." I say, speaking as a City man—I am, unfortunately, not a lawyer—there can be no doubt whatever that market price means the price you can get. Market price in the City would not be taken to be the official quotation. I have had TO make valuations many and many a time where there has been a nominal quotation, and when I found I could not deal with the price I tried to ascertain what I could get if I had to sell, and I certified that that was the market price. I think there

    1151
    would be no doubt in the City that that was the market price. If there is any legal doubt, I certainly think it ought to be cleared up in order that the intention of the Government should be made clear. I am sure the Government do not wish to encourage fees to lawyers any more than we do on this side of the House.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The best answer to the Mover of the Amendment was that given by the Seconder. I think it is a complete answer. That is the view taken by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and at is their practice. The very instance put by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) in Committee. I ventured to express surprise at it at the time. I inquired into the matter and I find it was taken under a complete misapprehension, and that the duties were returned. I should think there could not be the slightest doubt about the matter, but if the word "obtainable" was introduced a considerable element of doubt would arise. Take the case of brewery shares put by the hon. Member. A man might not be able to sell them at the time and therefore they would represent no value at the moment, but clearly that would not be the case. The mere fact that there may be no quotation for the moment does not prove they are of no value. The word "obtainable," if put in, might introduce doubt of that kind, and therefore it is far better to take the city interpretation of the words "market price." That is the view taken by the Commissioners at the present moment.
    Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE: I had occasion recently to have some experience of the practice of Somerset House in this matter, and the point of view they took was that a proportion of the official list should be taken as the marked price. I was immensely surprised to find this was their custom, because I had the estate with which I was dealing valued by experts belonging to the Stock Exchange, and a set of prices were made out for Somerset House as market prices and these prices were altered, as far as I can see, without rhyme or reason, so they must go in some way by the prices in the official list and make alterations in respect of them.
    Mr. HILLS: I can confirm what the last speaker has said. In cases of shares quoted in the official list the Commissioners
    1152
    insist upon the prices in this list being treated as the value of the shares. In certain cases you can induce them to say that the value in the list is not an excessive one, and in those cases they will accept a reduction. The practice is that when a security is quoted only the official list is taken. You may get a certificate of high standing, but it is not regarded if the quotation in the official list is different. All this Amendment says is that the basis of value should be the price obtainable. It puts a security on the same level as the property was put by the Act of 1894, and that is surely a fair way. I do not think the Government intend to assess taxation upon an artificial value. If you say they are to pay the probable price they can obtain in the market you may not get the full value. I think the Government can very reasonably accept this Amendment. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the practice is that only the official list is regarded, and the prices there are not always what can be obtained in the open market. All we want to do is to secure that the stock shall pay on the cash value.
    Mr. CLAUDE HAY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the case to which allusion has been made was one in regard to which a misconception had arisen. I notice that in the Committee stage there was put before the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee a letter, in which it was pointed out that the action of the Commissioners in the case which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to-night was action taken directly in accordance with the instructions of the Commissioners after the passing of the Finance Bill. What I want to ask is whether any different instructions have been given to the Commissioners so that the misconception which arose then cannot recur. Perhaps no instructions whatsoever have been given, and there may be merely an understanding of an indefinite character on which the Commissioners act. If so the difficulties of which my hon. Friend has spoken might arise again.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was purely a mistake in interpretation, and it will not be necessary to issue any fresh instructions at all.
    Question put, "That the word 'market' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 35.

    Division No. 858.]

    AYES.

    [12.25 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Glover, Thomas

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Agnew, George William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hall, Frederick

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Radford, G. H.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Richards, Thomas W. (Monmouth)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Robinson, S.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Brace, William

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Seely, Colonel

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Shackleton, David James

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hooper, A. G.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Clough, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Summerbell, T.

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S

    Keating, M.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lambert, George

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lament, Norman

    Toulmin, George

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Verney, F. W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks., Otley)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Essex, R. W.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Esslemont, George Birnle

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Marnham, F. J.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Falconer, J.

    Middlebrook, William

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Ferens, T. R.

    Mond, A.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Nuttall, Harry

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Stanier, Seville

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Starkey, John R.

    Barrie, K. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Valentia, Viscount

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Walrend, Hon. Lionel

    Cave, George

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Walter Guinness and Mr. Hills.

    Forster, Henry William

    Renwick, George

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (2) to insert the words, "Provided that where it is proved to the Commissioners that the value of the property has been depreciated by reason of the death of the deceased, the Commissioners in fixing the price shall take such depreciation into account."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Subsection (3), after the word "Act" ["Section ten of the Municipal Act"] to insert the words "whether as originally enacted or as applied by any other enactment."
    Mr. CAVE: The effect of this Amendment is to abolish the appeal to the Court and to substitute an appeal to the Referee. It is proposed to extend it to all cases to which the Finance Act, 1894, applied. I should like to know what are those cases?
    Mr. HALDANE: The purport of the Amendment is to meet the deduction under the Licensing Act, 1904, of Estate Duty for the purpose of valuation.
    Mr. CAVE: Is it intended by the Amendment to abolish the appeal to the Court under that Act? I certainly should not have expected such a thing to be done by a side wind as to alter the whole basis of the ascertainment of value. I thought there must he some mistake or that I had misread the Amendment. The matter is one of extreme seriousness, and my friends who take a special interest in these Licensing Clauses are not here. The Finance Act of 1894 gives an appeal to the Court against the ascertainment of value by Commissioners, and the Licensing Act of 1904 says, in ascertaining compensation

