Commons Sitting of 1 September 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
WAYS AND MEANS.
Resolved, "That this House will, tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.—[Mr. Lewis Harcourt.]
FINANCE [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be payable under any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, and of authorising the payment into the Exchequer of certain duties now payable to County Councils (King's recommendation signified). To-morrow.—[Mr. Lewis Harcourt.]
DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS [MONEY].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament and out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be payable under any Act of the present Session to promote the economic development of the United Kingdom, and the improvement of roads therein (King's recommendation signified). To-morrow— [Mr. Lewis Harcourt.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Naval Manœuvres (Destruction of Papers).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, among the reports of which the destruction has recently been ordered by the Admiralty, there are included any papers relating to naval manœuvres which have been laid before Parliament?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The reply to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. MICHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentlemen say what the reports were?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will give me notice of his question I will endeavour to answer it.
  Lord BALCARRES: Are those papers available in the library?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the noble Lord will put down a question on the Paper I will inquire about it.

  Admiralty Dockyard Apprentices.
  Mr. LUPTONasked the right hon. Gentleman if apprentices at Admiralty dockyards are required to be vaccinated before being allowed to start work; whether such apprentices must also be revaccinated; whether in the event of vaccination causing serious indisposition, the apprentices receive full pay; and what provision in the regulations governing Admiralty servants permits the enforcement of this operation?
  Mr. McKENNA: Candidates must produce certificates to the satisfaction of the medical officer that they have been re-vaccinated, or they must be re-vaccinated, and must have recovered from re-vaccination before they can be considered eligible for entry into a dockyard.
  Mr. LUPTON: Are we to understand that a candidate before entering the dockyard is to be made ill, and then his application will be considered?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not agree with the allegations contained in the supposed facts put forward by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Supposing a lad injured his health as a result of vaccination, would he then be prevented from joining the Navy or the dockyard, as the case might be?
  Mr. McKENNA: An apprentice must in any case have recovered from any indisposition caused by vaccination before he enters upon work in the dockyard.
  Mr. LUPTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether an apprentice is paid for the time during which he is ill?
  Mr. McKENNA: He does not enter upon work in the dockyard until he has recovered.

  Elliott Kamwana, Nyassaland.
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention had been called to the case of Elliott Kamwana, a native of Nyassaland, who was brought before the resident magistrate's court at Chinteche, Bandawe, on 18th March last; if so, will he say what was the charge there made, and were any witnesses called in support of that charge; and, if not, on what grounds was he committed to prison until 4th May?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The attention of the Secretary of State was called to this matter in June last. The charge against Elliott Kamwana was that his preaching was of such a wild and extravagant character that, it was likely to produce serious native complications; this was substantiated by sworn native and European evidence. It was not necessary to call any witnesses at the Governor's inquiry, since Kamwana admitted to the Governor that his teaching was of the nature which had been reported.
  Mr. WATT: Am I to understand that this gentleman was put in goal for preaching?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir. He was detained under an Ordinance until inquiries were made into the nature of his speech. That inquiry was held and the result is as I have stated.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: Where was he detained?
  Colonel SEELY: He was detained at the place where he was preaching. The Governor gave him the alternative of either stopping his preaching or going away.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is it a fact that the preaching complained of referred to the Second Advent?
  Colonel SEELY: That was one of the things. Another was that there was to be no further taxation and that was considered to be wild and extravagant. Another statement was that the white population should disappear on a given day, and it was thought some excitable person might wish to hasten that event.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Was the statement that the abolition of taxation was to follow the Second Advent?
  Colonel SEELY: Very likely.

  Straits Settlements and Malay States (Opium Farms).
  Mr. LAIDLAWasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the fact that in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, where the conditions are very similar to those in Hong Kong, the opium farms are being abolished on the unanimous recommendation of the Straits Opium Commission and to prevent a system from being stereotyped for three years which may hamper the Government in its efforts to assist China, the Secretary of State will take steps to prevent any new opium farm contract being entered into at Hong Kong?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir; experience has shown that the farm system is that best suited to the circumstances of Hong Kong, and His Majesty's Government are satisfied that its existence will in no way hamper the Government in its efforts to assist China. An Ordinance recently passed as No. 16 of 1909, has considerably extended the Government's power of control over the opium farmer's proceedings. My hon. Friend will find a copy of this Ordinance in the Library of the House.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Will the hon. Gentleman state if the policy of His Majesty's Government is different to that of the Chinese Government, which is the suppression of the use of opium?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, no. We hope to co-operate with the Chinese Government in every possible manner in stopping the consumption of opium.

  Baghdad Railway.
  Mr. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has any information regarding further developments of the project commonly known as the Baghdad Railway to communicate to the House?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have no information to communicate to the House at present in regard to further developments of the Baghdad Railway.

  Hague Conference (Opium Question).
  Mr. LAIDLAWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any proposal

  347
  has been received from the American Government for a conference at the Hague on the opium question; and, if so, what reply has been sent?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the negative.

  Land Purchase (South Tyrone).
  Mr. GINNELasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will say how many agricultural tenants in South Tyrone have not yet purchased their holdings; how many of these have, since the second reading of the Irish Land Bill, expressed their willingness to purchase at higher prices and a higher rate of interest than their neighbours who have purchased are paying; and when and in what manner did they so express themselves?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (IRELAND) (Mr. T. W. Russell): The Department have no information as to the several points raised in the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman meet me at a public meeting on this subject in Dungannon?

  Buncrana Pier, Donegal.
  Mr. O'DOHERTYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the delay in proceeding with the work of extension of the pier at Buncrana, county Donegal, is due to the delay of that Department in furnishing certain plans to the Board of Trade as requested; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to expedite the matter?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: No avoidable delay has occurred. The Board of Trade have before them an application for conveyance of certain portions of the sea bed of which it is desirable that the Donegal County Council should be in possession in connection with the proposed enlargement of the pier at Buncrana. The quotations received by the Department for the supply of the materials that will be required in carrying out the works were such as to render it essential that alternative proposals for the expenditure of the available funds should be considered by the local authorities, with whom the Department are communicating.

  Police Act, 1890 (Annuities to Widows).
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in his promised Police Bill, he will add a Clause to amend Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, Part I., of the Police Act, 1890, so as to make the granting of a gratuity to the widow and children of a constable dying from any cause other than an injury received in the execution of his duty compulsory on the police authority?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Gladstone): If the hon. Member wishes to make the grant of an annuity compulsory in the circumstances he mentions, this would be a large proposal, which would throw a heavy charge on local authorities, and would be of a controversial character. But if he intended to refer to the grant of a gratuity, not an annuity, his proposal is one with which I have much sympathy; but I am afraid that at this late period of the Session I could not give any pledge to deal with it in the Bill.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been cases where the police authorities have refused to give gratuities to widows.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, and I have great sympathy with such cases.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment to his Bill in this direction if I move it.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I am afraid it is not possible to give any promise to deal with that at this late period of the Session.
  Mr. JOHNWARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that policemen killed in the execution of their duty should be treated less generously than workmen who are killed are treated under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I agree they should not be treated less generously.

  Post Office Examinations (Sheffield).
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention had been drawn to the recent examination held at Leeds on 16th June last, preliminary to appointments being made to the service in Sheffield, Leeds, and Bradford, when 50 young girls journeyed from Sheffield at an average cost (including stamp

  349
  fee) of 11s. 6d. each; that only two appointments were made, though 42 out of the 50 passed, and whether those who passed will now have to await another official notification that vacancies will be filled, or undergo another examination and incur fresh expenses; and whether he will arrange in future that such examinations be held in Sheffield for local candidates, and that the stamp fee and expenses be returned to those candidates who have passed the examination but have not been successful in procuring appointments?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The arrangements for the examinations in question are made by the Civil Service Commissioners. I am informed by them that at the recent examination Leeds was selected as a centre for reasons of convenience and public economy. The Commissioners state further that the arrangements must depend on the circumstances of each competition, but that they would be willing to consider whether large towns such as Sheffield should be made examination centres for similar competitions in future. It commonly happens that there is a large number of unsuccessful candidates in competitions, and there is no ground upon which the fees and expenses of such candidates could be returned. It cannot be stated at present whether or not it may be practicable to offer appointments to one or two of the unsuccessful candidates in the competition, but, failing such offer, they will have to compete in another competition if they desire appointment.
  Mr. ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that examinations in former years were held in Sheffield?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is so. The Civil Service Commissioners have control of these matters, and they assure me, as I have stated in my answer, that they will consider the case of Sheffield.

  Black Scab in Potatoes.
  Mr. J. P. HAYDENasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the disease known as black scab in potatoes prevails extensively in certain districts in England; and, if so, whether any, and what, steps have been taken by the Board of Agriculture for the stamping out of this disease or for preventing it spreading to other districts?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): Yes, I regret to say that this disease is prevalent in many parts of England, chiefly in allotment and cottage gardens. No remedy for it has as yet been discovered, but experiments are being carried out by the Board and several agricultural colleges in the hope of finding one. A leaflet on the subject has been issued by the Board and widely distributed.
  Mr. B. STANIER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware there are many gardens with not a single edible potato and that the disease is spreading from the gardens to the fields?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am not aware of that.

  Ordnance Survey Office (Promotion and Increase of Pay).
  Mr. DUDLEY WARDasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether any system is followed by the Director-General of the Ordnance Survey in granting promotion and increase of pay to the civil employés in the Ordnance Survey Office; if any system is followed; whether he will publish details of that system; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of giving the Civil servants referred to some information as to the improvement in the conditions of their employment, which in the ordinary course they may expect?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The system followed by the Director-General of the Ordnance Survey in granting promotion and increase of pay is set out under the heading "Promotion" on pages 9 to 11 of the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1891 [C.6692]. We should be happy to bring up to date the information given as to the Rates of Pay in the Appendices to that Report if it is so desired.

  Fair Wage Clause (Messrs. Spratt Brothers, Walthamstow).
  Mr. J. O'GRADYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Messrs. Spratt Brothers, a branch of Houghton's, Limited, Clifford-road, Walthamstow, are contractors to His Majesty's Government, and are employing cabinetmakers at rates of wages ranging from 6d. per hour to 8½d. per hour, as against the trade union wage of 10½d. per hour for the class of work required, and are working their employés 55 hours per week, which is five hours per week

  351
  beyond those current in London and district; whether he is aware that similar terms apply to the wood-working machinists and French polishers in the employ of this firm; and whether, in view of the terms of the Fair Wage Clause, steps will be taken to refuse tenders from firms who do not fully comply with the terms of the Clause?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Charles Hobhouse): If the hon. Member will furnish me with further particulars on the subject of his complaint, I will cause full inquiry to be made. I have not as yet been able to identify the contract to which the hon. Member refers.

  Communication of Tuberculosis in Schools (Kirriemuir).
  Mr. C. H. LYELLasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the giving of instruction in singing and other subjects to children in Kirriemuir by a teacher suffering from tuberculosis; and whether, in view of the danger of tuberculosis being communicated to the children, the Scottish Education Department is prepared to take any action in the matter?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. Ure): The Department have no official knowledge of the circumstances referred to, but in any case the matter is one which is entirely within the province of the school board to deal with either on their own motion or at the instance of the public health authority of the district.
  Mr. LYELL: In view of the very great danger to the children concerned, is it not possible for the Scotch Office to take some steps in the matter?
  Mr. URE: No, I think not.

  Parliamentary Elections (Practices of Questionable Legality).
  Mr. L. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General whether public practices of questionable legality preceding Parliamentary elections are not examined by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General unless brought under their notice by a person affected; whether it is intended to introduce legislation on this subject to counteract recent developments; and, if so, when he expects it will be introduced?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): Any substantial complaints made with regard to corrupt practices before or after an election are certainly considered. So far as I understand the question to relate to the intention of the Government as to legislation, I, of course, am not in a position to say anything.

  Money Lenders Act (Suggested Amendment).
  Mr. H. STAVELEY-HILLasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to an action brought in the Salford Hundred Court of Record by a Manchester money lender, who obtained judgment in default of appearance in two cases where a harsh and unconscionable rate of interest had been charged to two working men, and that when the judgment summons came on to be heard in the Cheadle (Staffs) County Court the judge had no power to apply the provisions of the Money Lenders Act, as judgment had already been obtained; and whether, having regard to the impossibility, on the ground of expense, of poor persons being able to attend the court in the first instance, and to take advantage of the provisions of the Money Lenders Act, he will suggest any amendment of the law so as to prevent a recurrence of similar cases?
  Sir W. ROBSON: In the case put by the hon. Member it will be seen that two defendants to an action by a money lender failed to appear. The result was that judgment went against them by default. It is suggested in the question that they have suffered some hardship because they were not allowed to put up the defence they ought to have set up when the judgment came to be enforced. I cannot agree that there is any hardship there, and I do not see how any legislation can prevent hardship arising to defendants who do not appear.

  Importation of Chinese Pork.
  Mr. A. FELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if the shipment of Chinese pork has now been passed by the inspectors, and if he has received any report from the inspectors of the condition of the pork?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): A small proportion only of the consignment of Chinese pigs has been exmined at present, as the examination is only made as the carcases are required for

  353
  trade purposes. As yet no report has been presented by the Medical Officer of Health for the City on the subject, and the time has not yet arrived when a general report could be made.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask how many tons, roughly, have been passed through at the present time, and also whether it is going into consumption without any report having been presented to the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BURNS: Not many tons have been passed into consumption. They are all in cold storage. I have two officers engaged on special examination on behalf of the Board itself, and the Chief Medical Officer of the Port Sanitary Authority with his staff is giving special attention to this matter.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Merchandise Marks Act would apply?
  Mr. BURNS: No; and if the hon. Member had seen these pigs, as I have, he would not want it to apply.
  Mr. P. J. O'SHAUGHNESSY: May I ask if this pork will be sold as Chinese pork and labelled as such?
  Mr. BURNS: Like all pork, it will be sold as pork. If it is good it will go into consumption; if it is bad the officers will condemn it.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Would it not be a fraud on Irish pork, for instance, if it were sold merely as pork, and if it were bad?
  Mr. SPEAKER: These are two hypothetical questions which the hon. Member had better put down.
  Mr. FELLasked what is the estimated cost of making the special inspection of the shipment of Chinese pork; and will the cost of it fall upon the importers or on the Government?
  Mr. BURNS: The examination of the pigs is carried out in the ordinary course of meat inspection made under the Public Health (Foreign Meat) Regulations, 1908, by officers who are appointed and paid by the City Corporation. The charge for the storage of the carcases pending examination falls upon the importers.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the quantity and value for import purposes of the shipment
  354
  of Chinese pork received in the Port of London last month?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): A single consignment of frozen pork was imported into the United Kingdom from China at the end of July, but too late for inclusion in the trade returns for that month. It amounted to 6,020 cwts. valued at £11,238.

  FINANCE BILL.

    NEW SURVEYING STAFF
    Mr. W. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Commissioner of Works what steps are being taken to provide office accommodation in London and the provinces for the new surveying staff to be appointed under the Finance Bill?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): No action has yet been taken by my Department in this matter, but I am in communication with the Inland Revenue.

    DUTIES ON LIQUOR LICENCES (HOTELS OR RESTAURANTS).
    Mr. J. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received communications from a firm in Scotland (not connected with the liquor trade) drawing his attention to Sub-section (3), Clause 30, of the Finance Bill; and if he will state for what purpose the particulars required to be furnished to the Commissioners are to be used?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have received a communication of the description referred to by my hon. Friend, from which I gather that there is some doubt in Scotland as to the purpose for which the particulars mentioned in Sub-clause (3) of Clause 30 of the Finance Bill are to be used. These particulars are required to be furnished for the purpose of ascertaining the values to be fixed under that Clause. Those values are to serve as the basis of Licence Duties, and they are quite distinct from the annual values of premises which are dealt with by valuation authorities for the purpose of rates and taxes.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the provisions of Subsection (2), Clause 30, of the Finance Bill do not apply to Scottish hotels, he will state in what manner it will be arranged so that such hotels will not be charged increased licensed duties in respect of profits I other than from sale of drink?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer to a question asked by him on 19th August, in view of which my right hon. Friend does not understand the statement in his present question that Sub-clause (2) of Clause 30 of the Finance Bill does not in fact apply to Scottish hotels. If he will send an explanation of the circumstances affecting these hotels upon which he bases his opinion, my right hon. Friend will be very glad to consider it.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the shorter hours allowed for the sale of drink in Scottish hotels, he will state if it is the intention of the Government to make an adequate reduction of the Licence Duty payable by such hotels?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is aware that the hours during which liquors may be sold in hotels and other licensed premises are not uniform throughout the United Kingdom, but he does not see his way to comply with the suggestion of my hon. Friend that he should make a reduction in the Licence Duty payable by Scottish hotels by reason of the limitation in the hours of sale at these hotels without giving similar consideration to limitations affecting other premises in different parts of the United Kingdom.

    LAND VALUES (YIELD).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked if any estimate has been made of the probable decrease of yield consequent upon alterations made in Part I. of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 4th of last month to a similar question by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).

    IRISH TENANT PURCHASERS (DEATH DUTY DEDUCTIONS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the circumstances of Ireland and the peculiar nature of the new tenure of land being created there under the Land Purchase Acts, whether it is intended that tenant purchasers shall, under the Finance Bill, as hitherto, be entitled to deduct the capital value of the annuity to which the land is subject as a head rent before assessment for Death Duty; whether he is aware that the proposed repeal of the proviso in Sub-section 5 of Section 7 of the Finance Act of 1894 would, in the absence of some
    356
    new provision, alter the law and practice in Ireland on this point and impose upon tenant purchasers a burden to which no other agricultural tenants in either Great Britain or Ireland are or will be subject; and whether, to illustrate the effects of the Bill as it now stands, he will state approximately the number of agricultural holdings in Ireland of 5, 10, and 20 acres worth £100, £200, and £400 respectively, the amount of Death Duty, if any, now paid by each on the death of its occupant, and the amount to be paid under the Finance Bill by a tenant subject to a rent, by a quasi-purchaser subject to interest in lieu of rent pending vesting order, and by a purchaser subject to an annuity, respectively, and the total annual increase he expects to derive from Ireland under this head by the joint effect of enactment and repeal in the Bill and the progress of land purchase in Ireland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is intended that tenant purchasers shall under the Finance Bill, as hitherto, be entitled to deduct the capital value of the annuity to which the land is subject before assessment for Death Duty; nor will the proposed repeal of the proviso to Section 7 (5) of the Finance Act, 1894, alter the law and practice in Ireland on this point. My right hon. Friend regrets that it is not possible to give the number of agricultural holdings in Ireland of 5, 10, and 20 acres, worth £100, £200, and £400 respectively, together with the amount of Death Duty now paid by each on the death of the occupant. The amount to be paid under the Finance Bill by a tenant subject to a rent, by a quasi-purchaser subject to interest in lieu of rent pending vesting order, and by a purchaser subject to an annuity, respectively, will be based in each case upon the market price of the holding and the principal value of the deceased owner's other property. About £2,500 is the total annual increase expected to be derived from Ireland:—
    (2) On the death of a quasi-purchaser in respect of the tenant's interest in land, subject to a rent;
    (2) On the death of a quasi-purchaser in respect of land subject to interest in lieu of rent pending vesting order; and
    (3) On the death of a purchaser in respect of land subject to an annuity.

    LAND HELD BY RATING AUTHORITIES.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Clause 24 of the Finance Bill exempts from

    357
    duties, payable under Part I. of the Bill, trust or other lands belonging to local or rating authorities or held in trust for them not as such as corporate bodies, and either for statutory or other purposes; and, if not, whether he will at a later stage amend the Bill so as to secure such exemption?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is very difficult to give an answer to a purely hypothetical question of this sort, but my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any particular cases which the hon. Baronet may care to bring to his notice.
    Sir F. BANBURY: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the statement that this is a hypothetical question? I ask whether or not land belonging to the City Corporation will be exempt under Clause 24?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Baronet in his question does not refer to the City of London. He is now putting a specific case, and if he will put that question down on the Paper I will get an answer to it.

