§ (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 SAMUELI 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. ARKWRIGHTI 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. CARLILEI beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
§ Mr. H. BELLOCIn 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. YOUNGERThe 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.
1027| 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 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."
1028§ 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 FELLI 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 SAMUELThe 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. GOULDINGI spoke on behalf of the small hotels in provincial and market towns.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI 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 LONGI 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 SAMUELTheir rateable value would not be high.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGReally 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 SAMUELThe right hon. Gentleman has not quoted a single figure or given a specific case.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGI 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. BARNARDI 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. GOULDINGNone of the proposals, as I understand, brought in yesterday would be at all available for these little houses.
§ Mr. BARNARDIt 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. YOUNGERThey have to.
§ Mr. BARNARDThat 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. SHERWELLI 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. BALFOURWhile 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. SHERWELLMy 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. BALFOURI 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 EVANSIn 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.
1043| 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) 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-FOXI 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 SAMUELI 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. GRETTONThat is quite another point.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt 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. YOUNGERIn 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 SAMUELIt 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. YOUNGERHas the right hon. Gentleman informed the hotel-keepers, because, if so, he will agree with me they are not satisfied.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe 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 KIMBERI 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 SAMUELI was then speaking of public-houses.
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERThe 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 SAMUELOh, yes.
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERAnd 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 SAMUELThat is not the figure of the duty payable.
§ Sir H. KIMBERNo, 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 SAMUELNo.
§ Sir H. KIMBERThen you left in that paragraph?
§ Sir S. EVANSYes.
§ Sir H. KIMBERNevertheless, 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. SPEAKERThe 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. KIMBERI was dealing with the proposals in the Clause.
§ Mr. SPEAKERYes. We are not discussing the Clause now, but this particular Amendment.
§ Sir H. KIMBERThe 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 SAMUELWhat is it now?
§ Sir H. KIMBERIt 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 LONGI 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. HENDERSONAs 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 SAMUELThey will pay nothing for Licence Duty. They pay nothing more under this Bill.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONI 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. BARNARDThe 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. BALFOURThe 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 HOPEThe 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.
1059| 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 |
| 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 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 CORNWALLI 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 SAMUELI 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 ROBERTSI 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.
1067| 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 |
| 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 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.
1068§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS seconded the Amendment.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe 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.
1069| 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 SAMUELI 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.