    1155
    value you are to have similar appeals as under the Act of 1894. Now it is proposed to do away with that appeal to the Court under the Act of 1894, and I do not complain of that, but it will also do away with appeal to the Court under the Compensation Act of 1904. The Secretary of State for War announced that the Amendment would do away with the appeal to the Court.
    Mr. HALDANE: I said the purport of the Amendment was to meet the case of deduction under the Act of 1894 of the Estate Duty. There is an appeal from the Referee to the Court in all cases.
    Mr. CAVE: Then I am right, and it is intended by these words to transfer the appeal under the icensing Act from the Court to the Referee.
    Mr. HALDANE: It is an appeal to the High Court from the Referee. The Licensing Act of 1904 adopted the principle of
    the Finance Act of 1894, and we put this in, in order to give the same right of appeal in this case. There is in every case an appeal from the Referee to the High Court.
    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved in the proposed Amendment to leave out the word "applied" ["enacted or as applied"] and to insert instead thereof the word "amended."
    You are not putting this in, in order to give the same right of appeal but in order to take away the existing right of appeal to the Court, and I feel very strongly about it. I strongly object to your altering the right of appeal under the Licensing Act of 1904.
    Mr. HILLS Mr. HILLS seconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Question put, "That the word 'applied' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 30.

    Division No. 859.]

    AYES.

    [12.40 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Hall, Frederick

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Agnew, George William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Radford, G. H.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Robinson, S

    Bennett, E. N.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Brace, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hooper, A. G.

    Seely, Colonel

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Shackleton, David James

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Clough, William

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Keating, Matthew

    Summerbell, T.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lambert, George

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lamont, Norman

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Toulmin, George

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Verney, F. W.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Walsh. Stephen

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lupton, Arnold

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Falconer, J.

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Middlebrook, William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Mond, A.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Murray, Capt. Hon A. C. (Kincard.)

    Glover, Thomas

    Nuttall, Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Stanier, Beville

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Valentia, Viscount

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cave and Mr. Hills.

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 61.—(Special Provisions with Respect to Certain Classes of Property.)
    (1) Notwithstanding anything in the last preceding Section, Sub-section (5) of Section seven of the principal Act shall continue to apply to the valuation of property consisting of a tenancy from year to year, and for determining the gross value of property for the purpose of Section sixteen of the principal Act.
    (2) Where it is claimed that a fixed duty is payable in respect of any property under Sub-section (1) of Section sixteen of the principal Act as being property of a gross value not exceeding three hundred pounds or five hundred pounds, as the case may be, and such property includes property which is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be subject to a charge created for the purpose of securing unpaid purchase money, or to be subject to or liable to be made subject to a charge for securing an advance made or to be made for the purpose of the purchase thereof, the value thereof for the purpose of determining the gross value of the property under the said Section shall be taken to be its value subject to such charge or liability as aforesaid.
    (3) Land subject to an annuity under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts shall be treated as real property for the purposes of Sub-section eight of Section six of the principal Act, relating to the payment of Estate Duty by instalments.
    Drafting Amendments made.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of the Clause to add:—
    "(4) Where the property passing on the death of a person dying after the passing of this Act comprises the purchase money of land agreed to be sold under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts, but the purchase money has not been paid, the Estate Duty payable in respect of that purchase money may, at the option of the person liable to pay the same, be postponed until the purchase money is actually paid, and shall then become payable, but the person liable to pay the duty shall in the meantime pay annually interest oh the amount of the duty payable at the rate of three per cent. per annum."
    Amendment proposed: At the end of the Clause, after the words last inserted, to add:—
    "(5) Where an estate, in respect of which Estate Duty is payable on the death of a person dying after the passing of this Act, comprises land on which timber, trees, or wood are growing, the value of such timber, trees, or wood shall be aggregated with the other property passing on the death of the deceased for the purpose of determining the value of the estate, and the rate of Estate Duty, but the Estate Duty which, but for this Subsection, would be payable on the principal value of the timber, trees, or wood shall not be payable thereon, but shall, at the rate so ascertained, be payable on the net moneys (if any), after deducting all necessary outgoings since the death of the deceased, which may from time to time be received from the sale of the timber, trees, or wood when felled during the period which may elapse until the land on the death of some other person again becomes liable or would, but for this Sub-section, have become liable to Estate Duty, and the owners or trustees of such land shall account for and pay the same accordingly as and when such moneys are received, with interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the date when such moneys are received.
    "Provided that if at anytime the timber, trees, or wood are sold either with or apart from the land on which they are growing, the amount of Estate Duty on the principal value thereof which, but for this Sub-section, would have been payable on the death of the deceased, after deducting the amount (if any) of Estate Duty paid in respect of the timber, trees, or wood under this Sub-section since that date, shall become payable.
    "This Sub-section shall apply to succession duty payable in respect of woodlands in like manner as it applies to Estate Duty, except that nothing in this Sub-section shall affect the rate of Succession Duty."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: I handed in a manuscript Amendment but do not intend to move it. I am strongly of opinion that woods cannot pay to plant, but acknowledge that there is a certain concession in the Amendment put on the Paper.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The words "all necessary outgoings" may be taken in too narrow a sense as being simply the outgoings necessary to realise the timber, and not the outgoings necessary for the proper management of the woodlands. I would therefore suggest that the words in the

    1159
    Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson), "all outgoings necessary for the proper management of this woodlands," be incorporated in the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith is much narrower than the Amendment which I have put on the Paper. I really think I have gone very far, so far indeed that I am alarmed as to its effects on the revenue.
    Amendment made.
    Ordered, "That further consideration of the Bill, as Amended, be now adjourned until to-morrow."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Bill, as Amended, to be further considered to-morrow.

POLICE (LIVERPOOL INQUIRY) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
Resolved, "That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1909–10 be approved."—[Mr. Lambert.]
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Five minutes before One o'clock.