    LICENCE DUTIES (YIELD).
    Mr. ARKWRIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was his estimate of the spirit retailer's off-licence, the beer retailer's off-licence, and the wine retailer's off-licence on the basis of the sales contained in the Finance Bill as introduced; and what is his estimate of the yield of the duties on these licences on the basis of the sales contained in the Amendments of which he has given notice?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend's estimate of £2,600,000, as the anticipated increase of Licence Duties generally, was arrived at by reference to the existing number of licences, allowance being made for a possible reduction of those numbers in consequence of the increased duties. I am afraid I am not in a position to give an estimate of the yield of the particular licences referred to in the question.
    Mr. J. C. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea how the estimate as regards Ireland was arrived at?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not possible in an answer to questions to give details showing how estimates are arrived at.
    Mr. G. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many licences were in that particular estimate assumed to be extinguished?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think I am able to do that.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman no estimate of the effects of the Amendments to be proposed this afternoon?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is hardly convenient at Question Time to anticipate the Debate to be taken later in the sitting.
    Mr. GEORGE D. FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decrease he anticipates in the yield of Licence Duties under the Finance Bill as compared with his original estimate if the concessions in regard to the duties on off-licences contained in the Amendments of which he has given notice are embodied in the Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Hereford.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: What is the estimated decrease in the £2,600,000 which was the estimated increase in the Licence Duty, by reason of the concessions now foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is impossible to give that.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Have the Government agreed to make these concessions without considering what they represent in money?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think all concessions are to be measured by the amount of money they represent?
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Then by what is a concession to be measured—is it by votes?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Concessions are usually looked upon as acts of grace.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What is the estimate of the amount of money that will be received if the Bill passes with the proposals to be made this afternoon?
    Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the figures?

    SERVICE MEN AND DEATH DUTIES.
    Mr. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the military, naval, and civil services are largely staffed by the sons of ex-members of these services, who are generally men whose means are such that they with difficulty provide allowances to enable their

    359
    sons to enter the Naval and Military services, and that the collection of Death Duties, with retrospective effect over five years, in respect of such allowances, will prejudice this class and affect the supply of officers for these services; and, if so, whether the Government will reconsider the provisions of the Budget in this behalf?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend does not see his way to introduce any special exemption on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. REES: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that widows of officers who have deserved well of their country are often left with about £500 a year, upon which they struggle to put their sons into the services; and that the Death Duties already amount to about a year's income?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.

    WHISKY DUTY DIFFERENTIATION.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that quantities of whisky, known as patent-still, are taken out of bond before it has had time to mature; and whether, in the public interest, he will increase the duty on all whisky taken out of bond before it is one year old and reduce by a corresponding amount the duty on pot-still whisky over three years in bond?
    The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average age at which spirit known as patent-still whisky is taken out of bond in Ireland; and whether, in the interests of agriculture, he will differentiate in the matter of duty in favour of pot-still whisky, which is made of Irish agricultural products?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, answer these two questions together. My right hon. Friend is aware that some patent-still whisky is cleared for consumption after being in bond but a short time, but he has no information as to the quantity so cleared or as to the average age at which it is cleared in Ireland. On the questions of policy raised by the hon. Member I can add nothing to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 26th ultimo.

    BREWER'S LICENCE DUTY.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the effect of the Amendments to be proposed by him to Clause 39 of the Finance Bill that a brewer of beer for sale holding an existing brewer's licence will, on applying for a renewal on 30th November in the present year, be charged with duty on the whole of his barrelage for the preceding twelve months instead of for nine months, as was previously intended?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the Amendment to Clause 35 of the Bill, a licence to a brewer will expire on 30th September, as at present. The new licence to be granted on 1st October next will be granted upon payment of the duty of £1, and, under Clause 39 of the Bill, will expire on 30th November. The licence to be granted on 1st December will be charged with a duty based upon the number of barrels brewed during the preceding year, but with an allowance for the £1 paid on 1st October, and the licence so granted will expire on 30th September, 1910.
    Mr. GRETTON: Am I to understand that the barrellage from 30th November, 1908, until 30th November, 1909, is taken into account, although the licence will last until 30th September, 1910?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; that is so.

    HAMBURG SHERRY.
    Mr. FELLasked what will be the Customs Duty charged under the Finance Act on a gallon of Hamburg sherry containing 29 per cent. of potato spirit compared with the Excise Duty on a gallon of whisky manufactured in Scotland or Ireland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I cannot answer the hon. Member's question. The duty on foreign wines imported into this country is charged at rates varying with the amount of proof spirit contained therein.
    Mr. FELL: As a matter of fact, is not the duty on Hamburg sherry 1s. 3d. per gallon?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is what makes the whole difference.

    GROCERS' LICENCES (SALE OF SPIRITS).
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any estimate of the increased amount of spirits which will be sold under the grocers' licences in con-sequence of the reduced quantities which

    361
    will be allowed to be sold by the grocers under the proposed Amendments to the Finance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has made no such estimate. It is not, however, intended, so far as England is concerned, to reduce the minimum quantities of spirits allowed to be sold under the Finance Bill.

    Imperial Expenditure (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the gross amount of money spent in Great Britain and in Ireland, respectively, for all imperial purposes, including Army and Navy contracts, in the last completed financial year; and whether he proposes to make any arrangement whereby expenditure for Imperial purposes may, in future, be more evenly distributed over all the countries upon which taxes for those purposes are imposed?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend regrets that the information asked for is not available.

    Attack on Oudh Police.
    Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the Secretary of State has any information to the effect that a sub-inspector of police, a constable, and a native servant have been beaten to death by villagers near Hardoi, in the province of Oudh, while occupied in making an investigation in the locality?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The Government of India reported that a sub-inspector of police was beaten to death, and a constable and a syce beaten so severely that they died the next day, in the course of a disturbance arising out of a quarrel between the sub-inspector and an inhabitant of the village. The murder was not premeditated, and it is reported that there was no ill-feeling in the village against the police in general or the sub-inspector in particular. Twelve persons are under arrest.

    Indian Stores (Purchase of Native Produce).
    Mr. REESasked whether the Government of India has taken any action of late in order to enforce the purchase within India of such stores and manufactures as are needed for Government use and are produced within the Indian Empire?
    The MASTER of ELIBANK: Rules for the supply of articles for the public service in India have recently been promulgated, directing that the following classes of stores shall be purchased in India, namely: (a) All articles produced in India in the form of raw material or manufactured in India from materials produced there, provided that the quality is sufficiently good and the price not unfavourable, (b) All articles manufactured in India from imported materials, subject to certain conditions as to quality and price and as to the extent to which the work of manufacture is performed in India.

    Departmental Papers (Communication to the Press).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKhad given notice to ask the Prime Minister if he will cause instructions to be issued to the various Departments of State that papers relating to important matters of administration, upon which this House is entitled to express an opinion and in which the constituents of hon. Members are closely interested, shall be supplied to Members of this House in the first place, and that the practice of issuing such papers primarily to the newspaper press and only subsequently to this House shall cease.
    When the question was called the HON. MEMBER said: The Prime Minister is not present, and I will defer asking the question till he is.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer it I will do so.
    Sir H. CRAIK: No; I will defer the question until the Prime Minister is present.

    Defence of Indian Empire (Position of Ruling Chiefs).
    Mr. REESasked whether ruling chiefs of native States in India are under any, and, if the answer be in the affirmative, under what, obligation to provide Imperial Service troops for the defence of the Indian Empire?
    The MASTER of ELIBANK: The scheme of Imperial Service troops introduced in 1889 was based on offers made by Indian princes to contribute towards the defence of India; and was established on the principle that the maintenance of these troops by Indian princes in their territories should be voluntary. The

    363
    voluntary nature of the undertakings on which the system is based has always been recognised.

    Indian Land Taxes.
    Mr. REESasked whether the taxes levied upon land in India amount in any case to 75 per cent. of the harvest?
    The MASTER of ELIBANK: No, Sir; the incidence of the land revenue on the gross produce of the soil is estimated to vary between 5 and 15 per cent, in most parts of India and in no area to exceed 20 per cent.
    Mr. REES: Is the Under-Secretary aware that such statements have been made in a book by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), and accepted by the papers —
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Under-Secretary for India cannot be responsible for what appears in a book written by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil.

    Irish Land Bill (Irish Members' Votes).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has noticed that in the most important Divisions in this House on the Irish Land Bill on the 9th and 23rd July every Irish Member in the House voted against the Government, except one Member, who is in receipt of a salary; and whether he proposes at a later stage of the Bill to make any concession on the question at issue to this unanimity of Irish opinion constitutionally expressed?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): The facts as to the Divisions are not quite correctly stated by the hon. Member, but it has not escaped the notice of my right hon. Friend that the greater number of Irish Members in the House voted against the Government on the occasions referred to. At present he has not any observations to make on the subject.

    Land Purchase (Tyrone).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will ascertain and state the approximate number of agricultural tenants in North and South Tyrone and in the county Tyrone, respectively, who have not yet purchased their holdings, and the number of these who have, by petition or in any other way, approved or
    364
    supported the parts of the present Land Bill making purchase impossible except at higher prices and a higher rate of interest than their neighbours who have purchased are paying?
    Mr. CHERRY: The statistics of the Land Commission are not kept by Parliamentary divisions, and they have, therefore, no means of stating the approximate number of tenants in the North or South divisions of Tyrone who have not yet purchased their holdings. For the latest estimate of the number of holdings in the county which have not yet been purchased, I would refer the hon. Member to column 18 of the Return giving the results of proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts, which was presented to Parliament in November last. There is no information available as to the several points raised in the concluding portion of the question.

    Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware of the number of labourers in Ireland suffering loss and inconvenience by delay in putting schemes for cottages and plots in operation; if he will ascertain how many such schemes lodged with the Local Government Board in 1907 and 1908, respectively, are still in suspense, and the aggregate number of labourers' families left without the homes intended for them; what is the general cause of this established Department, with an increased staff, falling in arrear with its work; and when is it expected that all approved schemes will be in operation?
    Mr. CHERRY: I have no means of obtaining the statistics asked for by the hon. Member, but I can assure him that he is mistaken in supposing that the Local Government Board have suspended any schemes for labourers' cottages and plots, or have allowed the work under the Labourers Acts to fall into arrear. On the contrary, it is their practice to expedite every scheme so far as the circumstances of the case will permit.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it not the fact that a large number of claims are at present in suspense owing to the regulations imposed by the Local Government Board, and can the right hon. Gentleman say how many?
    Mr. CHERRY: I do not think that is the case. I think the cause of the delay is through that of the district councils in not

    365
    carrying out these schemes. There are delays of various kinds, some legal and some agricultural, but, so far as I know, the regulations of the Local Government Board tend to expedite the claims in every possible way.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Captain CRAIG (for Mr. Fetherstonhaugh)asked how many persons in county Fermanagh have been approved of by the Estates Commissioners as suitable persons to be provided with holdings under the Evicted Tenants Act; for how many of these is it contemplated to provide out of the 315 acres which the Estates Commissioners have taken steps to acquire; when did they initiate proceedings as to the 315 acres; and why do they not proceed to acquire a reasonably adequate area of land in the county to provide for the evicted tenants whose claims they have approved?
    Mr. CHERRY: The applications of 61 persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants or the representatives of evicted tenants in county Fermanagh have been provisionally noted by the Estates Commissioners for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land to be acquired by the Commissioners, and the greater number of these persons can be provided for on untenanted lands for the sale of which proceedings are pending under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907. The proceedings in respect of the lands in the county which are being acquired under the latter Act were instituted in September and October last.
    Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked whether the Estates Commissioners have taken, or propose to take, any steps to negotiate for the reinstatement of Mr. Denis Healy, League Cottage, Headfort, county Kerry, in the farm from which he was evicted on the Coltemann estate and which they allowed to be sold to a grabber, against the wishes of the landlord and every representative person in the district?
    Mr. CHERRY: As the hon. Member has already been informed, in reply to a question asked by him on 20th May last, the Estates Commissioners do not propose to negotiate for Healy's reinstatement. The statement in the concluding paragraph of the question does not correctly represent the facts of the case as explained by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in reply to previous questions.
    Mr. MURPHY: Will he ask the Estates Commissioners if the person who is in possession of this farm is quite ready to dispose of it for a very moderate amount?
    Mr. CHERRY: I think I have already told the hon. Member that the Chief Secretary agrees with me that I do not consider it desirable that any Member of the Government should interfere with the Estates Commissioners in selection of the tenants or persons who occupy untenanted land.
    Mr. MURPHY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us who is to interfere with the Estates Commissioners if they will do nothing in a case like this?
    Mr. CHERRY: Nobody is to interfere with them. They are to have the responsibility of carrying out the work them-selves.
    Captain CRAIG: Would it not be possible, Sir, to omit this objectionable word "grabber from these questions, in a case where a tenant has purchased a farm in good faith and according to law? Where he has so acted should he be allowed to be dubbed in this House with the description of "grabber "?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Can the hon. and gallant Member suggest any name?
    Captain CRAIG: Yes; I suggest "judicial tenant."

    Landlord and Tenant (County Kerry).
    Mr. MURPHYasked whether, as a result of a visit of Mr. Howard, inspector of the Estates Commissioners, to the farm of Mr. Richard J. Walsh, at Kilmurry, county Kerry, last June, he declared the terms demanded by the landlord, Mr. Pierce Gun Mahony, entirely excessive, and, recommended the acceptance of very much reduced terms to the landlord, who refused to accept the offer?
    Mr. CHERRY: I am informed that the farm was originally offered to Walsh by the trustees of the estate at a price representing 21½ years' purchase of his second-term rent, which price was to include three years' arrears of rent. The real price at which the farm was offered to him was, therefore, about 18 years' purchase. I understand that the inspector suggested a price which was equivalent to about 18 years' purchase. The trustees, however, declined to consider terms of purchase while Walsh was in possession.
    Mr. MURPHY: As this matter is of great importance, having regard to the fact that the landlord circularised the Members of the House, may I ask whether, substantially, the reply obtained, after three questions have been asked, is to the effect that the Estates Commissioners asked the landlord to accept a reduced price for the tenants' holding and the landlord refused to accept that reduced reasonable price?
    Mr. CHERRY: No; that is not so. If the hon. Member had listened to the answer, he would know that it is mentioned that the inspector suggested it. I did not say the Estates Commissioners.
    Mr. MURPHY: I asked whether the inspector of the Estates Commissioners recommended a reduced price.
    Mr. CHERRY: I have already answered that question in the affirmative.

    Wandesford Estate, Castlecomer.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE (for Mr. Meagher)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether about 80 tenants of the Wandesford estate, Castlecomer, have applied to the Estates Commissioner's to have their farms inspected before the sale is sanctioned; and, if so, whether he can state the time such inspection will take place?
    Mr. CHERRY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on 1st April last.
    Mr. P. WHITE (for Mr. Meager)asked whether any applications have been made to the Estates Commissioners on behalf of Edward Burke and Mrs. Conway, on the Wandesford estate, Castlecomer, for restoration to farms from which they were either dispossessed or had to give up possession through inability to pay the rents charged on the same; whether any application was made on behalf of Martin Loughlin or his relatives for restoration to their holding at Finnan, on the Kavanagh estate, Ballyragget; and, if so, what steps have been taken in the matter?
    Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners received an application from Martin McLoughlin who is in America, and decided after inquiry to take no action on it. They also received an application from
    368
    Edward Bourke, but it was not lodged within the time specified in the Evicted Tenants Act, and has not been inquired into. They have not received any application from Mrs. Conway.

    Untenanted Lands (Vereker Estate).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the names of the tenants on the Vereker estate, situate near Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, to whom the Estates Commissioners allotted portion of the untenanted lands on it, the number of acres they already hold as tenants on that estate, and the number of acres of untenanted land each got; and on what principle was it apportioned?
    Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the lands in question have been allotted as follows, the acreage being stated in each case in round numbers: Tim Harnett, who held seven acres, got nine acres; J. T. Collins, who held 31 acres, got seven acres; M. P. Harnett, who held seven acres, got 16 acres; and John Fitzgerald, who held 88 acres, got four acres. The remaining 45 acres have been allotted to Mrs. Johanna D'Alton, who had been in occupation of the entire lands for a number of years.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Under what Section of the Act of 1903 can a tenant who holds 30 acres of land get a portion of this untenanted land, and on what principle was the land apportioned?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: On a point of Order. I think it arises, Sir, out of the answer, inasmuch as the Estates Commissioners have not given an account.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It may arise out of the question, but, at the same time, if an hon. Gentleman is asking for a particular section, of a particular Act, he ought to give an opportunity to the Law Officers to look it up.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: With all respect, Sir, the latter part of my question was on what principle was the land apportioned?
    Mr. CHERRY: With all deference, Sir, may I say it is all done under the second Section of the Act of 1903.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether the Estates Commissioners received a

    369
    resolution, which was unanimously adopted by the Newcastle West District Council, calling upon them to give the untenanted lands on the Vereker estate, situate near Abbeyfeale, to the agricultural labourers, who are numerous in the district; and, if so, what steps did they take to consider the wants of the labourers of the district before they allotted the untenanted lands to the tenants, some of whom have large holdings on the estate; and whether it was on the recommendation of Mr. Lafferty, their inspector, and Mr. Barrington, the agent, both of whom were together on the lands, that the allotments were so made?
    Mr. CHERRY: The resolution was received and duly considered by the Estates Commissioners. The allotment of the untenanted land was made by them on the recommendation of their inspector.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last pare of the question.
    Mr. CHERRY: All these matters are referred to the inspector. He goes down to the locality, makes inquiries of every sort, and makes his report, and, as a general rule, his recommendations are accepted by the Estates Commissioners, but not always.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is it not the fact that in these cases the inspector, together with the agent of the estate, gives this untenanted land to the tenants to induce them to buy at the landlord's price and for no other reason? As this is a very serious matter, and as there is great public feeling in the locality against the way this land has been apportioned, and having regard to the fact that there are a great number of cottiers and labourers in the district who are demanding this land. I want to know in the public interest if the Commissioners will reopen this question, and, under the Act of 1903, see that the wants of the labourers are satisfied?
    Mr. CHERRY: I do not think it would be possible for them to reopen it. They have sent an inspector and got a report, and are satisfied with it, and they have adopted it.

    Lismacrory Estate, North Tipperary.
    Mr. HOGANasked whether the lands at Lismacrory (Colonel Hackett's estate), North Tipperary, have yet been distributed amongst the people; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
    Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have had a preliminary inspection made of these lands, and have intimated to the owner the price which they would be prepared to advance if formal proceedings were instituted for sale under the Irish Land Act, 1903. The owner is not willing to sell at this price, and has not therefore instituted proceedings for sale.

    Shooting Outrage, Clarenbridge, Galway.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 4th August a small farmer, named Patrick Conlan, was fired at and wounded, at a place called Clarenbridge, whilst driving home in a horse and cart from the Galway races; whether he is aware that this man's horse was also injured on the occasion; and, seeing that the motive assigned for the outrage is that Conlan has taken up work on an evicted farm in the neighbourhood, will he state what steps the police authorities have taken to prevent a recurrence of the outrage?
    Mr. CHERRY: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that Conlan was tired at and wounded as stated in the question, and that his horse was also injured. The police have made arrangements which will, it is hoped, prevent any further interference with him.

    Cattle-driving, Ireland (Police Protection).
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, owing to the system of cattle-driving throughout certain parts of Ireland, the local rates have in many instances been very materially increased this year; and whether he can see fit to grant relief to those persons who are mulcted in extra rates in connection with extra police where cattle have been driven off their land?
    Mr. CHERRY: Local rates have doubtless been increased in certain counties in Ireland where it was found necessary to bring in extra police owing to the prevalence of cattle-driving, but I am not aware of any power to exempt any class of persons from payment of these increased rates. I can see no reason, moreover, why, if extra police are required for the protection of the property of any ratepayer, he should be relieved from paying his proportion of the expense of the extra protection required.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Is it the fact that the greatest increase in the cost of extra police this year was in the loyal and peaceable county of Armagh?
    Mr. CHERRY: I could not give any indication whether it would be greater or less in any other county.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the cattle belonging to a man named Hunt, near Corrofin, county Clare, have on several occasions been driven from his farm; whether Hunt has been subjected to continual intimidation for some time past; can he state if the police can assign any reason for the intimidation; and whether they have taken steps to protect him from further outrage?
    Mr. CHERRY: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that Hunt's cattle were driven twice last year, and that persons helping him have been threatened. The police are doing all that is possible to protect him and his property.

    Small Holdings and Allotments Act.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if he can state the total number of persons who are now in possession of land provided under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, and the number of applicants estimated to be provided for under schemes already submitted to the Board but not yet carried out?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The number of persons who are in possession of land provided under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act is continually increasing, and it is not possible to give the precise figure at any given date without applying specially to every county council. I may say, however, that it is estimated that the schemes already submitted to the Board will provide holdings for about 5,000 applicants.
    Mr. P. MORRELL and Mr. J. ROWLANDSasked when the Annual Report of the proceedings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, will be issued?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: There has been an unfortunate delay on the part of the printers in preparing this Report for publication, but we hope it will be issued very shortly.
    Mr. MORRELL: How long has it been in the printers' hands?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: It was sent to the printer on 22nd June, but, unfortunately,
    372
    was mislaid by the printer, and not found until 26th July
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will any penalty be imposed on the printer for this neglect?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury make any statement as to the course of Public Business next week?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): I am not in a position to-day to indicate what will be the business for next week. Of course, to-morrow the Prime Minister will make the usual statement. I understand the Opposition rather press that on each Wednesday for the rest of the Session the business for the following week shall be announced, and I will endeavour, if the Prime Minister concurs, to carry out that arrangement.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is it proposed to take any business after the discussion on the Finance Bill is concluded this evening?
Mr. J. PEASE: No; unless I can arrange with the Opposition for an Order of a somewhat uncontentious character.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are all the Amendments which the Government intend to propose in regard to the licensing provisions of the Finance Bid upon the Paper, or are there any of which we are not officially notified?
Mr. PEASE: I am afraid I cannot answer either of those questions.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee—[22nd day].
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.
  SUPPLEMENTAL.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Definitions.)
    In this Part of this Act—
    The expression "land" does not include any incorporeal hereditament or tithe, or any rent charge as defined by this Act:
    The expression "rentcharge" includes tithe or tithe rentcharge, or other periodical payment or rendering in lieu of or in the nature of tithe, or any fee

    373
    farm rent, rent seek, chief rent, rent of assize, or any other perpetual rent or annuity granted out of land:
    The expression "rent" has the same meaning as in the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, and does not include a rentcharge:
    The expression "lease" includes an agreement for a lease, but does not include a term of years created solely for the purpose of securing money:
    The term of a lease shall, where the lease contains a covenant to renew the lease, be deemed to be the period for which the lease may be renewed, and in the case of a lease for life or lives, shall be deemed to be a number of years equal to the mean expectation of life of the person for whose life the lease is granted, or in the case of a lease granted for lives, of the youngest of the persons for whose lives the lease is granted:
    The expression "interest" in relation to land includes a reversion expectant on the determination of a lease, but does not include any other interest in expectancy or an incumbrance as denned by paragraph (vii.) of Section two of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, or a lease for a term of years less than seven years:
    The expression "owner" means the person entitled to the freehold of the land, except that where land is let on lease (not being a mining lease within the meaning of paragraph (xi.) of Section two of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881) for a term of which more than fifty years are unexpired, the lessee under the lease shall be deemed to be the owner instead of the person entitled to the freehold:
    The expression "agriculture" includes the use of land as meadow or pasture land or woodland, or for market gardens, nursery grounds, or allotments, and the expression "agricultural land" shall be construed accordingly.
    Amendment proposed [18th August]: In the sixth paragraph, to leave out "paragraph (vii.) of Section two of the Conveyancing and Law Property Act, 1881, or," and to insert the words "this Act or any fixed charge as defined by this Act or any purely incorporeal hereditament (other than a profit a prendre not annexed to any other land) or any leasehold interest under."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): It might be convenient that I should state, before we discuss this Amendment, the further alteration that we propose to make, which will very much simplify it. It is to omit the words "other than a profit a prendre not annexed to any other land." I think the House will part with the words without regret. The Amendment is one relating to that paragraph in the definition clause, which defines "interest in land." The words "interest in land" are, of course, important, because they give us the occasion upon which the increment value is collected. It is collected on the transfer of an interest in land, so that in defining "interest in land" and in excluding particular kinds of interests, we are lessening the occasions on which the tax is collected, though not lessening the amount of the tax itself. We propose to lessen the occasions on which the tax is collected by limiting the meaning of the words "interest in land." For instance, we do not collect the tax on the transfer of an encumbrance. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) that the transfer of sporting rights might be treated as an occasion on which to collect the tax. Therefore, we exclude sporting rights in general, and include them in incorporeal hereditaments. They might be included under the Bill as drawn in certain cases, and that would be very inconvenient. We promised to give the matter full consideration, and we have come to the conclusion that it would be very inconvenient to treat the transfer of the leases referred to as an occasion on which we should ascertain the whole value of the land. Therefore, we propose to drop those words.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause" put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'this Act or any fixed charge as defined by this Act or any purely incorporeal hereditament (other than a profit a prendre not annexed to any other land), or any leasehold interest under' be there inserted."
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: To leave out the words. "other than a profit a prendre not annexed to any other land."—[Sir W. Robson.]
    Mr. GEORGE CAVE: I understand the intention is not to levy duty on the transfer of sporting rights. I feel a little doubtful whether in exempting purely incorporeal hereditaments you are keeping sporting rights out, and I would suggest to the Attorney-General that he might put in express words to cover sporting rights.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I am informed that sporting rights are a purely incorporeal hereditament. They do not involve actual possession of land. The Amendment seems to cover the case of sporting rights, but if it should turn out that our advisers are wrong we shall make sure that sporting rights are excluded.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What is the difference between an incorporeal hereditament and a purely incorporeal hereditaments?
    Sir W. ROBSON: There are three classes: Incorporeal hereditaments, purely incorporeal hereditaments, and mixed incorporeal hereditaments.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is a highly technical matter, in which we must have frequent recourse to the learned Attorney-General. I do not know whether the Amendment which the Attorney-General has now moved to his own Amendment stands by itself, or whether it is to be followed by the moving of the Amendment which stands in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to insert at the end of the paragraph the words: "Where an interest in land consists of a profit a prendre not appendant or appurtenant to any other land the interest shall, for the purpose of the charge of Increment Value Duty, be treated as a separate piece of land."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That will not be moved.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Other Amendment made:
    To leave out the words "less than seven," and to insert the words "not exceeding fourteen."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    The next Amendment on the Paper was in the name of Mr. LAURENCE HARDY—"to insert after the word 'years' ['less than seven years'] the words 'or minerals gotten or severed from the freehold.' "
    The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is not is order.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think these words are required to govern the Increment Value Duty leviable on minerals.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that it is a taxing, and not a definition, Amendment. The point can be raised on the postponed clause—Clause 15.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)had given notice of an Amendment to add at the end of the sixth paragraph:—
    "Where an interest in land consists of a profit a prendre not appendant or appurtenant to any other land the interest shall, for the purpose of the charge of Increment Value Duty, be treated as a separate piece of land.
    "Where a building is used for the purpose of separate tenements, flats, or dwellings, the grant of a lease, other than an original lease, of any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling, and the transfer on sale or passing on death of any lease, whether original or derivative, of any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling, shall not be an occasion on which Increment Value Duty is to be collected under this Act, nor shall duty be collected on any periodical occasion where the interest held by the body corporate or un-incorporate is only a leasehold interest in any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling.
    "The expression 'incumbrance' includes a mortgage in fee or for a less estate, and a trust for securing money, and a lien, and a charge of a portion, annuity, or any capital or annual sum, but does not include a fixed charge as defined by this Act.
    "The expression 'fixed charge' means any rent-charge as defined by this Act, and any burden or charge arising by operation of law or imposed by any Act of Parliament, or imposed in pursuance of the exercise of any powers or the performance of any duties under any such Act, otherwise than by a person interested in the land or in consideration of any advance to any person interested in the land.
    "The expression 'fee simple' means the fee simple in possession not subject to any lease, but does not include an undivided share in a fee simple in possession."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will not move the first paragraph of my Amendment, but will move the rest of the Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us why he is not moving the first paragraph?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is a very highly technical point, but my recollection is that it was an Amendment which I promised to the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil). He moved an Amendment that the letting of sporting rights should not be an occasion upon which you would ascertain the increment of the whole of the land. He said that as the Bill stands you might have to consider the increased value of the whole of the land because you were leasing a sporting interest in the land. We promised to make it absolutely clear that a lease of sporting rights should not be an occasion upon which you should get a valuation of the whole of the land. It was not the intention that this should happen, and these words were rather intended to safeguard the case in which there might be a separate lease of sporting rights in a grouse moor. But I am told that in the vast majority of these cases the land as a whole is let. Take the case of a deer forest. It is not a lease of the sporting rights in a deer forest. It is a lease of the deer forest. Therefore, these words are necessary only in very exceptional cases. There might be a few cases in which they would apply, but they are so few as to be absolutely insignificant, and we thought it unnecessary to complicate matters by introducing these words which really were not required.
    Coming to the other parts of the Amendment, the first portion was promised in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir Henry Kimber), and also in reply, I think, to the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson), and the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. G. Younger). The case of Scotland, I quite agree, is quite a different one, and will be dealt with in the next Clause, Clause 28, which I am very pleased to say will be in the hands of the Lord Advocate (Mr. Ure), and the Amendments in Clause 28 will be brought into conformity with whatever Amendments are made to this Clause. The hon. Member for Wandsworth put the case of the grant of a lease of a set of chambers, and undoubtedly chat would involve very considerable difficulty in ascertaining the increment value with reference to the whole site; and the Government agree that there should be no increment site value charged in respect of the lease of a separate set of chambers. I understand that those who are interested in flats and chambers were not altogether satisfied with the Amendment as it has been drawn, and
    378
    I have been in communication with them. They object very strongly to the words "other than an original lease." There is very little money in this, because there would be hardly very much increment at the date of the granting of the original lease of a flat. The buildings are put up in the course of a year or two. The first leases are granted probably a few months after the lease of the whole site, and there would be very little increment value between the date of the first original lease of a flat and the date the last increment would be charged upon either a sale or a lease of the whole of the site. Therefore, in that case, I promised to meet the views submitted to me by leaving out the words "other than an original lease," and I shall move the Amendment in that form, leaving out these words, and also the words, "whether original or derivative," some lines further down. The paragraph which follows gives a more complete and elaborate definition of "incumbrance"; and the paragraph in reference to "fixed charge" is in redemption of a pledge given the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). I beg to-move the Amendment, with the changes which I have indicated.
    Amendment moved: To add at the end of the sixth paragraph:—
    "Where a building is used for the purpose of separate tenements, flats, or dwellings, the grant of a lease of any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling, and the transfer on sale or passing on death of any lease of any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling, shall not be an occasion on which Increment Value Duty is to be collected under this Act, nor shall duty be collected on any periodical occasion where the interest held by the body corporate or unincorporate is only a leasehold interest in any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling.
    "The expression 'incumbrance' includes a mortgage in fee or for a less estate, and a trust for securing money, and a lien, and a charge of a portion, annuity, or any capital or annual sum, but does not include a fixed charge as defined by this Act.
    "The expression 'fixed charge' means any rent-charge as defined by this Act, and any burden or charge arising by operation of law or imposed by any Act of Parliament, or imposed in pursuance of the exercise of any powers or the performance of any duties under any such Act, other-

    379
    wise than by a person interested in the land or in consideration of any advance to any person interested in the land.
    "The expression 'fee simple' means the fee simple in possession not subject to any lease, but does not include an undivided share in a fee simple in possession."
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This Amendment embodies two distinct propositions. It first of all deals with the case of buildings used for the purpose of tenements, flats or dwellings. Then it defines an incumbrance for the purpose of this Act, which, of course, has nothing to do with the preceding paragraph. Then it proceeds to define a fixed charge, which again is quite different from an incumbrance, and has nothing to do with the first paragraph; and finally it defines the expression "fee simple," which is different from both the other definitions, and only agrees with them in having nothing to do with the first paragraph. I submit that this is, in fact, four separate Amendments. The only link between them is that they are all definitions. Therefore it is a definition Clause. I am not sure whether it is absolutely out of order to move all four together, but I venture to submit that the subjects with which they deal are so dissimilar, and it would be so inconvenient to the House to be discussing all these four separate points together instead of taking the separate issues separately, that it would be, if not absolutely necessary for the purposes of order, at any rate a great convenience to the Committee that the different paragraphs should be put separately.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The first paragraph is not a definition of any word at all which would come in with any application to this Clause. The Clause says that the expression so and so means so and so, and the rest of the Amendment carries out the same principle; but this first paragraph is only a description of a certain occasion on which Increment Duty is not to be paid, and it seems to me that it should not form part of the Amendment to this Clause at all.
    4.0 P.M.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for East Worcestershire, the Amendment has been moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in its entirety, because in Committee Amendments to it can be moved at any point. If Amendments are proposed the early ones are taken first, so as not to exclude the
    380
    later ones, and I do not, therefore, see the necessity for my putting the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in separate questions. The whole procedure in Committee is entirely different from that of the House, where an hon. Member can only speak once, and where, in regard to some Motions at any rate, perhaps one Amendment may strike out any other Amendment to the whole Motion. In Committee any number of Amendments can be moved, and they are taken in their order. Therefore, the four paragraphs can be put together as one Amendment, and it really will not cause inconvenience to the Committee in their discussion. Therefore, I propose to put them together.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Will it be competent to move Amendments on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes, and that is why I do not put them separately. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy), it is the first time my attention has been drawn to it. I must say the proposal is in an unusual form for a definition clause, but I imagine the words can he very easily altered later to make it a definition, instead of being put as it is. Perhaps there is some reason for it.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I submit it ought clearly to be put in the definition Clause, because there we are dealing with the definition of land and interest in land, and the whole question was the transfer of a flat, without a transfer of an interest in land or the land itself. I submit, therefore, that it ought to be dealt with in the definition Clause as the proper place to insert it. I do not see where else I could have put it.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I wish to ask, on a point of Order, a question with regard to an Amendment on page 5430 of the Blue Paper, standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a new Clause, the title of which is, "Exemption of small houses and property in owners' occupation." If you look at that Clause you will see there is an exemption of a certain class of property from Increment Duty, and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the actual Amendment you are about to put is not really neither more nor less— the first paragraph of it at least—than exemption from the Increment Duty of a certain class of property? I would respectfully suggest that the proper place for

    381
    at all events the first paragraph of the Amendment you have put is really in connection with the new Clause which appears on page 5430 of the Blue Paper, providing for exemptions in favour of a certain small class of house property in London and elsewhere. I should have thought that if we have to deal with the exemption of certain classes of house property, we should deal with them altogether, and within the scope of a single clause, rather than a separate clause dealing with one kind of exemption, and the other exemption coming within the terms of the definition Clause.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I submit that the new Clause quoted by the right hon. Gentleman is an illustration of what I have already put to the Chair. That Clause provides for the exemption of a class of property which certainly would be either an interest in land, or land, and that could not have been put in the definition Clause. This Amendment is simply to say that a separate chamber or simply a flat shall not be regarded as an interest in land. That is purely a question of definition, and not a question of exemption.
    Mr. GEORGE CAVE: The proposed Amendment does not say an interest in land shall not include a flat. Notwithstanding this Amendment, a freehold plot would be an interest in land in the case of a sale, and the first paragraph of the Amendment only says that on certain occasions in dealing with that kind of property no Increment Value Duty should be levied.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This part of the Amendment is merely proposed in fulfilment of a pledge which I gave to the hon. Member on the other side, and it really does not matter to the Government whether the first paragraph is taken at this stage or later on—I will not say whether it is to be taken at all, because I think it ought to be taken. If it is really for the convenience of the Oppositon that this first paragraph should be postponed, it makes no difference at all to the Government whether it is taken at this or a later stage.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must say that the paragraph does seem to me to be drawn in a way in which the other paragraphs of this definition Clause are not drawn. It does seem to me to be similar to exemptions which we have put in the taxing or exemption Clauses, and, therefore, I think
    382
    it would be better to postpone this paragraph and that it should not be dealt with now. That being the case, I have now to put the other paragraphs of the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed:
    "The expression 'incumbrance' includes a mortgage in fee or for a less estate, and a trust for securing money, and a lien, and a charge of a portion, annuity, or any capital or annual sum, but does not include a fixed charge as defined by this Act.
    "The expression 'fixed charge' means any rent-charge as defined by this Act, and any burden or charge arising by operation of law or imposed by any Act of Parliament, or imposed in pursuance of the exercise of any powers or the performance of any duties under any such Act, otherwise than by a person interested in the land or in consideration of any advance to any person interested in the land.
    "The expression 'fee simple' means the fee simple in possession not subject to any lease, but does not include an undivided share in a fee simple in possession."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: In order to confine the discussion to one point, I move to leave out the lines of the Amendment, from the words, "The expression 'incumbrance,'" to the words "as defined by this Act." I simply move that formally in order to prevent the two questions being mixed up, and with the view to confining the discussion to one point.
    Question, "That the words from 'The expression "incumbrance" 'to the words' as defined by this Act' stand part of the proposed Amendment, "put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Sir SEYMOUR KINGmoved, to leave out paragraph seven of the Clause ["The expression 'owner' means the person," etc.].
    I think that paragraph by which the provisions are extended to leases of over 50 years is one which requires a good deal more explanation than we have received at present. In the first place, why should the lessee of over 50 years be treated as an owner? It seems to me an absurd make-believe. He is a man who takes a lease of a small tract of land, paying rack-rent for it, the full market value, and during the first 20 or 30 years of the lease,

    383
    when the value of the land has certainly varied a little during that period, he is to have all the taxes, the Unimproved Land Tax, and the Increment Tax, and the Re-version Tax, piled upon him at the very time he is doing his best, as a good citizen, to develop the land and to improve the amenities of the town or district in which he lives. It really does seem to me an absolutely illogical position to take up. A man may have a lease of 59 years. For nine years it is said that he is the owner, although he knows painfully that he is nothing of the sort, because he pays a very high rent to the landlord. I understand the reason for this Clause being brought in is to stir up the gentleman who owns the land, and it is to prevent his holding it back from the public who desire it, while he, at the same time, enjoys the advantages of the labour of the community. The land is being improved in value by the labour of the community, we are told, and therefore the landlord ought not to enjoy the whole increment value of the land; but the lessee, the man who holds the long lease, is the man who gives the full value; he is the man who builds suburbs; he is the man who creates watering-places; he is the man who brings new industries to places; he is the man who risks his money, and risks it much more than hon. Members seem to think is the case. Some Members apparently are under the idea that if a man only takes a building lease and spends money upon it he at once makes a fortune; but those who know something about these things recollect such instances as Frinton, which ruined an unfortunate man who tried to develop it as a watering-place. There is the Piccadilly Hotel, where the Government, who are the landlords, forced the unfortunate tenants to spend a great deal of money to carry out a preposterous scheme, and in doing so they absolutely ruined the people who invested their money in that undertaking. If you go down Cromwell-road you will see there seven or eight houses which for 10 years, in consequence of the action of the community, have been perfectly valueless. I want to understand on what possible principle a leaseholder is going to be dragged in. I understood these taxes were to be confined to realty, and not to personal property. Now we are getting in the thin end of the wedge, and we are getting personal property in the form of a lone lease.
    For a certain number of years the man is to be the owner; then you come to 50 years, and at the end of his lease he is
    384
    converted into a tenant, and the landlord has to begin to pay the Unimproved Land Tax. In spite of Clause 13, where we have decided that the landlord is to pay the Unimproved Land Tax, we are now told that by a make-believe and a fiction the man who has the lease is to be created into an owner and to pay the Unimproved Land Tax. Then as to the Increment Tax, whatever increment there is is due to the man's own effort and to the man's own work. He contributes probably largely to the rates of the place, and therefore he cannot be said to derive any benefit to which he has not fully contributed from the labours of the community.
    I do think that this extension of this Clause, bringing in the leaseholder, requires the serious consideration of the Committee. You are going to hamper the men, at the very moment when they are entering on an onerous responsibility and a big speculation, with all these taxes, and to worry them and burden them at the very time when the men are doing the greatest good to the community. With great respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not think he has quite considered what the effect of this will be on the building trade or on the development of building estates. It is entirely owing to gentlemen who take these long leases that these improvements are made and that the developments take effect round our coasts, developments which bring great value to the community and cause values to be created which have not existed before, and in every way they are the most useful and progressive members of the community. I earnestly beg, at any rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take into consideration the lengthening of the period in which a man is not considered an owner. I quite understand in the case of a lease for 999 years, as they exist in Scotland and parts of England, that there the man is practically in the same position as a freeholder, but for 80 or 90 years, which is about the period of Government leases, the leases begin to dwindle in value from the moment they start, and to meet that you have to set up a sinking fund if you are a prudent person. That being so, I personally have been unable to think out how logically there can be any increment to the site value of a lease when once it has been built over. Assuming that there is, I say it is a monstrous thing that it should not fall on the real person who gets the enjoyment, and to whom the ultimate benefit goes, namely, the owner of the freehold, the real owner, and not the

    385
    make-believe owner. It is because I object to this system as absurd and childish that I move this Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not want to indulge in any retort, but I really thought from the last words of the hon. Gentleman that he did not quite realise the purpose of his own Amendment, nor understand what it means. He wants to throw the whole burden of the Undeveloped Land Tax even in the case of long leases upon the reversioner, because that is what would be the effect of his Amendment. We have chosen 50 years, because we think over 50 years the substantial interest of the land is in the leaseholder, and the interest that is vested in the reversioner over 50 years is a trivial one. We think a man who has the real substantial value of the land ought to bear the burden of the tax. The hon. Gentleman says no, that it is the reversioner who ought to bear the burden. I see that by a subsequent Amendment he proposes 80 years, but does he think of the man who gets the real enjoyment of the value, because if he leaves this out it will fall entirely on the freeholder even in leases of 90 or 100 years, while the real interests and the real ownership is vested in the man who has got the long lease. The interests of the reversioner is merely a trifling one, yet, according to the hon. Gentleman, for 100 years he and his successors in title would have to pay the halfpenny tax, whilst another man is enjoying the full value of the land. Surely that is not what he means. I hardly thought that was his intention until I listened to the last few sentences of his speech, and I was amazed when I found that that was his meaning. I do not think anyone in the House will take that view. The whole point here is —how you are to apportion between the reversioner and the leaseholder. We think, looking at the table, that 50 years is a very fair point between the reversioner and the leaseholder. The leaseholder is the man who gets the substantial benefits of the interests, and we propose to tax him. The hon. Gentleman says no, the reversioner is the man who ought to pay, and not the leaseholder. I still think that our division between the leaseholder and the reversioner is a very equitable division. The reference to the Piccadilly Hotel is absolutely irrelevant, as there is no Undeveloped Land Tax to be charged on that, and substantially that is what this means.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It applies to increment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It would not apply to an increment in leases for 30 or 40 years, and substantially the effect of this would be really to apply the Undeveloped Land Tax. When you come to increment, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the leaseholder pays whatever the value of his interest is, even although the lease be 30 or 40 years. I think the dividing line between the reversioner and the person who has to pay is a perfectly equitable one, and I really trust that the hon. Gentleman, now that he has had this explanation, will withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CAVEhad given notice of an Amendment in the seventh paragraph— after the word "owner" ["the expression 'owner' means"] to insert the words "does not include a mortgagee, but."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that the point is met by the very next Amendment on the Paper.
    Mr. CAVE: The next Amendment would not cover the point. I am quite prepared to limit the Amendment to the mortgagee in possession for I think that ought to be done to make it perfectly clear. It is a very important matter, and affects certain building societies and others. There are mortgagees throughout the country who are not in possession, and it should be made clear that they are not subject to the duties.
    Question proposed, "After the word 'owner' to insert the words 'does not include a mortgagee out of possession.' "
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree that the Amendment as put by the hon. and learned Gentleman is better than the Amendment on the Paper, because the Amendment on the Paper might include the mortgagee who is in possession, which would mean that the land would be altogether exempted from these taxes. I do not like to enter into a contest with the hon. and learned Gentleman on a subject on which he is such a master, but I would submit to him that we really have met this point by the next Amendment, which deals with the mortgagee, who is only entitled when he is in possession. These are considered words, and I am informed that they would

    387
    cover the case. I trust, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that we have really met him.
    Mr. CAVE: I do not want to have a discussion, but I feel some doubt, and may I take it that the point will be further considered?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would be quite ready, especially as we are agreed as to what we really want done.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to leave out the words "freehold of the land" ["entitled to the freehold of the land"], and to insert the words "rents and profits of the land in virtue of any estate of freehold."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved, in the seventh paragraph, to omit the words "not being a mining lease within the meaning of paragraph (xi.) of Section 2 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881."
    It was agreed that all mining questions should be postponed until we come to deal with all the mining clauses.
    Mr. L. HARDY: This will not prevent the question being raised on some subsequent occasion, as otherwise mining leases would come under this definition. There some explanation is necessary, and we should have an assurance that it is not intended to leave it in this condition.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Separate Clauses will be put on the Paper—I have already promised to do so—dealing with the whole mining question.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved (in the definition of "owner"), after the word "ease" ["the lessee under the lease shall be deemed"], to insert the words, "or if there are two or more such leases the lessee under the last created under-lease.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I notice that lower on the Paper the Chancellor of the Exchequer has another Amendment defining "lessor" and "lessee" as including an under-lessor and under-lessee. If he moves that Amendment, why does he want the present one? If "lessee" includes under-lessee, it is unnecessary to say that "lease" shall include under-lease.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The point of the present Amendment is to make clear that the last under-lessee shall be treated as the owner.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask how this would work in a concrete case? The case I will take is one with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very familiar, namely, that of the sub-lease of Mr. Gorringe on the Westminster estate. I understand that Mr. Gorringe did not take a lease direct from the Duke of Westminster, but from another party, who had taken a very long lease in the first instance, and sublet to Mr. Gorringe. If this provision had been in operation 30 years ago, who would have paid the tax—the Duke of Westminster or the parties, who have not yet been disclosed, who took the original lease, or Mr. Gorringe? I think we ought to have it clear. I take that case because the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with it, and, perhaps, he will tell us how his proposal would work in this particular instance.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Evidently the hon. Gentleman is familiar neither with the facts of the Gorringe case nor with the Clause of the Bill. He does not even understand what this means.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: That is why I asked.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In the first place, the property referred to would hardly be undeveloped land.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: But this applies to Increment Duty.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should not have thought that property upon which £80,000 had been spent on improvements as part of the grant of a new lease would be regarded as undeveloped land.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does not this apply to Increment Value Duty?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, and I am answering him. This has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Gorringe case. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious to discuss the Gorringe case, I shall be very glad to do so. He had an opportunity of discussing it on the Reversion Duty, but he did not do it. He will have an opportunity upon either the Report stage or the third reading, and whether upon the Report stage or upon the third reading I shall be perfectly willing to dis-

    389
    cuss the case with him or with any other Member. But I cannot discuss it on an Amendment to which it is absolutely irrelevant.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think I must say a word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has tried to turn the matter off as if it were a question only of Undeveloped land Duty. I know that Buckingham Palace-road is not undeveloped land, but surely there is Increment Value Duty upon it, and this applies to Increment Value Duty and the occasions on which Increment Value Duty is to be levied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought this particular case into public notice, and I asked, for the elucidation of the Committee, what will be the effect of the Bill with these words in it on this particular case. Now it appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite unable to explain how they would apply.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already explained to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A. Chamberlain) that in the case of Increment Value Duty it would fall on the transferor or vendor. The question whether it is 40 or 50 years has nothing to do with the Increment Value Duty. He pays upon his own interest, whatever it is, and would have nothing whatever to do with this definition.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely this applies not merely to undeveloped land—I rather agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that to some small extent it applies to Increment Value Duty— but also to Reversion Duty. I am not quite certain, and I am not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite certain, what particular effect this Amendment would have on the collection of Reversion Duty. If you have a series of subleases, each of which had more than 50 years to run, how many times are you going to collect Reversion Duty—each time one of the subleases reverts to one of the superior lessees?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Reversion Duty Clause he will see that the word "owner" is not used; the word there is "lessor." Therefore, the lessor, whoever he is at the time, will pay. This definition has nothing whatever to do with that; it is the definition of the word "owner," which is not used there.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely what we are now doing is to turn the lessee into the owner for certain purposes. It is perfectly true that the word used in the Reversion Duty Clause is "lessor," but then you go on to say that the lessee shall be considered in certain circumstances as the owner, and not merely the lessee, but the sub-lessee. In these circumstances my hon. Friend (Mr. Hope) asks with a perplexity which is not unnatural, and which will be more and more shared by the Committee the more they consider the matter, what will be the position of any particular person under any particular condition. In order to elucidate that point, instead of spreading himself over the whole field, he took a particular case, which he said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had used as an illustration of the beneficent change which his proposals would work, and he asked who would be subject to the tax. I think that is not an unfair request, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will gratify our legitimate curiosity.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is very good of the right hon. Gentleman to back up his followers on the bench behind. I know how glad we on the Back Benches were when anybody on the Front Bench got up to support an Amendment of ours, however absurd it might be; the more absurd the Amendment the greater our gratification at getting a Front Bench man to support it. Therefore it is really very good of the right hon. Gentlemen. But, at the same time, he really knows perfectly well that the Amendment has nothing whatever to do with the Gorringe case. When the word "owner" is used—it is used in regard to undeveloped land—it has to be defined. We are defining the word "owner" is used—it is used in regard to undeveloped land—it has to be defined. We are defining the word "owner" here, here, and this definition will be applicable to that word wherever it appears. It does not appear in the Reversion Duty Clause; the word used there is "lessor." Therefore there will be no reference to this interpretation of the word "owner" when you deal with the question of the lessor. When you come to the question of the lessor we shall deal with it, but it has nothing whatever to do with the present matter.
    Mr. CAVE: My right hon. Friend is always very good in backing us up, and I should like to return the compliment by saying a word in support of what he has said. The word "owner" does not occur in the Reversion Duty Clause, but my hon.

    391
    Friend's question referred to the Increment Value Duty, and in the Increment Value Duty Clause the word "owner" does occur.
    Sir W. ROBSON: Only on valuation.
    Mr. CAVE: No; it occurs also in Clause 2, Sub-section 4. It is true the duty has to be paid primarily by the transferor or lessor; but the exemption under Sub-section 4 has to be claimed by the "owner," and when Clause 2 comes to be construed this definition of "owner" will give rise to difficulty, as the transferor or lessor claiming exemption may not be the owner within the meaning of the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved, in the definition of "owner," to leave out the word "freehold" ["the person entitled to the freehold"] and to insert the words "rents and profits as aforesaid."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved, after the words last inserted, to add the words: "The expressions 'lessor' and 'lessee' include an under-lessor and under-lessee and the heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns of a lessor and lessee respectively. The expressions 'transferor' and 'lessor' do not include any persons who join in the execution of the instrument by which the transfer or lease is effected or agreed to be effected for the purpose only of conveying any estate vested in them as trustees or incumbrancers, or of acknowledging the receipt of the consideration money, or of giving consent."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the question put by my hon. Friend (Mr. James Hope) really arises on this Amendment. My hon. Friend on the last Amendment put a question with regard to the Gorringe case, the Duke of Westminster being the lessor, and certain other persons or parties being under-lessor—the intermediate lessor between the Duke and Mr. Gorringe. I think we are entitled to ask what exact effect this definition would have had upon the celebrated Gorringe case if this Bill had been in operation? Who would have had to pay the heavy duty which under the provisions of this Bill would have been payable? Would it have been the Duke or the under-lessor? And what effect would it have had in relieving Mr. Gorringe from the unpleasant position in which
    392
    he was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech at Limehouse to have been?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree that the case is a little more relevant here than on the previous Amendment. The person who will pay is the person who receives the benefit. If he is an under-lessor at the expiration of the lease he will get some benefit, and he will pay 10 per cent. upon it But in the Gorringe case the whole benefit was absorbed by the Duke; therefore he would have to pay. Whoever enjoys the benefit will have to pay upon whatever the value may be.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the earlier stages of our discussion the question was raised as to the right of people who might be affected by a valuation to be heard at this valuation. He said that there are cases where the owner will be affected where we call for returns from the lessee, and the owner ought to have the opportunity of being heard, or of making representations. Equally, there are cases where returns will come from the lessor and where the lessee will be affected, and the Chancellor agreed to put this right by some Amendments, which, I think, have been introduced already?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: They are in here.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Am I right in supposing that in including under-lessor and under-lessee by the Amendment we shall equally include them with respect to their right to be heard and to appeal against a valuation which they think affects them?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, that would be so. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Bill as amended he will find in Clause 17, Sub-section (4), printed in italics: "any person interested in the land, not being an owner … shall then have the same right of giving notice of objection and of appealing as the owner." So undoubtedly a person of that kind who had an interest in the land would have the right of applying and of appealing.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. CAVEmoved to insert, at the end of the seventh paragraph, the words: "and sections fifty-nine, sixty, and sixty-two of

    393
    the Settled Land Act, 1882 (which relate to the exercise of powers on behalf of infants and lunatics) shall apply to the exercise of the powers of an owner under this Part of this Act in the same manner as they apply to the exercise of the powers of a tenant for life under that Act."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the matter is covered, but I do not object.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. STARKEYmoved, in the eighth paragraph, after the word "land," ["as meadow or pasture land"], to insert the words "or orchard or osier."
    This paragraph defines what the expression "agriculture" means. As meadow, pasture land, and woodland, etc., are defined as being agricultural, I think that "orchard" and "osier" ought also to be so included. If they are not so included, it seems possible that they may be liable to Undeveloped Land Duty. Very often osiers and orchards exceed £50 in value, so that they would not thus have the benefit of the exemption in Sub-section (2) of Clause 11, so far as the site value of the land is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think that these words are really included in the words already in the Bill. But I have no objection, if the hon. Member thinks it makes the thing clearer.
    Mr. STARKEY: I should like it.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I would like to ask a question in relation to this to the definition of the Agricultural Rates Act. That is whether "arable" is or should not be introduced as well as "meadow" and "pasture." Agricultural land is defined in other places. "Arable" ought to be introduced before the last words which have just been put in. I wished to ask the question at the beginning of this discussion, but I was out of my place for the moment. It seems to me as rather doubtful that "arable" is understood, and I should like to move that the words "or arable" should be inserted.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This, after all, is not an exhaustive definition of agriculture. If we have "arable" introduced, I think it would be quite necessary to intro-
    394
    duce other Amendments in order to make the thing quite exhaustive.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for North County Dublin (Mr. Clancy) is unnecessary. It is a. consequential Amendment.
    Mr. ABEL SMITHmoved, in the eighth paragraph, to leave out the words "or for market gardens, nursery grounds" ["as meadow or pasture land or woodland, or for market gardens, nursery gardens, or allotments."] I move this Amendment in order to draw attention to those who erect glass-houses for market garden purposes. This is a very important industry in some parts of the country. I think that by the Bill, as it at present stands, those engaged in this industry are very badly treated. I understand from the answers that have been given on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that land on which glasshouses are erected is considered developed. As the Bill at present stands, it is to be undeveloped land. Before putting down these words I had in my mind the words of Clause 10, that is the Undeveloped Land Clause. It says: "Land shall be deemed to be undeveloped land if it has not been developed by being built upon or being used bonâfide for any business, trade, industry other than agriculture." As the definition of this present Clause now stands, the words include glass-houses under the head of agriculture. Therefore, land used for that purpose would be regarded as undeveloped land. I am quite prepared to be told that the words of the Bill will carry out the intention which I have in my mind but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would kindly consent to consider this I shall be glad, and I will not press the Amendment. I beg to move.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree with what the hon. Member said about glasshouses, and I will consider the matter; but it cannot be done here. I think, as a whole, chat glass-houses ought to be treated as buildings developed.
    5 P.M.
    Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: The opinion of those interested in this trade, so far as it has reached me, is that they will be greatly benefited by that trade being treated as a developed trade. For this reason, supposing these words are taken out and market gardens and nurseries are included among developed trades. There would be a nominal loss. What the Chancellor refers to as the privileges and exemptions which they obtain in the matter of the

    395
    Increment Value Duty would be extremely small. I cannot see myself how they are going to gain much by the difference, because nursery gardens are in any case pretty fully developed, and so is a market garden for agricultural purposes. They will have to pay, as the Bill is drawn, on any increase of value which is due to other than an agricultural reason. The only thing which they escape now by the Bill as drawn by being included as agriculturists is that part of the Increment Duty which is purely agricultural. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me there. What is lost by their being included here is the whole of the Undeveloped Land Duty for which they become liable. Land developed for any other purpose than agriculture, not necessarily being built upon, but land used for a rope walk, and not for the purpose of agriculture, is regarded as developed land, and is free from Undeveloped Land Duty. Another point I wish to make, particularly in regard to nursery land, is in respect of the Agricultural Holdings Act. Nurseries are expressly excluded from being treated as agriculture. Nursery grounds have none of the privileges of the Agricultural Holdings Act in regard to security of tenure, and they are excluded from the benefits of that Act because they are treated as a trade which is not agriculture. Now here, when to be treated as a trade which is not agriculture would be beneficial, they are to be treated as agriculture. That is the point the nurserymen make, they think there should be some consistency, and that if they are without the benefits of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and are treated as a trade, and not agriculture, equally they ought to be treated as a trade, and their land ought to be treated as developed land for the purpose of this Act. It is a great hardship. A market garden or a nursery is clearly a trade apart from any agricultural industry, and is, I may point out, a trade which must be by its nature most advantageously carried out in the immediate neighbourhood of a town— for the closer it is to a town the better it is for the trade. Whether this Amendment is accepted or not, they are going to be clearly liable to the heavy burden of Increment Value Duty—on that increment of their property which is not agricultural. Take the case of a great nursery garden near Slough or Chelsea. There you have land of great and growing building value. If that building value grows those con-
    396
    cerned are subject to Increment Value Duty in any case. I say that is quite sufficient burden for this House to put upon them. Now you propose, in addition to that, to treat them as agricultural land, and to burden them with Undeveloped Land Duty on the whole of that land— which might be £1,000 or £2,000 an acre. I think it is an extreme hardship, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will eccept this Amendment. It is a simple way of dealing with this matter, and of treating the nursery gardens and the market gardens as developed land. If he does that he will fairly meet the requirements of the trade, and I do not see how they are to be met in any other way. That will also cover the material point raised by my hon. Friend as to the building of glass-houses. The building of glass-houses is as important and expensive as the erecting of other buildings. I think this Amendment ought, therefore, to be accepted.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Member has treated this as if it is a question of putting a burden upon the nursery and the market gardener. The nursery or the market gardener is the man who holds his land from year to year, or on a very short lease. He will not pay as he would if he was a freeholder.
    Mr. ABEL SMITH: Many nursery men are freeholders.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Very few. In the vast majority of cases they are men. holding from year to year or on very short leases. I do not mean to say there are not cases of market gardeners who are freeholders, but they are the exceptional cases. Did my hon. Friend follow the case at Evesham, where a market gardener was paying £20 an acre for his land? He would get under this exemption up to £500 an acre. Of course, that would be far more than any building land could possibly be assessed in respect of that particular piece of land. Most of the market gardeners pay very high rents. There are cases of men paying £5, £10, £15, and, in the case I have mentioned, £20 an acre for market gardens far removed from any town. Well, the market gardener will get exemption up to 25 years' purchase in respect of the whole rent, and he does not pay the Undeveloped Tax, it is paid by the owner of the land. I do not think it is too much to ask the owner who receives £20 an acre to pay½d. on the surplus over

    397
    and above the value he is getting from the market gardener. We have had all this before. I do not think, if I may so with great respect, it is really relevant now. If you leave out the words here, as proposed in the Amendment, you do not settle the question. It should have been settled on Clause 11. If you left out these words here I am not sure it would not exempt the market gardener from the protection that is given him, and whether you would not really rather damnify than improve his position. I promise the hon. Member for Herts (Mr. Abel Smith) that I will consider the ease of the glass-houses, but even that cannot be done here, and if I left out these words it would not protect the glass-houses at all. It is purely a question of definition which gives the market gardener such protection as he has got.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman says the proper place to discuss this is on Clause 11.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was discussed.
    Mr. BALFOUR: And that it was discussed, but it was not on Clause 11 that the right hon. Gentleman discovered that glass-houses ought to be exempt. That is a statement he only makes in consequence of my hon. Friend's Amendment and demand on this Clause. The Chancellor says it ought not to have been moved now, but on Clause 11, as it would have been most appropriate to that Clause.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was not raised there.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman went further, and told us he was considering this point. I do not greatly envy him the process of consideration which be has promised to himself and the Committee, which is going to exempt land on which there are glass-houses. He is not going to exempt the other market gardens, but how on earth are you going to make a distinction? On what possible basis do you proceed? A man who has spent £50 on glass-houses is to be exempt, but he may have spent precisely the same amount in developing his land without glass-houses, and you will not exempt him. The right hon. Gentleman, in order to make his case better, quoted a particular example from Evesham market gardens. There, he said, the land is worth £20 an acre, and is far away from a city, having no building value at all. How wonderful
    398
    is the exemption given under this Bill. Evesham is absolutely a unique instance, there is certainly nothing like it, and it is absurd to take Evesham market gardens as an illustration as it would be to take land round Dunbar as a sample of what could be done in potato growing elsewhere. The soil is absolutely unique in these cases and no lesson can be drawn from them. The real point of my hon. Friend's criticism is that for a Government which talks of sending people back to the land and the necessity of developing agriculture, to define as undeveloped land land already devoted to agriculture, is so thoroughly grotesque that all the consideration which the Chancellor has promised in the House and in the country between this and the Report stage will hardly, I think, rescue him from the difficulties in which he is involved.
    Sir HENRY KIMBER: I have an Amendment upon the Paper in almost the same words. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he spoke of Clause 11, must mean rather Clause 10. Clause 10, Subsection (2) reads as follows: "For the purposes of this Part of this Act land shall be deemed to be undeveloped if it has not been developed by being built upon, or by being used bonâfide for any business, trade or industry other than that of agriculture." Certainly "business, trade or industry" would include the business of market gardening, and, therefore, a definition has already been given to it. Now, by this Sub-section in the definition Clause you give an interpretation to the word "agriculture" which excludes this particular industry—market gardens and nursery gardens. The proper way would have been for the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Clause 10 was under discussion to have inserted after the words "other than agriculture" the words "and other than the business of market gardening." It seems to me it is as much a business as any other trade or industry, and the reason I put down this Amendment was if the Clause is carried without the Amendment it would be in contradiction to Clause 10, Sub-section (2).
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There are a couple of misapprehensions which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is labouring under and which I should like to contribute my mite towards clearing up. He assumes, in the first place, that it is very rare to find a market gardener who owns the freehold of his land. It is much rarer than I should like to see and than

    399
    it might have been if the Government had shown more sympathy with the idea of small ownership. But it has become more common in recent years. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to another part of Worcestershire, in my own division, he will find very small owners carrying on market garden business. He will find some also in Lincolnshire, and I daresay in other parts of the country. I should like to see that system enormously spreading. It is the most hopeful way of getting people back to the land, and of giving them the full reward for their arduous labours. It is necessary to make small occupations of that character successful in this country. But whether the numbers become very much larger in future or whether they remain as they are, I am certain there are a considerable number of cases where there is no ground landlord for the market gardener to fall back upon and where this Undeveloped Duty will have to be paid by the occupying owner and worker, the market gardener himself. The right hon. Gentleman observed, "See what an exemption I gave. You heard of the case recently occurring in Lincolnshire where an individual pays £20 an acre for his land. That would mean," said the right hon. Gentleman, "a building value of £500 an acre." The right hon. Gentleman takes an exceptional case, of course, but I want to direct attention to what is a common case. If you establish a colony of small owners anywhere you at once give to the place a building value that it did not have before. There grows up a demand for labour to work these small holdings, and although it is probably true you could not sell the whole of the land in this district for building purposes, it is quite impossible to say you could not sell a particular place or almost any of the plots at a given moment for building purposes for something more than its agricultural value. The fact of your having this communion of small cottage holders, with all their needs for supplies of all kinds, creates a demand for cottages in this district, and gives a building value to any particular plot, not to the whole, in excess of its agricultural value, even to the enhanced agricultural value of the market garden. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the exemption for which he takes credit is of much less value to these people than he believes, and they will find that the Bill will in its operation be very different from what they have been led to suppose. The Leader of the Opposition
    400
    asked by what possible principle are you going to distinguish between glass-houses, for which undoubtedly you ought to give credit, and the expenditure on the land of an equal amount not involving the erection of glass-houses. My right hon. Friend asked how are you going to distinguish between the man who spends £50 per acre on land for the erection of glasshouses and the man who spends a similar amount developing his land for a market garden without putting up glass-houses. Take a new form of agriculture which is being introduced into this country, namely, the most intensive form of agriculture known to the Western world—I mean the French system of market gardening under bell-glasses. I saw the other day a paragraph giving an account of an experiment made by a gentleman who was anxious to work it in connection with unemployment. I cannot trust my memory as to the exact figures, but I think the expenditure was not £50 an acre, but more like £1,000 or £2,000 an acre. Are you going to charge Undeveloped Land Duty on land of that kind after an expenditure of that nature has been incurred? Surely the thing is absurd, and although this may be a very late stage of the proceedings to raise this particular point, it is a matter of great importance, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must devote his attention if he means to make his Bill workable—when I say workable I mean, of course, to make it work without the grossest injustice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer interjected a remark that this point of glass-houses had not been raised before. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have been conducting our discussion under considerable difficulties, and we have often sat for 15 hours at a stretch.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Eighteen hours.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not that we have had to do this once, but we have had these long sittings habitually, and that I think is sufficient excuse for not having foreseen all the consequences of a particular clause when it first came under discussion. Under these circumstances none of us were able to bring fresh minds to bear on a great many of these points, and it is not therefore surprising that, in spite of all the labours we have put into our work, we find this Bill is still a very bad piece of work.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot allow the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to pass without one or two observations. In

    401
    the case of the market gardener who rents a piece of land he does not pay a penny, whatever the building value may be. If the building value is over and above the value as a market garden, the tax is borne by the owner of the land. Therefore it is no addition to the burden of the market gardener. I assume the market gardener has paid in rent the utmost farthing the owner of the land could get for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of an explanation which was given by the Attorney-General earlier in the Debate to the effect that though a landlord could not make a contract with his tenant to pay this tax, it would be quite in the power of the landlord to go to the tenant and say. "I can no longer afford to continue you in occupation of the land at your present rent in consequence of this tax." Under these circumstances the Attorney-General agrees that it is quite a proper thing for the tenant to contribute an additional cheque to the landlord to induce him not to evict him.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. I was present when the statement was made, and I listened to the whole explanation. That was purely a case where there was an action pending for ejectment, and it was a settlement of the question of ejectment. In that case a cheque would be paid to settle the action for ejectment in respect of either the Undeveloped Land Tax or the Income Tax; I do not remember which it was. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there is going to be an annual action for ejectment to get 5s. an acre in respect of duty upon market gardening land? This tax will not add to the burden of the land in such a case. I think a man receiving £10 an acre from a market gardener can afford to pay his 5s. in respect of the building value of the land. Another case put forward is that of a man who owns the market garden. May I point out that we have exempted all owners of land under £500, and therefore all these small owners are exempted. How many bonâfide market gardeners are there the value of whose land is over £500 an acre. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the case of land worth £1,000 an acre upon which glass bells are used for cultivation. May I point out that that is not the value that will be taken. How many cases are there of market gardens worth over £500 an acre without
    402
    any buildings on them, without any glasshouses, and without any expenditure of that kind at all? There are very few cases indeed, and I doubt whether there will be 100 cases in the whole kingdom which will come under it. At any rate all those cases will be excluded. In the case where the value is improved by intensive cultivation I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said in cases of that kind. The value given by intensive cultivation is completely exempted by the Bill. This was done by the Amendment moved on behalf of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Northamptonshire (Sir Francis Channing) by the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Everett). By that Amendment all these cases are exempted. It is, therefore, no use the Leader of the Opposition advancing his cogent arguments for exempting glasshouses. I think it can be done, but the right hon. Gentleman says it cannot be done. I do not think market gardeners will thank the Leader of the Opposition for using his great ingenuity in this direction.
    Mr. BALFOUR: What I said was that I do not see how you can exempt glasshouses and not exempt other forms of expenditure on land.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The question is whether it is included in the word "structure." Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on one Amendment raise the question of market gardeners, and we concede the point by exempting all land under the value of £500, and exempt structures, and immediately we have done that they say we ought not to do this because it is impracticable. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman says when we make any criticism, "You first ask the Government to meet you on one aspect, and when we do so you criticise us still further, and say it is not practicable," and the right hon. Gentleman says that is very hard treatment. Does it not occur to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the reason for what he calls hard treatment is that nothing he does can make sense of his Bill? It is one of those unfortunate attempts at legislation which cannot be put right, because directly you try to meet one class of criticism by a certain set of Amendments they immediately reveal the weakness of another part of the Bill. It is not use abusing us. It is not our business to sit silent and see these absurdities passed into law, whether they happen to be absurdities in the Bill

    403
    as originally introduced or as it is proposed to be amended. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the unhappy position of having introduced a measure which cannot be amended so as to avoid objection. The right hon. Gentleman should not abuse us, but the authorised geniuses who have made themselves responsible for this piece of constructive legislation.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am very glad indeed to have from the Leader of the Opposition the admission that all the Amendments moved by him and by his hon. Friends behind him are simply an alternative form of nonsense.
    Mr. ABEL SMITH: I think if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would pay a visit to some of the districts in Hertfordshire he would be easily convinced that some of the land there used for growing fruit, flowers and vegetables for the London market is developed to a very high degree indeed. In regard to what he said about the exemption of land under a value of £500 per acre, I wish to point out that there are very large concerns in Hertfordshire where the value far exceeds that limit.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I point out that glass-houses and other structures will be excluded before you arrive at the £500 value? The value of £500 applies to the land stripped of all those things.
    Mr. ABEL SMITH: I agree that the provision with regard to market gardens is of great importance, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to consider the particular point I have raised in regard to glass-houses I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out where provision is made for exempting land with a value under £500?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot point it out now, but it is on the Blue Paper.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the new Clause on page 5200 of the Blue Paper, which mentions small houses and properties in the owners' occupation? That is the only new Clause we have been able to find dealing with a subject of this kind. So far as that Clause has any bearing on this subject, it is in Sub-section (2), which reads: "Increment Value Duty shall not
    404
    be charged on the increment value of any agricultural land where, immediately before the occasion on which the duty is to be collected, the land was, and had been for twelve months previously, occupied by the owner thereof, and the total amount of that land together with any other land belonging to the same owner does not exceed fifty acres, or, if it exceeds fifty acres, does not exceed fifty pounds in annual value as adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A." Is that the Sub-section to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer refers? I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to answer across the Table unless that is convenient, but, on the other hand, I do not want to argue about something which he had not in his mind.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can hardly discuss the whole question of small owners at the present moment. I promised to deal with the case of small owners where the total value was under £500. I have only just had the Amendments placed in my hand, and I shall be very glad to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment later on.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is on the Paper at all. Neither my Friends nor I can find anything on the Paper which has anything to do with £500. The new Clause to which I have referred is confined entirely to Increment Value Duty, and does not touch the Undeveloped Land Duty, with which we are concerned in this Clause. If there is anything else on the Paper which does cover the point we have just been raising, we should be glad to have our attention drawn to it.
    Sir H. KIMBER: I am not so willing as my hon. Friend to withdraw this Amendment. We have already, by Clause 10, exempted land which is used for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture. There can be no doubt as to-market and nursery gardening being a trade and an industry, but we are now proposing to deliberately except them from those words. Is it competent for us to pass a clause which is a distinct contradiction of a clause already passed?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not for me to interpret the meaning of these words. If I did my decisions might become subject to the decision of the Law Courts.
    Sir H. KIMBER: May I ask whether it is the opinion of the Chancellor of the

    405
    Exchequer or not that market and nursery gardening is included in the expression, "business, trade, or industry."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the very question we are discussing now. We think it ought to be included in the definition of agriculture.
    Sir H. KIMBER: Clause 10 decides that it shall not be included as agriculture.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In our judgment it ought to be included as agriculture. I presume the promise we gave is perfectly satisfactory to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Abel Smith).
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give me an answer to the question I have put to him. I quite realise it might not be fair to ask him to interject an answer, but he has referred us to a specific Amendment. I cannot find it anywhere on the Paper. The only Amendment I have been able to discover is the one I have read, and that does not meet the case we have put in the least. Where is the Amendment which does meet the case and to which the right; hon. Gentleman has referred us?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I referred to the promise I made to this House when we were discussing the question of market gardening before, to exclude small owners who own land worth £500. It is well known to the Opposition I promised that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long) actually referred to it in his controversial speech at Mountain Ash on Friday last. If it is not on the Paper, it will be long before we come to the new clauses. It is a promise which I shall certainly redeem before we come to anywhere near the new clauses.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think it will be agreed we have considerable cause to complain of the manner in which the Government treat the Amendments they propose to put before the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he made a promise, and that we knew it. We were perfectly well aware he had made a statement about small owners. We look at the Bill and among the Amendments to find out how that general statement is being carried out by the Government. We find there is a new Clause put down, entitled "Exemption of small houses and properties in
    406
    owners' occupation." Is there any human being in the Committee who does not think we were justified in supposing that that is the new Clause which was to carry out the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Of course, we supposed it, and we were right in supposing it. Now, it turns out the Chancellor of the Exchequer is speaking of another new Clause, of a different character, exempting small owners from another tax. Is that either courteous or credible? I believe that, owing to some blunder or some other reason, this is the Clause which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government intended to carry out the pledge to which my right hon. Friend alluded on Friday. Why should we have a Clause dealing with: one class of small owners and there be another Clause still in the minds of the Government which they are going to put down dealing with the same subject? That is not the proper way to treat the Committee, and I cannot see why it is done. If they had time to work out this elaborate Clause exempting small houses and properties in owner's occupation from the Increment Value Duty, why have they mot had time to devise this other Clause which is to relieve the same, or nearly the same, class from another tax? I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel he is really not treating us fairly.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the whole circumstances he will see he is treated fairly. The Clause on the Paper is one dealing purely with Increment Value Duty. We were only discussing Increment Value Duty at the time I promised this Clause. The Undeveloped Land Tax is quite a different thing. It came afterwards. My recollection is that this Clause has been down for weeks, and was down before, I believe, we came near to the Undeveloped Land Tax. I am perfectly certain it has been upon the Paper for a long time. The Instruction for drafting it was given at the time the promise was made, and that seems like years ago. I believe it is months ago.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was at the time of the High Peak election.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member is perfectly wrong. It was long before there was any idea of that election. My own recollection is that it was while we were discussing Clause 1 or 2 of the Bill. We had not got beyond the second Clause before we made the promise. If I

    407
    made a mistake at all, it was in putting it down too promptly, instead of waiting till we had got the whole of the taxes. I made another promise with regard to the Undeveloped Land Tax, and that promise I propose to redeem.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I still maintain that it was during the High Peak election. I perfectly well remember making a speech about it in the High Peak Division. I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman made a rather unworthy taunt when I suggested he had just awoke to the fact that we had been discussing agriculture. I had been here 1½hours, and had followed the arguments closely, and was wondering when the time would come when he would admit that market gardening was a business, and as such was under Clause 10, Sub-section (2), exempted from the Increment Value Duty. The House has there decided that the duty is not to be charged if the land is being built upon, or if it is being used bonâ fide for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture. Market gardening of an intensive character is a business. If you use a piece of land for any purpose other than agriculture, say, for a rope-walk, you take it out of the tax; but, if you use it for what is more valuable to the community, and develop it as a market garden, spending £500 or £1,000 per acre upon it, that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us, is not a business, but is merely agriculture, and Undeveloped Land Duty is to be charged. I sincerely hope we shall go to a Division in order that the country may realise that, in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, market gardening
    of an intensive character is not a business and is not a development of land.
    Mr. R. L. EVERETT: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept the exemption of market gardens. Market gardening is decidedly a trade and a very skilled industry. If you exclude market gardening from the definition of agriculture in Clause 10, Sub-section (2), for the purposes of the Increment Value Duty you ought also to treat it as a trade and exempt it from the Undeveloped Land Duty. I do not see that there is any possible answer to that. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer is with us in spirit, and I hope he will not in the definition Clause of agriculture include market gardening, which will prevent it being considered the trade and industry it really is.
    Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: I do not know that it is necessary, but I would remind the Committee that the definition of agricultural land in the Agricultural Holdings Act is perfectly clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Abel Smith) legitimately raised certain questions by putting down these words, but he has offered to withdraw his Amendment. I hope he will be allowed to do so, as it is obvious the omission of these words will merely stultify our definition of agricultural land. If we want anything, it is some Amendment of Clauses 10 and 11, and I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to promise that on the Report stage.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 94.

    Division No. 576.]

    AYES.

    [5.47 p.m.

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

    Brooke, Stopford

    Crooks, William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Duffy, William J.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Elibank, Master of

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Cleland, J. W.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Clough, William

    Falconer, James

    Beale, W. P.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Beauchamp, E.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Bellairs, Carlyon

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

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Boland, John

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

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Brace, William

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Glover, Thomas

    Branch, James

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Bright, J. A.

    Crean, Eugene

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Gulland, John W.

    Massie, J.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Rowlands, J.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

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

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Mond, A.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Muldoon, John

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Seely, Colonel

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Myer, Horatio

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Henry, Charles S.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sheehy, David

    Higham, John Sharp

    Napier, T. R

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Hogan, Michael

    Nolan, Joseph

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Snowden, P.

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyuiph (Cheshire)

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Idris, T. H. W.

    O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

    Summerbell, T.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Grady, J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    O'Mailey, William

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Tomkinson, James

    Jowett, F. W.

    Paul, Herbert

    Toulmin, George

    Joyce, Michael

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Keating, M.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Lambert, George

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wardle, George J.

    Lamont, Norman

    Pointer, J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Radford. G. H.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Raphael, Herbert H.

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Reddy, M.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lundon, T.

    Rees, J. D.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Richards, Thomas W. (Monmouth)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Winfrey, R.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Young, Samuel

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Robinson, S.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

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

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Everett, R. Lacey

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Faber, George Denison (York)

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

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Banbury Sir Frederick George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Foster, P. S.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Barnard, E. B.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Gretton, John

    Oddy, John James

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Carlile, E. Hildred

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Cave, George

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Percy, Earl

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hills, J. W.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Stanier, Beville

    410

    411

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Starkey, John R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Younger, George

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    H. Kimber and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Clancy) is consequential on something which is not in the Bill; and that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) should be taken on the Minerals Clause.
    6.0 P.M.
    Lord ROBERT CECILmoved to add at the end of the Clause the words: "The expression 'reasonable public access,' in connection with parks, gardens, or open spaces, shall include reasonable access by any of the military forces of the Crown for the purpose of military training or the like." This deals with a small point, and, perhaps, the Government will be able to meet me. Under Clause 11 exemption is given in respect of certain parks and open spaces to which the public are admitted. It seems to be doubtful, in regard to the construction of the word "public," whether it includes the military forces of the Crown and Volunteer battalions. I am anxious that the Commissioners should have an opportunity of considering the military forces of the Crown admitted for the purposes of drill as part of the public. I do not want to make it an absolute condition that the military should be admitted, but I desire that they should be deemed to be members of the public for purposes of exemption. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to call his attention to what I understand to be the theory of exemption adopted by the Government. It is this, that a tax is put on undeveloped land, but if it is dedicated to the public, or used for a purpose which is of great public benefit, then it is right that it should be exempted, because otherwise there would be a tendency for such land to be taken away from its public use, and not to be made available for public purposes. It does appear to me, if that is the theory of exemption, then at least it is as important that landlords should be encouraged to allow military forces of the Crown to come in and drill and take their exercises in the open space as it is to allow people of the locality or the general public to come in and have picnics and enjoy themselves
    412
    upon the land. I think, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider it for a moment, he will see that there really is a much stronger case for the military than for those who are called outside this House "picnickers," because it is really essential, for military training, that you should have a considerable open space. You cannot do without it indeed, and it is very difficult to secure open spaces of that kind in the neighbourhood of large towns, where you want them for the purpose of training such forces as the Volunteers from great centres. Therefore, it is of great importance that nothing shall be done by the Finance Bill to discourage, those owners, and there are large numbers of them, who do allow military training to go on in their parks and open spaces. I quite understand that there may be difficulties about the drafting, but I do not want to interfere with that. What I am anxious to secure is an opinion from the Government as to whether they are favourable to this exemption or not.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I quite sympathise with the object which the Noble Lord has in view, but I think if he looks at the Bill and his Amendment he will see that he does not attain that object, but he rather limits the exemption which will be already conferred by Sub-section (3) of Clause 11. If these words are placed here the effect will be that unless the landowner granted reasonable access to the military forces of the Crown he would not get the benefit that is given him by that Sub-section, because he gives reasonable access to the public. I am assured that that would be the effect. All that the Noble Lord wants to do is that any benefit of this kind which is conferred on the owner by Parliament should be considered as an element. I do not think he would go so far as to say that purely because the owner of a park had thrown his park open for a week's training he should be exempt altogether, even although he denied access to the public all the year round. I do not think he would go so far as that.
    Lord R. CECIL: I want to leave it open, that that case, amongst others, should be taken into consideration.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There I agree with the Noble Lord. I think that ought

    413
    to be taken as an element into consideration, but I do not think it ought to be taken as a sufficient reason for the owner to deny access to the public. It ought, however, to be considered as an element. I think it would be open to the Noble Lord to say, perhaps, that at present it would not be considered as an element, but I am not quite sure about that. I am perfectly clear, however, that this is not the proper place for the Amendment, which would have a limiting effect in this position. If he withdraws this Amendment, however, I will make it absolutely clear, later on,
    on an Amendment which will give the Commissioners power to consider this as an element on the question of reasonable access.
    Lord R. CECIL: I am quite satisfied with that assurance, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 96.

    Division No. 577.]

    AYES.

    [6.8 p.m

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

    Fenwick, Charles

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Maclean, Donald

    Ambrose, Robert

    Fullerton, Hugh

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Glover, Thomas

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

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Barnes, G. N.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Massie, J.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Gulland, John W.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Beale, W. P.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Beauchamp, E.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Mond, A.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Harcourt, Robert V, (Montrose)

    Money, L. G. Chlozza

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Muldoon, John

    Boland, John

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Brace, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Myer, Horatio

    Branch, James

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Bright, J. A.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Napier, T. B.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henry, Charles S.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nuttall, Harry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    O'Grady, J.

    Charnning, Sir Francis Allston

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Malley, William

    Clough, William

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Paul, Herbert

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

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

    Joyce, Michael

    Pointer, J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Keating, M.

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Radford, G. H.

    Crooks, William

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lambert, George

    Reddy, M.

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

    Lamont, Norman

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rees, J. D.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Elibank, Master of

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Lundon, T.

    Robinson, S.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lupton, Arnold

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Falconer, J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Snowden, P.

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Rowlands, J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Wilson, W. T. (Wcsthoughton)

    Seely, Colonel

    Toulmin, George

    Winfrey, R.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Young, Samuel

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Walters, John Tudor

    Sheehy, David

    Wardle, George J.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Watt, Henry, A.

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Nicholson, Wm. G (Petersfield)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Oddy, John James

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Percy, Earl

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hills, J. W.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cave, George

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Stanier, Beville

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Starkey, John R.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    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)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, George

    Forster, Henry William

    Morpeth, viscount

    Foster, P. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Peel and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

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

    CLAUSE 28.—(Application of. Part I. to Scotland.)
    (1) In the application of this Part of this Act to Scotland, unless the context otherwise requires:—
    The expression "land" does not include teinds, titles or offices of honour, or any servitude, feu-duty, or ground annual, or any rentcharge as defined by this Act:
    The expression "rent" includes yearly or other rent, toll, duty, royalty, or other reservation by the acre, the ton, or otherwise; and for the purpose of Section twenty of this Act includes feu-duty and ground annual:
    The expression "interest" in relation to land includes the landlord's right of reversion to the subjects let on the determination of the lease, but does not include heritable securities, bonds of provision, jointures, annuities, or other capital or annual sums, or other debts secured upon heritage:
    The expression "owner" means the fiar of the land, except that where land is let on lease for a term of which more than fifty years are unexpired, the tenant under the lease shall be deemed to be the owner, and includes an institute or heir of entail in possession, and the life-renter of land which is settled within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1894, whether such fiar, institute or heir of entail in possession, or life-renter is or is not sui juris:
    The expression "freeholder" includes "fiar," "life-renter of land settled within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1894," and "institute or heir of entail in possession":
    The expression "incumbrances" includes any heritable security, or other debt or payment secured upon heritage:
    "Servitudes" shall be substituted for easements, and "Court of Session" for High Court.
    (2) Any order of a referee as to costs shall be enforceable as a recorded decree arbitral:
    (3) Sub-section (1) of Section two of this Act shall be construed as if after paragraph (d) thereof the following paragraph were added (that is to say):—
    "(e) where the occasion is the grant of any feu of the land or the creation of any ground annual thereon, the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the consideration for such grant or creation, by way of feu duty, ground annual, or otherwise."
    Where Increment Value Duty falls to be collected on a feu contract or feu charter or a contract of ground annual, it shall be paid by the person granting the feu or creating the ground annual, and for the purposes of this Part of this Act that person shall be deemed to be the transferor and the contract or charter to be the instrument.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after "servitude" ["offices of honour, or any servitude"], to insert the words "superiority, casualty."—[Mr. Scott Dickson.]
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), to leave out "or any rentcharge as defined by this Act."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Mr. CLYDEmoved, in Sub-section (1), after "annual" ["feu duty or ground annual"], to insert the words "or any incorporeal heritable right."
    The effect of these words is merely to bring into line the definition, for Scotch purposes, of the word "land" with the definition of land for English purposes and to exclude certain kinds of right which one need not at present define, but I am sure the Government do not mean to include them.
    Mr. URE: I agree.
    Mr. CLYDEmoved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out "and for the purpose of Section twenty of this Act includes feu-duty and ground annual."
    The general definition of the word "rent," as the Bill stands, accepts the feu-duty and excepts the ground annual. But, for the purpose of Section 20, it proposes to make feu-duty or the ground annual the same thing as the rent. Section 20 had for its purpose the obtaining of information, and the broad provision of it is that every person who pays rent in respect of land, and everyone who is an agent for any person who receives rent, shall, on being required by the Commissioners, furnish to them the name, and address of the person to whom he pays rent. Under the definition as proposed in the Bill the result would be this, that every person who pays a Feu Duty or a ground annual, and every person who is an agent for anyone who receives a Feu Duty or ground annual, shall, on being required by the Commissioners, furnish the name and address of the persons to whom he pays the Feu Duty or on whose behalf he receives it. Inasmuch as it already appears, from the Amendment accepted on the first Clause, that a superiority is not included in the definition of land, it seems to be the purest surplusage to enable the Commissioners to trace out the persons who are superiors and to whom Feu Duties are paid. It would, of course, be quite otherwise if the purpose was to enable people to find out who the lessor or the lessee is, because that would be vital for the purpose of collecting some of these duties, the Reversion Duty in particular; but, inasmuch as no tax is to be imposed upon a superiority at all, the purpose of enabling the Commissioners to ascertain who may happen to be the superior is hard to find. One is inclined to conclude that this Clause is the survival of a previous draft of the Bill which had undergone some change. At all event, I propose, unless some reason can be given for hunting after superiors who are not to be taxed, as compared with hunting after the lessors who are to be taxed, to except from the Bill this additional inquisitorial power of the Commisioners.
    Mr. URE: This is a small and unimportant matter. Probably this power will never be exercised to any extent, but it is thought desirable that the Commissioners should have the power of checking the information which they get if they had any reason to doubt its accuracy.
    Mr. CLYDE: I could quite understand that if by means of Section 20 you could have discovered the amount of the Feu Duty; but that is exactly what under Section 20 the Commissioners have no power to ask. The only thing the Commissioners are authorised to discover in this way is the name and address of the person to whom rent, for the purposes of the Act, if the Bill stands as it is, is payable. They have not a shadow of a right to ask the amount. That surely must be an after-
    thought, because that is not the purpose of Section 20. Since the amount is not recoverable in this way, and nothing is recoverable except the name and address of a person who is never to be touched by the taxation at all, would it not be wiser to leave the Section out altogether?
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 97.

    Division No. 578.]

    AYES.

    [6.25 p.m.

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

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Maclean, Donald

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    M'Callum, John M.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Glendinning, R. G.

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

    Barnard, E. B.

    Glover, Thomas

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Massie, J.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Beale, W. P.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Beauchamp, E.

    Gulland, John W.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Mond, A.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Muldoon, John

    Boland, John

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Brace, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Myer, Horatio

    Branch, James

    Harwood, George

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Bright, J. A.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Napier, T. B.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Nolan, Joseph

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Burke, E. Haviland-

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

    Nuttall, Harry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henry, Charles S.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Grady, J.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    O'Malley, William

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clough, William

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Paul, Herbert

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Paulton, James Mellor

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

    Jackson, R. S.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pointer, J.

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Joyce, Michael

    Radford, G. H.

    Crean, Eugene

    Keating, M.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Crooks, William

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Rees, J. D.

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

    Lambert, George

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lamont, Norman

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

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

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robinson, S.

    Elibank, Master of

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lundon, T.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Falconer, J.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Fenwick, Charles

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Rowlands, J.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Watt, Henry A.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Summerbell, T.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Seely, Colonel

    Tomkinson, James

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Toulmin, George

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

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Sheehy, David

    Vivian, Henry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Walters, John Tudor

    Winfrey, R.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wardle, George J.

    Young, Samuel

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Snowden, P.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr.

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    NOES.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Oddy, John James

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    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

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hills, J. W.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cave, George

    Keswick, William

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Stanier, Beville

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Starkey, John R.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    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

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, George

    Forster, Henry William

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Foster, P. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newdegate, F. A.

    A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

    Amendments made:
    To insert after the word "include" ["but does not include"] the words "teinds, servitudes."—[Mr. Ure.]
    To insert after the Amendment last made the word "superiorities."—[Mr. Scott-Dickson.]
    To insert after the word "superiorities" the words "any interest in expectancy whether vested or not."—[Mr. Scott-Dickson.]
    Mr. YOUNGER: I should like to raise the question whether any exemption is to be given in respect of a mortgage?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member handed in an Amendment to another part of the Clause raising this question.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Yes, but I want to raise the question here. I made a mistake as to the proper place to make the Amendment. I wish to know whether it is or is not essential that some words should be introduced whereby the mortgagee out of possession of the land will be protected?
    Mr. URE: I do not think the Amendment is necessary.
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: I propose to add after the word "heritage" ["or other debts secured upon heritage"] the words "or any sporting right or any lease thereof." These words will bring the Scotch law into harmony with the English law.
    Mr. URE: I agree to insert the words. I do not think they are necessary, but they will do no harm.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move to leave out from the word "possession" ["and includes an institute or heir of entail in possession"] to the words "sui juris" at the end of the paragraph. This Amendment raises rather a larger and more important question than some of those which have preceded it. The Amendment relates to the definition of "owner," and the part of the definition which the Amendment affects is the last branch of it where, within the meaning of the word owner, there is included "the life-renter of land which is settled within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1894, whether such fiar, institute or heir of entail in possession, or life-renter is or is not sui juris." There are really two points involved in the Amendment. The greater and more important relates to the position of the life-renter. What makes this important for Scotland, as distinct from England, is the absence in Scotland of any legal machinery by means of which a person entitled only to a life estate in land can either lease or sell it or do anything with it for the purpose of enabling that land to be developed either by himself or by other people. In England there has been in full force for many years an Act of Parliament known as the Settled Land Act of 1882, under which a life-renter can obtain by application to the court full power both to lease and sell the land. I believe that the powers under that Act are even more extensive. Therefore, when under the policy of the Bill as it stands a person entitled to life estate in England is made the owner for the purpose of this taxation, and is made to pay as owner, there is no great injustice done to him as compared with the full proprietor, the owner of the fee simple, because even if he has not made application to be allowed to develop the land by leasing or selling it to some person who intends to develop it he has the power to do so. Therefore, he has the potential capacity and powers of owner. But in Scotland there is nothing analogous to that at all, and, therefore, if by way of definition you make a person who is only entitled to life estate liable to this taxation as owner, you are immediately face to face with the situation that he cannot himself develop the land, and cannot lease or sell it. Nor can he by any legal process obtain power to lease or sell it. You would, therefore, be imposing this undeveloped Land Duty upon him, although he is by law placed in a position that he can neither develop it himself nor lease or sell it to other people for that purpose. It is
    424
    perfectly obvious, therefore, that to subject the life renter to this taxation while there is no law in Scotland analogous to that which the English life-renter can avail himself of under the Settled Land Act, you would treat him with gross unfairness. You would saddle him with a tax on his land because it is undeveloped, although by law he cannot develop it by leasing or selling it to anybody who would develop it. That has been recognised within recent years as a great defect in the case of the life-renter in Scotland, but as such is the law at present it is not reasonable to impose this taxation on a man who is in that position. I propose, therefore, to cut the Scotch life-renter out. I understand that difficulties may present themselves to the Government arising immediately out of the question, "Who is to pay?" I say frankly that there may be a difficult question for the framers of the Bill inside of that, but, after all, it is not my business to find a solution for them. My business is to avoid the risk of injustice to those who will be placed in the position which I have indicated.
    The other point which the Amendment raises is this. The definition might quite properly be made to apply both to the ordinary person who owns the fee simple of the land and also to the heir of entail. It properly applies to the heir of entail, because although he has not himself, without assistance, the power to lease or sell,, he can get it by application to the Court-Therefore that is quite right. But the part of the definition which I propose to exclude goes on to say, "whether such fiar, institute or heir of entail in possession, or life-renter is or is not sui juris." In all these cases he is to be liable to Undeveloped Land Duty in the same manner as if he were of full capacity. The difficulty in England is so dealt with by the Settled Land Act and by an Amendment of that Act as to provide a remedy in the case of a person who is wanting in capacity, whether from non-age or some other form of legal incapacity. We cannot get the benefit of that in Scotland. We have nothing analogous to the Settled Land Act of 1882. In Scotland we have machinery by means of which, in the case of pupils or lunatics, those responsible for the administration of an estate can obtain certain powers; but, unfortunately, in the case of pupilage and lunacy, the power to sell or lease are not given, according to our statute or practice, except and unless a very strong case is made out for the exercise of that power. It is in the discretion

    425
    of the court to grant or refuse it. Accordingly it is a power which is not exercised unless the case is one of the utmost necessity. It seems to me that it would be most unfair in the case of these people who are subject to incapacity by non-age or by the accident of lunacy to subject them to this taxation unless there is some means provided to overcome the difficulty which I have pointed out. I confess I see great difficulty in making a proposal to overcome the difficulty, but it seems to me that, just as it is necessary in fairness to put the life-renter outside the owner, so, in like manner, it is necessary to put the owner, whoever he may be, outside the definition in the Clause if he is not sui juris.Under the law as it stands he cannot keep his feet and hands free to perform those acts in developing the land which afford not only escape from taxation, but which alone enable him to do the very thing which this taxation is intended to compel or induce him to do. Therefore, I hold that these words ought to be omitted.
    Mr. URE: As has been very clearly pointed out by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Clyde), there is a practical distinction between the position of a life-renter in England and in Scotland, and undoubtedly it looks at first sight as if there would be some harm done in the case of the Scottish life-renter in paying duty. But it must be remembered that the case of the life-renter in relation to duty applies only to Undeveloped Land Duty. It does not apply in the case of Increment Duty or Reversion Duty at all. The case would arise in this way: Suppose you had a portion of ground which was valuable for building purposes, and the life rent of which was enjoyed by a person who was under the disabilities which my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out. The Government would be entitled to come down upon him for the Undeveloped Land Duty unquestionably under the terms of this Clause, and my hon. and learned Friend says that that is hard upon him because he cannot sell and he cannot build upon the ground. Quite true. But", on the other hand, under the fourth Sub-section of Clause 26, if he is called upon to pay duty, he is empowered to borrow the amount and to obtain security by charging the amount upon the land, so that he really is not out of pocket.
    Mr. CAVE: Under an Amendment adopted a short time ago, was not Undeveloped Land Duty made an exception in Clause 26?
    Mr. URE: I think not, but if that is so then I admit it would require to be very carefully considered, and I will have carefully to consider whether or not I can either alter this Clause so as to leave out the life-renter or accede to the proposition that it should be struck out altogether. It is quite clear it would only apply in a very limited number of cases, and in very exceptional cases, but my present impression is that he would be entitled to secure relief from payment of the duty, as I have pointed out; but I undertake very carefully to consider this portion of the Clause, having in view the difference of the position of the life-renter in one country and in the other. With regard to the other objection urged to this Clause, that it puts an obligation' upon one who is not sui juris.I trust that my hon. and learned Friend will accept my assurance that I will consider whether or not I should either omit it altogether or make such Amendments as will relieve the man who is not sui juris.I trust that the Committee will allow the matter to stand on that undertaking.
    Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he considers whether, under this legislation, there will be any probability of borrowing on fair terms on the security of land in the position described? I am told by professional lawyers that in future they would not advise any client to lend any money upon it.
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: It rather looks to me as if Sub-section (4) of Clause 26 covers all duty, and, accordingly, it may be that the life-renter has power to borrow money. But surely that is not a practical thing. It would mean that the life-renter —in the first place—every year would have to advance out of his own pocket money which he is not in a position to avoid paying, and which he cannot avoid by developing the land, as the land cannot be developed. He is to advance that every year out of his own pocket, and each advance is to be secured by a fresh bond. The position of getting an annual bond granted each year to borrow the amount would be ludicrous. Observe further that the unhappy life-renter's position would be this: He is paying a debt which is not his, and he is allowed to charge it on land which may be already fully charged; he must pay another man's debts, and then his only remedy is year after year to get a separate bond as security. The legal cost of this would run up to a considerable amount, and there is no provision for costs being

    427
    paid. I would ask the Lord Advocate to consider the different position of the life-renter in Scotland from that of the life-renter in England, in this respect particularly, that in England he can develop the land, whereas in Scotland he cannot. To remedy the defect which exists, the life-renter should be struck out of liability altogether.
    Mr. URE: With regard to the remedy which the life-renter has under Clause 26, Sub-section (4), as I said originally, he has the power to borrow, but it is exactly the same power which the life-renter has under the Act of 1894. It may be an annual payment for one, two, or three years as the case may be. That, after all, is a very simple matter. However, I will take that into consideration. I realise the difference in the position of the life-renters in the two countries, and I will consider whether the position should be met by the deletion of this Clause altogether, or by such alterations as would deal with the points that have been raised.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The only alternative remedy suggested by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government is that he thinks that under a preceding clause there will be power for this unfortunate life-renter to charge the estate with the amount of the duty each year as it becomes due. Suppose the duty that becomes due is £10 a year. I know very little about law, but from general experience I should say that in order to charge the estate with that £10 you will have to pay £5, and after having gone to your legal adviser and had your legal document drawn out, and stamped and registered, you get off with an additional charge amounting to half the duty which has got to be paid. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the accuracy of those statistical facts? I do not think he will assert that an estate can be charged with any sum, however small, under what is practically a mortgage, under a cost of £5. If you are going to pay legal expenses every year, half of the amount you give the Government by way of taxes, then you are imposing a form of taxation which is even more grotesquely extravagant than any of the other proposals which have yet appeared in this Bill. Under those circumstances I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not imagine that by merely remodelling Sub-section (4) of Clause 26 so as to make it perfectly certain that a man
    428
    can charge the estate of which he is the life-renter with the amount due on account of Undeveloped Land Duty, he will remedy the grievance. As far as I can see there is no other method of dealing with the grievance, except deleting the tenant for life altogether from the incidence of this particular form of taxation. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I have exaggerated the case. I do not think he does. If he does I hope he will explain by what method a life-renter can charge his estate and get the necessary deed drawn up by his lawyer and stamped at less charge than the sum which I have suggested as the absolute minimum he will have to pay, however small be the amount of the duty which is to be charged upon the corpus.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It really appears that the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate all the difficulties that are involved in accepting this alternative Amendment of Clause 26. He says that a life-renter can charge this sum and obtain security. That is the whole point. There will certainly be a great many cases where the life-renter on whom the tax would fall might charge it against the estate, but he would obtain no security at all. If you come to the method which the right hon. Gentleman suggests in Clause 26 it is quite clear you must make some more provisions to provide for the different securities on estates. If a man pays on behalf of the estate money which is due in respect of the estate, then you ought to provide that he should have a first charge over the assets of the estate, and if the right hon. Gentleman makes any such proposal he will bring about his ears a hornet's nest from the mortgagees, who at present hold charges on the estate. The whole thing is so involved that the best course for the Government to adopt would be to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Clyde) and omit this very vexed Clause.
    Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: There is only one other possible solution—that the right hon. Gentleman should in some way put the Scottish life-renter in the same position as the English life-renter. To pile up a series of mortgages of this kind on property, which, as we know in Scotland, is often very heavily mortgaged is such a ludicrous proposal that I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman ever made it to the House at all; but, of course, it is no more ludicrous than some of the other proposals for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible both

    429
    on the platform and in the House. But I protest entirely against this system of dealing with this question in Scotland. Either the life-renter must be exempted altogether or else put in the position suggested. If the mineral Clause had remained in the Bill as it was, the position would have been perfectly hopeless. I know cases in my own county where not only is it impossible for the life-renter to develop minerals, but they are specially precluded from doing so, and they have no knowledge of who the ultimate owner of the property may be, by reason of a power of appointment of successor. But that does not arise here, because minerals are exempted.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. CLYDE: In view of the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I do not propose to go to a Division. I am quite sure that I may rely upon it that he will consider the matter as one clearly calling for full consideration, and it is because I believe that it will receive that full consideration that I do not press my Amendment to a Division. The other Amendment which I have on the Paper is purely consequential upon that which has been withdrawn, and if I have an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that it will also be considered I will not move it.
    Mr. URE: I can assure my hon. and learned friend that if we do not find a better solution, as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, this one will be withdrawn.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONmoved to leave out, in the fifth paragraph, the words "expression 'freeholder' includes 'fiar,' "and to insert the words" expressions 'freeholder' and 'person entitled to the freehold of the land' include."
    Mr. URE: I think my right hon. and learned Friend will see that it is better not to accept that Amendment. The words "person entitled to the freehold of the land" only occur in the Definition Clause, that is to say, Clause 27, and I do not think they occur in any other part of the Bill. I think my right hon. Friend had better omit them here.
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: To insert the words "and the expression 'freehold' shall be construed accordingly" ["institute or heir of entail in possession"].
    To insert the words "and the expression 'incumbrancer' shall be construed accordingly" ["secured upon heritage"].
    Mr. CLYDEmoved, after the word "easements" ["shall be substituted for easements"], to insert the words "and shall be deemed to include public rights."
    I am not sure that the meaning of the word "easements" is analogous to the meaning of the word "servitudes," which is not ordinarily applied so as to cover public rights over land. I am sure the intention was to make easements in Scotland include not merely private rights over land but public rights, and therefore I move.
    Mr. URE: I agree.
    Mr. UREmoved to leave out the words "and Court of Session for High Court," and to insert "'Court of Session' shall be subsituted for High Court. Provided that, for the purposes of the appeal to the High Court under Section twenty-two hereof, the judges of the Court of Session named for the purpose of hearing appeals under the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Acts shall be substituted for the High Court, and their decision shall be final. 'Sheriff Court' shall be substituted for County Court."
    This Amendment is moved with the object of obtaining that the tribunal shall not be the Court of Session, but shall consist of three judges of the Court of Session, who will be specially chosen for the purpose of hearing valuation appeals. Up to last year only two judges sat on these appeals. That was found to be an unsatisfactory tribunal when they differed in opinion. Where we have three judges specially selected for the purpose of hearing valuation appeals we think it would be better to refer all questions relating to valuation under Clause 22, and any analogous questions, to this tribunal. I propose by this Amendment that the decision of the tribunal shall be final. Under the English law an appeal is given from the High Court to the House of Lords on a statement set out under the statute of 1894. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Edinburgh is not quite satisfied with, this tribunal, and prefers the Court of Session. I

    431
    prefer this tribunal for three reasons. In the first place, these three judges will be selected for the express purpose of considering and deciding valuation appeals. My hon. and learned Friend says, "Yes, valuation appeals, but not valuations of the same character as the valuations which will be made under this Bill." Sometimes, though not always, these judges have to consider and decide the questions of the value of land apart from buildings and constructions upon the land; but in any view it would seem desirable that if legislation of this class is to pass a tribunal should be constituted which should have an opportunity of acquiring the special skill necessary to decide these questions if it does not already possess that special skill. If I took the Court of Session alone then the appeal would go to one of the two appeal courts of the Court of Session, and you might not have a continuous course. In fact, one division of the court might adopt a course which the other division of the court did not adopt, and the Committee will readily see that upon questions of valuation they are largely questions following certain rules, some of them almost equal to rule of thumb. It is of great importance that the tribunal should be accustomed to the type of work, and should follow one continuous practice. My other reason is that if there are many appeals—and they may at first be numerous, although they will gradually diminish in number as questions are decided and passed into the region of settled laws—it would be a serious handicap on the ordinary business of the court if one or other of the divisions was to be devoted to this work under the Bill. By choosing three judges of the Valuation Court, you would not hamper the ordinary business of the court to anything like the same extent. One of these judges might be chosen from one division, a second from another division, and the third from the court of first instance. In that way the ordinary business of the court would go on without being disturbed by these appeals. On all grounds, I think, the Committee will see that it is desirable to have a. special tribunal to deal with appeals. Perhaps some of my hon. and learned Friends who are members of the Scottish Bar would say whether or not they think a special division of the High Court, whose duty it would be to consider valuation appeal, would not be preferred by them, rather than taking the appeal to the High Court of Justice.
    Mr. CLYDEmoved, to leave out from the proposed Amendment all the words after the word "court."
    I gave notice of this Amendment upon the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, the effect of which is directed to two objects. One of these is to get rid of the proposal to make the decision of the Land Valuation Court final, that having the result of excluding appeal to the House of Lords, permissible by the Bill in the case of England, and which, I think, ought to be equally permissible in the case of Scotland. The other object of my Amendment is to make the appeal procedure, so far as the tribunal is concerned, exactly analogous in Scotland to what it is in England. The difference between the Amendment as proposed by the Lord Advocate and my Amendment to his Amendment, therefore, is reduced to this, that he proposes to make the appeal, in the first instance, not to the Court of Session, which is our Scotch analogy for the High Court, but to a Land Valuation Court instead. My proposal would be to make the appeal, in the first instance, to the Court of Session, just as in England to the High Court. Therefore, the question is between the Land Valuation Court or one or other of the divisions of the Court of Session. The Court of Session has two divisions, just as there are divisions in the Court of Appeal in London. The right hon. Gentleman has already weighed the considerations both ways in regard to this matter. He says, first of all, that he prefers the Land Valuation Court because the judges of that court have had some experience of valuation questions. It is true that the judges of the Court of Session, who are from time to time appointed on the Land Valuation Court, have a certain amount of special experience in the determination of valuation questions, but these valuation questions are exclusively things which arise in our land valuation, and they relate exclusively to the ascertainment of the annual value. They never have any relation at all to the capital value or the site value, upon which the whole system of this taxation depends. Any special experience that they may gather in the course of their membership of the Land Valuation Court would be, so far as I can see, absolutely valueless in dealing with valuations of this kind. What would be desirable would be, of course, that the Court of Appeal should command

    433
    the greatest possible amount of respect. No one wants to encourage further appeals to the House of Lords. Now, with perfect respect to the judges composing the Land Valuation Court, I think it is quite certain that the Land Valuation Court will never command the authority and respect for its judgments which one of the ordinary divisions of the Court of Session would command. I say that especially for this reason. By far and away the most important questions which will come before the Court of Appeal, and probably ultimately the House of Lords, will be questions, not of pure valuation at all, but questions which in the main are questions of law.
    I say with regard to questions of that kind, which are questions of law, it is inexpedient and unwise to substitute for the ordinary court of law a tribunal limited in numbers, and which, if it is not in experience, has that experience limited to matters which are not legal, and are not even —so far as they affect values—those which arise on this particular Statute. There is one other reason which leads me to prefer an ordinary court of law for an ordinary question. There has been no attempt to erect any special tribunal in England. It is to the ordinary court of law that the subject has an appeal in England, and why on earth should it be anything different in Scotland. If the Committee really thinks that the Land Valuation Court of three, who, if I mistake not, may not be judges out of the inner House, but may be judges of first instance; are a substitute for the ordinary law tribunal with regard to questions, almost all of which will be legal questions, it seems to me that it is neither called for nor wise. I agree that if it was possible to graft the system of valuation proposed on to the Scottish system that perhaps there would have been no doubt, but it is absolutely impossible to do so. The two valuations have no connection with each other, and therefore it seems to me on the three grounds mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and which I have done my best to traverse, that the better course is to allow these questions, which, as I say, are mainly questions of law, to go through the ordinary law mill, for, after all, most of them will have to end, I suspect, in the House of Lords. I beg to move.
    Mr. URE: My answer to my hon. and learned Friend is this: that first of all the judges of the Valuation Court, although they have limited experience of questions
    434
    such as they will have to try under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, have that experience. They have to decide when they are considering questions of yearly value, in certain cases, what is the capital value of the ground, and on which a percentage is put, and they have to decide what is the capital value of the buildings, and a percentage has to be put upon that. I do not say that is frequently done. I do not say I attach special importance to that. What I am mainly anxious for is that this tribunal should get experience, and at once, on such questions as would be submitted upon this Bill, and that those questions would not have been submitted first to one division of the Court and then to another in the way the practice has been. We have two divisions following entirely different rules with regard to certain large questions. I think the Committee will agree that it is of the utmost importance that the decision of the tribunal should be continuous and consistent, and that we should know exactly where we stand, and that it should be this tribunal, and this alone to which questions can be submitted. Then my hon. and learned Friend said that the decisions of the gentlemen of the Valuation Court would command no respect or less than that of the Inner House. There I entirely differ from him. I think that upon questions of valuation the judgment of the Valuation Court will command the very highest respect. He says that they will be constantly called on to decide questions of law. That is so at present, as they have frequently to decide incidental questions of law in connection with valuation. They will do exactly the same thing here. In England at the present moment there is no specially constituted tribunal; but does the Committee doubt if there had been such a tribunal constituted the appeal would have been to that tribunal and not to the ordinary Appeal Court. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend has met the point to which I attach considerable importance, and that is as to the expeditious administration of the law in Scotland. There might be a serious block in the business of the court if it were necessary to send up a large number of valuation appeals to the Divisional Courts whilst they were fully occupied with their ordinary work. He said, and correctly, that the tribunal might possibly consist, and conceivably consist, entirely of three judges of first instance. It is true it might so consist, but I think he will agree with me that when the judges

    435
    are selecting from the Valuation Court they will have regard to the business, and will carefully select, so as to embrace not only judges of first instance, but appeal judges upon this tribunal.
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: I confess it occurs to me, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said as to the new court, that this will interfere very seriously with the ordinary work of the Court of Session, because the new tribunal may take one judge from each division, so that you will have three instead of four judges in the divisional courts. Thus you will have one away for a prolonged period. I think it would be far better to take the same course as in England, namely, to the ordinary High Court.
    Mr. G. YOUNGER: I wish to say a word in supporting the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, a not very usual position for me to occupy. I have throughout these Debates on many occasions pleaded
    for adherence to our existing Scottish procedure in valuation. The Valuation Appeal Court is a court which I think I was responsible for suggesting in Committee upstairs, in a Bill a couple of years ago, and the Lord Advocate of the day accepted the suggestion. It would be extremely ungrateful on my part now if I were not to support my right hon. and learned Friend in the very strong case, no doubt, he has made for leaving matters as he suggested they should be left. I regret that this is-the only remnant, so far as I can see, left of our valuation system under this Finance Bill. Our Courts of First Instance are abolished for the purposes of this valuation, our assessor has disappeared, and we shall have only left the same appeal court. As being a remnant I propose to vote with the Lord Advocate on this occasion.
    Question proposed, "That the words-proposed to be left out stand part of th? proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 92.

    Division No. 579.]

    AYES.

    [7.25 p.m.

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Agnew, George William

    Crean, Eugene

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Crooks, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cullinan, J.

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

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Henry, Charles S.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hogan, Michael

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Barnard, E B.

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

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Hudson, Walter

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Duffy, William J.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Beale, W. p.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Beauchamp, E.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Jackson, R. S.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Elibank, Master of

    Jenkins, J.

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

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Falconer, J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Boland, John

    Fenwick, Charles

    Jowett, F. W.

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Joyce, Michael

    Brace, William

    French, Peter

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Branch, James

    Field, William

    Keating, M.

    Bright, J. A.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Kekewich, Sir George

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

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lamb, Edmond G. (Leominster)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Lambert, George

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Lamont, Norman

    Bunrnyeat, W. J. D.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Glover, Thomas

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Byles, William Pollard

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Lundon, T.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Gulland, John W.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Cleland, J. W.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Clough, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Maclean, Donald

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Harwood, George

    M'Callum, John M.

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Pointer, J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Massie, J.

    Radford, G. H.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwichshire)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Reddy, M.

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

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Redmond, John E. (Watertord)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rees, J. D.

    Tomkinson, James

    Mond, A.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Toulmin, George

    Money, L. G. Chiezza

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Mooney, J. J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Vivian, Henry

    Morrell, Philip

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wardle, George J.

    Muldoon, John

    Robinson, S.

    Waring, Walter

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Myer, Horatio

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Watt, Henry A.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Rowlands, J.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

    Nussey, Sir Willans

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Williamson, Sir A.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Seely, Colonel

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

    O'Grady, J.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Winfrey, R.

    O'Malley, William

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Young, Samuel

    Paul, Herbert

    Snowden, P.

    Younger, George

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Stewart-Halley (Greenock)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    NOES

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, G A. (Bristol, West)

    Newdegate, F. A.

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

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Oddy, John James

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gretton, John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Baring, Cat. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Percy, Earl

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Hay Hon. Claude George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Carlile, E. Hlidred

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Keswick, William

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Stanier, Beville

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Starkey, John R.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Doughty, Sir George

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

    Thornton, Percy M

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Du Cross, Arthur Philip

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

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Fell, Arthur

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Fletcher, J. S.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Forster, Henry Wiliam

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    A Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Foster, P. S.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: I understand that the effect of the Lord Advocate's Amendment as it stands is that there will still be a right of appeal from the valuation judges.
    Mr. URE: Certainly.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments agreed to:—
    In Sub-section (3) to leave out "1" ["Sub-section (1)"] and insert "2."
    After "the" ["the consideration for such grant"] to insert "value of the."
    To leave out "granting the feu or creating the ground annual," and insert "by whom or on whose behalf the feu is granted or the ground annual is created."
    After "transferor" ["shall be deemed to be the transferor"] to insert "or the transferor on sale."
    After the words last inserted to add "and the expressions 'transfer' and
    'transfer on sale' shall be construed accordingly. The expressions 'lessor' and 'lessee' include a sub-lessor and sub-lessee and the heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns of a lessor and lessee respectively."
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 94.

    Division No. 580.]

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

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

    Falconer, J.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Fenwick, Charles

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Agnew, George William

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Field, William

    M'Callum, John M.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Massie, J.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Master-man, C. F. G.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Glover, Thomas

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Barnes, G. N.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Mond, A.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Gulland, John W.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Beale, W. P.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Morrell, Philip

    Beauchamp, E.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Bonn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Muldoon, John

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

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Myer, Horatio

    Boland, John

    Harwood, George

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Napier, T. B.

    Brace, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph

    Branch, James

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Bright, J. A.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

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

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henry, Charles S.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Grady, J.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    O'Malley, William

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Paul, Herbert

    Clough, William

    Jackson, R. S.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Jenkins, J.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

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

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pointer, J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

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

    Joyce, Michael

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Reddy, M.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Keating, M.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crean, Eugene

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Rees, J. D.

    Crooks, William

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cullinan, J.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Lambert, George

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lamont, Norman

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robinson, S.

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, T.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, J.

    Elibank, Master of

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Maclean, Donald

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Summerbell, T.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Seely, Colonel

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Sheehy, David

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Tomkinson, James

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Toulmin, George

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

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Vivian, Henry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Snowden, P.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Winfrey, R.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Wardle, George J.

    Young, Samuel

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Waring, Walter

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Foster, P. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Oddy, John James

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Percy, Earl

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cave, George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stanier, Beville

    Clyde, J. Avon

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Starkey, John R.

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Doughty, Sir George

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

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Younger, George

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    H. Craik and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

    Forster, Henry William

    Morpeth, Viscount

  PART II.—DUTIES ON LIQUOR LICENCES.

    CLAUSE 29.—(Duties on Excise Liquor Licences.)
    As from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, there shall be charged, levied, and paid on the licences for the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor specified in the First Schedule to this Act, the duties of excise specified in that Schedule, and the provisions expressed in that Schedule to be applicable to any such licences shall have effect with respect to those licences.
    Mr. G. D. FABERmoved to postpone the Clause.
    This is by no means, or in any sense, a dilatory Amendment; neither, I hope, will it be necessary to carry the matter to a Division. But it gives me an opportunity of calling attention to a difficulty which I
    442
    think will arise on the discussion of the Clause. I wish to say a few preliminary words to clear up if possible that difficulty. The Clause lays down that certain duties on Excise Liquor Licences shall be established. No more is said, and it is only when you come to the Schedule that you are able to discover what these new duties are to be. I need hardly say, therefore, that the whole gravamen lies in the Schedule. I have been looking up precedents in this matter, and I would call attention to two. The first is an old one, the Excise Licence Act of 1825. In that case the whole list of duties, which is a long one, are set out in Sub-section (2) of that Act. The advantage of that will be patent to all Members of the Committee. It enables one discussion to be taken, both upon the enacting part of the Act and also on that part setting forth the duties. I

    443
    can give a much nearer case, that of Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1880. There a scale of Licence Duties was set up. You have not to go to the Schedule to find out what they are. They are set forth in the body of the Act. Anyone taking the trouble to look at Sections 40 to 45 of that Act will see the whole scale of duties set forth specifically and categorically. There is no Schedule in the matter at all. Mr. Gladstone put the duties in the body of the Bill in order that when discussion was taken upon it there should not be a wide interval separating the enacting Clause and the duties specified in the Schedule— that the whole discussion should be taken then and there, at one and the same time. What some hon. Members on this side are afraid of is this: that when we come to the discussion, as we shall directly, on the Clause, and we desire, as we shall desire, as we must inevitably desire, to refer to the Schedule, you, Sir, in the exercise of your discretion in the Chair, may point out to us that there is some difficulty in following out that course. We may be driven back upon the Schedule, the discussion upon which may not be for many weeks. We shall be driven, shuttlecock fashion, between the two battledores—the Clause and the Schedule. I am the more anxious and nervous in the matter, owing to an ominous phrase used by the Prime Minister not so long ago outside the House. He spoke of the discussion on these licensing clauses being "short, sharp, and decisive." I have tried to exercise my fertile imagination, and I am unable to discover the procedure which we are to be subjected to. I cannot imagine to what more cruel and inexorable treatment we can be subjected. With your kind concurrence, Mr. Emmott, when we are on the discussion of the Clause, we may be allowed to refer generally to the Schedule. That will make the task much easier, because it seems absolutely necessary that we should have a general discussion somewhere upon these new duties. It would be more convenient if, in accordance with the Rules, the Prime Minister can see eye to eye with us in this matter, so that we may have a general discussion on the Clause. Therefore for that purpose more than any other, I beg to move the postponement of the Clause.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The hon. Gentleman has quoted a phrase which I appear to have used outside the House, and to which he attaches a signifi-
    444
    cance which I never intended it to have. I did hope, I do still hope, that as compared with the discussion on the Land Clauses, there might be much greater brevity and more rapidly arrived at conclusions than we have hitherto been able to have. Beyond that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not attach any more importance to that particular phraseology of mine. In regard to the point of substance which he has made, I have one or two observations to make. In the first place, we are acting quite in accordance with precedent in putting in a particular scale of duties in the Schedule, and having an enacting Clause of the Bill. I have got a number of precedents here, some of quite recent years. It is sufficient to quote two in the Act of 1902 passed by the party opposite when in power, and —to come to more recent times —a precedent of my own, the Finance Act of 1907, which dealt in the same way with the scale of Estate Duties—a very complicated scale—which referred to, and had validity given to it, by an enacting clause in the body of the Act. The procedure adopted is quite in accordance with precedent. With regard to the other point, that if we do not postpone this Clause we may curtail freedom of discussion, it seems to me that exactly the opposite is much more likely to be effect of the course which the Government have taken; that we shall have a discussion on this Clause, and we cannot altogether dissociate it from the Schedule. Then when we get to the Schedule we shall have a second discussion in regard to the duties as they come seriatim. So far as from our curtailing opportunities for discussion, we are multiplying them, and the course, as I have shown, is entirely in accordance with precedent.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not desire in the least to lay down a general principle or any general rules against schedules. I regard the precedent which the Government is setting in this Bill as in some ways a very valuable precedent. It may be required before long in connection with very different financial proposals from those which are now under discussion by the Committee. Therefore I shall confine myself particularly to the procedure adopted in this Bill. I do not propose to run a tilt against schedules in general. I think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman's precedents hardly cover such schedules as are included in this Bill. It is one thing to fix in schedules the rates of duties which are to be levied in accord-

    445
    ance with the provisions of a clause. It is another thing to introduce into a schedule a number of provisions which are in fact a series of new clauses, such as are incorporated in the schedules in this case. If the right hon. Gentleman or any Member of the Committee will look at Scale (2), and see the series of provisions which follow —a scale of provisions applicable to manufacturers' licences and to wholesale dealers' licences, and under Scale (6) provisions applicable to retailers' licences, and to "on" and "off" licences—he will see that in fact the Schedule is not in any sense what may ordinarily be described as a schedule. It is a Licensing Bill complete! Perhaps "complete Licensing Bill" would be giving a too high comprehensive name to it, but it is an elaborate Licensing Bill, which indeed ought to find no place in a Finance Bill and which has no reference proper to the work of the Finance Act. But if such provisions as these are to be included in the Finance Bill at all, it is a great inconvenience that they should be placed in the Schedule, and that the discussion on the Schedule should not come till, it may be, weeks after the discussion on relative Clauses are finished. I think the right hon. Gentleman referred to a Finance Bill as one of his predecents.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Both were Finance Bills.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If you apply the kind of test I am seeking to apply it will be seen that it gives no sanction for the action taken here. In the Bill of two years ago, dealing with the Estate Duties, there was nothing like the extreme, the complicated provisions, introduced between the Clause and the relative Schedule or the amount of new matter involved in the Schedule, which is imposed here. It is not merely an inconvenience to the Committee, but it is some injustice to those whose interests are at stake that a discussion on their fate should be heard between Clauses and Schedule; that the discussion on the Schedule should not follow the Clauses, and that the Schedules themselves should contain all kinds of matter wholly foreign to a Finance Bill, and wholly improper to be put into schedules. On all these grounds I join in the protest which my right hon. Friend has made against the employment of schedules for purposes and in the circumstances in which they are employed in this Bill.
    Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I desire to join in the protest made against the manner in which this Bill is put before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire laid very necessary stress upon the fact that the Schedules in this particular case — very long Schedules, extending to more than eight pages —contain in number what I should call a long series of governing enactments. A Schedule involving a scale of duty is one thing, but a Schedule involving a complete rearrangement of the manner in which a trade should be carried out is quite another thing. I think our difficulties in discussing the Clause and not discussing the Schedules at the same time may possibly tend to curtail our Debates unfairly at this stage, and still more unfairly when we come to the Schedule Debates. I do not place a great deal of confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister so far as discussion of the Schedule is concerned, because in the Licensing Bill of last year he only gave one day to discuss seven Schedules, and although we are taking this Bill under a different system, and without guillotine Closure, and although I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be fair to us, still time is an important element in this Bill, the season of the year is an important element, the tired condition of the Committee is another, and the Committee will be sick of the whole thing before they come to the Schedules. They are sick of it now, but they will be more so then, and the difficulty will be whether intelligent Debate will take place where we have melo-dramatic changes from day to day. I do not know whether any more melodrama is in store; whether we are to have in-and-out grocers' scales as we had in-and-out grocers' licences in the Bill of last year. I do not know what is to follow. The changes are sufficiently marked not to know when discussing the Clause and the Schedule what we are to deal with. I am only making these remarks in order, if possible, to get some undertaking from the Prime Minister that he will not at all unfairly or unnecessarily curtail the Debate upon the Schedules. There must be considerable discussion; it is extremely contentious, and I hope the Motion which is being made will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of giving us some undertaking upon that point.
    Mr. BALFOUR: May I, on a point of Order, and for the convenience of the

    447
    Committee, ask you, Mr. Emmott, what your view would be as to references to the Schedule in connection with this Clause? It is quite obvious that a detailed discussion of the Schedule would be quite out of place and out of order. I do not know whether in your view more general reference to the Schedule would be permissible on this and subsequent Clauses? Of course, we should be entitled to make these general references, because it is not merely the nature, but the amount of the taxes, that comes in as necessary and valid arguments.
    The CHAIRMAN: In the case of a Bill drawn, such as this is, with enacting Clauses and Schedule, with all the scales, of licences, I think the discussion and Amendment of the Schedule ought to take place on the Schedule; but it would be obviously impossible to keep out general references to the Schedule in the discussion of the Clauses. I do not think I can give any more precise ruling than that now.
    Question put, "That Clause 29 be postponed."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 186.

    Division No. 581.]

    AYES.

    [8.9 p.m.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Golding Edward Alfred

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gretton, John

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Cave, George

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hills, J. W.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanier, Beville

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Starkey, John R.

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

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

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    G. D. Faber and Mr. Younger.

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Byles, William Pollard

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Agnew, George William

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Allen,, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Clough, William

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Clynes, J. R.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Glover, Thomas

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Gulland, John W.

    Barnes, G. N.

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Crooks, William

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Beale, W.P.

    Cullinan, J.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Harwood, George

    Bonn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Brace, William

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Henry, Charles S.

    Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bright, J. A.

    Dunn, A. Edmund (Camborne)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Elibank, Master of

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Falconer, J.

    Hudson, Walter

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Fenwick, Charles

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Jenkins, J.

    Paul, Herbert

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Summerbell, T.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Pointer, J.

    Tennant, H J (Berwickshire)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lamont, Norman

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

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

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Tomkinson, James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rees, J.D.

    Toulmin, George

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Vivian, Henry

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wardle, George J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Waring, Walter

    Maclean, Donald

    Robinson, S.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Waterlow, D S.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Rowlands, J.

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

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

    Massie, J.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

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

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Seely, Colonel

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

    Mond, A.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Winfrey, R.

    Myer, Horatio

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Napier, T. B.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Snowden, P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    O'Grady, J.

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) is not in order. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks-Beach) and those which follow are not in the right place.
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY Of LANCASTER (Mr. Herbert Samuel)moved to leave out the words "as from the first day of July, 1909." Later, an Amendment will be moved to add at the end of the Clause the words, "The said duties shall be charged on any licences which shall have been granted after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, or may hereafter be granted."
    This is purely a drafting Amendment to make clearer the intention of the Clause. Some people have read the Clause as though the new scale of duties would date back to 1st July. That has not been the intention of the Bill, which is that the new duties will be chargeable not from 1st July, but from the date of the next grant of the licence, whenever that may be. That will be effected by the Amendment I have moved.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: According to some of the Amendments we read it that it was intended to make these duties retrospective from 1st July. Does the right
    450
    hon. Gentleman say that is not a right construction?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The new scale of duties does not date back to 1st July, but to the date of the grant of any licence after 1st July. Certain licences are granted on 5th July and some in October and upon different dates during the year. On the grant of any licence after the 1st of last July the increased duties will be charged.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Then our fears are well founded, because it is intended to make these duties retrospective. I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a certain answer which he gave early in the month of July. I will read the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks):
    "Mr. Joynson-Hicks asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state when the increased Licence Duties for publicans and beer retailers commence; and upon what date the duty has actually to be paid?
    "Mr. Lloyd-George: In accordance with the provisions in Clause 39 of the Finance Bill, existing licences for publicans and beer retailers will cease to be in force on 30th September next, and the increased Licence Duties will commence and be payable on 1st October next."
    The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that the increased duty shall date back from 6th July.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: But all these licences were granted on 6th July.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, they were granted on 10th October.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I have a list of these licences, and they were granted on 5th July. They include rectifiers of spirits, dealers in spirits, manufacturers of sweets, retailers of sweets, and dealers in beer, and all those expire on 5th July.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: But those are not the licences referred to in the question.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, because they are the licences referred to in the question. On 1st July my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the duties I have specified would expire on 5th July next. The hon. Member for Rutland also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    "whether the existing Excise licences held by rectifiers of spirits, dealers in spirits (including the additional licences to retail), manufacturers of sweets, retailers of sweets, and dealers in beer (including in England the additional licences to retail), would expire on July 5th next; and if so whether on renewal of any and which of them the duties specified in the Budget Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means would be payable?
    "Mr. HOBHOUSE: The licences referred to in this question, except the licence to a dealer in beer in Ireland (which expires on 10th October), will expire as stated in the question. Upon the renewal of the licences on 6th July next, the duties would be charged for the year at the existing rates."
    That was the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but now we hear they are not to be charged at the existing rates. The right hon. Gentleman is going to make new duties and charge them from the 6th July. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought not to go back upon his word to these people who have taken out their licences on the face of his promises that the existing rates only shall be charged. Now it is proposed to make these new duties retrospective, and charge them by the new machinery under Clause 29 with the additional amount which will be paid for the new licences. Now the Government are postponing the date from the 30th September to the 30th November, and thus they are going back upon the word of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that they should be taken out at the old rates.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I want to know what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster meant when he used the phrase that this was "a drafting Amendment." It is no
    452
    drafting Amendment at all. This is an Amendment which will take tons of money out of the pockets of the licensees, and why it should be recommended to the Committee as a drafting Amendment I am totally unable to understand. This is an Amendment as far as I can see to be read in conjunction with an Amendment which stands much later on the Paper and reads as follows: "The said duties shall be charged on any licences which shall have been granted after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, or may hereafter be granted." So that the intention of the framers of the Bill when it was introduced was that they assumed these licences would be before 1st July. But finding that the men whose licences are payable in July have already taken out their licences, I presume at the old rate, this is a proposal—one which is to my view entirely repugnant to the ordinary practice of this House—to make an ex pod facto charge for a thing already granted. This is what the House of Commons is coming to. We are told that ex post facto laws are hateful to the Constitution. But surely it is all the more hateful to attempt to raise revenue by ex post facto legislation. Hundreds of men have commenced their business on a date in July and taken out their warrant, which is the piece of paper they get from the Excise, and they have paid their money and made all their arrangements upon the faith of getting that piece of paper. Months have passed, and now, on 1st September, the right hon. Gentleman proposes this change by what he calls a drafting Amendment, which will draft thousands of pounds out of the pockets of these licensees. I really think the Committee was entitled to be informed what the real position of affairs was by the Minister who is in charge. The Committee has undoubtedly been misled in the matter, not only by the Amendment, but by the prior guarantee which the House got as to the intentions of the Government. This Amendment, taken in conjunction with the subsequent Amendment, is a breach of faith with the House of Commons. The Government made up their minds when they brought in this Bill, and made a definite statement to the House that only when this Bill became an Act should any subsequent licences bear the higher duty. That was the statement.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The words have been read out by the hon. Gentleman above the

    453
    Gangway (Mr. S. Roberts), and I have them clearly in mind. The statement was that until the Act came into force you would not levy these duties. The Resolution of the House of Commons does not affect the Licence Duties like it does the Beer and Spirit Duties. You are able to enforce them, because you have the whisky under lock. A man has to submit to them; he cannot get his stores out of bond because you hold the key. That is your only means of enforcing the extra duty upon beer or spirits, as the case may be. There is no such power in the case of a licence, which is a mere piece of paper. Here are men who have made their arrangements and taken out their licences months ago imagining they were in security and that they would have nothing more to pay for the next 12 months and until they came again for their licences. The right hon. Gentleman, by a drafting Amendment, proposes to do what has never yet been done in the history of England. The Prime Minister referred to precedents for his refusal to postpone this Clause, but I venture to say he cannot quote any precedent for this kind of legislation. There is no such precedent. If you take Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1880, and all the Acts which regulate licences and impose increased charges, not one of the increased charges became payable until the Statute was passed enabling the authorities to carry them out.
    The Committee has been placed in this position. First, there has been an absolute breach of faith with the House, an absolute departure from the position taken up by Ministers. Secondly, having made that departure, an attempt is made to cloak it not only from the House of Commons, but also from the people interested under the disguise and pretence that this is a drafting Amendment, and in the dark and behind their backs you are putting upon them charges from which they believed they had escaped. Lastly, a wholly unconstitutional position is taken up, which I think will be best illustrated in this way. Supposing a lease is taken out with an existing charge of £1 for Stamp Duty, would any man like to have his lease invalidated by a Section passed through the House of Commons declaring forsooth that he would have to pay another £20 on it? That is the position the Government occupy. These men had their charter and their title and the whole thing clear. They got their licences on 1st July, and they took them up on the faith that no charge would be payable against them until the Bill was
    454
    law. Now we have a wholly different state of things. The Government say they will collect these Licence Duties as from a date in July. Such a procedure takes me completely by surprise, and I believe it will take all these people by surprise. Before this House enters upon this idea of legislation and of finance, at least some authority connected either with licences or with Stamp Duties or with some matter of that kind should be referred to to show that it is the ordinary course which is being pursued. I am not dealing with the matter as one affecting Ireland only, but as one affecting vitally the House of Commons and its procedure, and I think we are entitled to some better explanation than that this is a drafting Amendment.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): The hon. and learned Member objects to this being called a drafting Amendment, and says that people who took out their licences on 5th July this year did so without any knowledge at all that higher Licence Duties would be payable in respect of them. I submit, in the first place, that there has been no breach of faith at all in this matter, and, in the second place, I assert without fear of contradiction that this is a drafting Amendment. I say that all the more boldly because I myself suggested the Amendment in the drafting, some people having come to the conclusion wrongly that we intended that all the Licence Duties should date back to 1st July this year. That never was the intention of the Government. All we intended was that whenever a licence was taken out, whether on 5th July, 30th September, or 10th October, then and only from that date should there be any increase in the Licence Duty. It was entirely in order to make that clear that I suggested the Amendment in the Clause now before us. I say further, if the Clause was allowed to stand as first drafted, there would be no alteration whatever in the law. It was merely to clear up a misunderstanding under which many hon. Members were naturally suffering that we made this Amendment. Was anybody taken by surprise or has there been any breach of faith? My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) has not been so careful in getting up his facts as he generally is. He was not here on 10th May when the Resolution upon which this Amendment is founded was passed by the House of Commons. If I may I will just read the Resolution: —
    "That on and after the 1st day of July, 1909, in lieu of the duties of Excise now payable in respect of

    455
    licences for the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor, there shall be charged throughout the United Kingdom on the licences specified the following table of duties of Excise specified in that table."
    Then they are set out in the Schedule. So far from being taken by surprise, those who subsequently took out their licences— not only those who took them out on 5th July, but also those who intended to take them out on 30th September and 10th October—knew that they would be liable to pay the duty from 1st July. I might enumerate the licences affected. In the first place, all the manufacturers' licences other than brewers' licences expire on 10th October. The brewers' licences expire on 30th September. The wholesale dealers' licences expire and are regranted on 5th July. They, of course, will be affected. The wholesale additional retail licences are granted on 5th July, but it is proposed to abolish those licences under the Bill. The wine retailers' and passenger vessels' licences are not affected at all. The sweets retailers' licences in England and Ireland are taken out on 5th July, and therefore they will be affected. The table-beer licence is granted on 5th July, but it is intended to do away with that licence also, and all other licences—publicans' and retailers' licences of whatever description— are granted on 10th October. I have shown there has been no breach of faith, and it is perfectly clear this is only a drafting Amendment. It is perfectly clear also that nobody who took out their licence on 5th July could have been taken by surprise by anything that has happened, and, as I have shown, the number of licences which have been taken out on 5th July are comparatively few and unimportant.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on having succeeded in doing that which he set out to do. He claims he has proved there has been no breach of faith and that no one who took out licences on 6th July could have been under any misapprehension as to what would happen. I make this admission. I am in agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the effect of leaving out these words. But that is only important because the Government propose to leave them out in order to put other words in. Even if the words stood in and the Amendment were not made, the grievance would still arise. That is almost the only point on which I am agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman. How does he rebut the charge of breach of faith and of broken
    456
    pledges? By reciting to the House the terms of the Resolution upon which the Bill is based. But what are we told when we raise any question upon these Resolutions? We are told that they "are necessarily drawn very wide. We can give away anything we like afterwards, but we cannot impose any fresh charge without a new Resolution. Therefore, these Resolutions have a tendency always to express more than it is our intention to do. They are drawn wide enough to cover the uttermost we can possibly wish to do, and you must not suppose that because something is included in the Resolution it will therefore be put into the Bill." Therefore, the value of the notice given by the Resolution is singularly diminished, but the Solicitor-General forgot to refer to one speech. He forgot to refer to the pledge which the Government gave. That pledge is perfectly explicit. I think I am justified in reading it again. An Hon. Member on this side of the House (Mr. Gretton) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the existing licences held by rectifiers of spirits, dealers in spirits, manufacturers of sweets, retailers of sweets, and dealers in beer would expire on July 5th next, and, if so, whether on the renewal of any and which of them the duty specified in the Budget Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means would be payable. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has answered questions on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and has, of course, been acting with his full authority, replied that the licences referred to, except the licences to dealers of beer in Ireland, would expire, as stated in the question, and upon the renewal of the licences on July 6th the duties would be charged for the year at the existing rate. That is a perfectly definite and explicit pledge. The Solicitor-General has not attempted to deal with it. He passed it by as if no reference had ever been made to it. But it was a notice given, not merely to this Committee, but to every man interested, two or three days before he applied for his licence on July 6th, as to the rate at which he would be charged, and it was on that assurance from the Government that the applications were made. I am not here to say of these people in the mass, or of any particular individual, that the determination to apply for the licence would have been altered if the pledge had not been given. I am unable to say what was passing in their minds, or what action they might feel called upon to take under such circumstances, but I do say that when the

    457
    Government have given a perfectly definite pledge of this kind they cannot recede from it. We heard a good deal in the Debate, on some of the earlier Clauses, about breach of contract. The Government professed to be sensitive on that subject, and to have carefully safeguarded all existing contracts—to have undertaken that existing contracts should not be affected. Here is an existing contract—not a contract between two individuals, but a contract to which the State is a party. It has granted a licence on certain terms announced by the Financial Secretary, and now the Government, ex post facto, are seeking to alter those terms, and are breaking the contract to which they themselves were a party. The strongest ground for requiring the Government to alter their intentions in this matter is the pledge they themselves gave. But if any additional reasons were required, it will be found in the fact that the Bill as it stands, or as they propose to amend it, involves a breach of contract with the existing holders of these licences. I have only one further observation to make. Quite apart from the fact that to do what the Government propose—to break their pledge— what are the equities of the case? You intend to propose—I think wrongly under the circumstances — to impose large new taxes upon the licensing trade and upon licences. Surely it is only fair that that charge should take effect at the same time upon all the people affected by it. Why, because certain licences happen to expire three or four months before other licences, are these particular individuals to pay a higher tax for a so much longer time than the rest? It does seem to me, on the equities of the case, and on grounds of logic and justice, if these new charges are imposed at all, they should take effect everywhere at the same time. Existing licences could be renewed on the old terms up to a given date, and then the Government could apply to all the interests concerned the new charges at the same time without inequitable treatment of one as compared with the other. I do not, however, rest my case upon that. I rest it upon the ground which I am assured the Government cannot reject—the ground of the pledge made on their behalf in question and answer across the floor of this House.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very inflammatory attack. He has accused the Government of something nearly approaching a, deliberate breach of faith
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No. I said that to leave the Bill as the Government proposes, or to leave it as it stands would be a breach of faith, and that is the reason why the Government cannot do it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I much prefer the way in which the right hon. Gentleman now puts it to his former method. As far as I am concerned, I have no doubt I shall be believed when I say I never knew of this answer given by my right hon. Friend until it was read out just now. Of course one wishes to give the strictest possible interpretation to any pledges given on behalf of the Government, but may I point out that this is a purely drafting Amendment. Everything said by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) might have been said equally if the words had been allowed to remain. My second point is that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, has made it clear that by the Resolution on which the Bill is framed the new Licence Duties were expressly stated to be duties which will come into force on 1st July. That was quite within the discretion of the House itself. It is quite true that we often make modifications and concessions, and get very small thanks for them, but to have it said that we make concessions, and do not act upon them is extremely unpleasant. Those two observations are, I think the Committee will agree, thoroughly well justified, I come now to the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer also made the statement.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have only the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury before me, and what he said is this. I am quoting the answer given on 30th June, which the hon. Member for Sheffield referred to. It states:—
    "The licences referred to in this question except the licence to a dealer in beer in Ireland (which expires on 10th October) will expire ns stated in the question."
    That is, on 5th July:—
    "Upon the renewal of the licences on 6th July next, the duties will be charged for the year at the existing rates, but it is provided by Clause 39 of the Finance Bill that these renewed licences shall cease to be in force on 30th September next."
    That is a perfectly clear intimation that at the outside they could not have their new licences at the old rates for a longer period than 30th September. That is to say, that having paid for a year, and having enjoyed the licence for three months only, they would be refunded the

    459
    amount of duty for the other nine months. That is quite clear. I come to the other answer—
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That answer is in exactly the same terms.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question on 9th July? It is reported as follows:—
    "Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state when the increased Licence Duties for publicans and beer retailers commence; and upon what date the duty has actually to be paid?
    "Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In accordance with the provisions in Clause;39 of the Finance Bill, existing licences for publicans and beer retailers will cease to be in force on 30th September next, and the increased Licence Duties will commence and be payable on 1st October next."
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is dealing with the publicans' and retailers' licences. I come now to the point. Having read that answer and carefully considered it, I can conceive that it is quite possible that some persons may, notwithstanding the financial Resolution, which clearly indicates that the 1st of July was to be the date on which the new Licence Duty became payable, and notwithstanding the Bill which was then printed—I can conceive that some persons may have, in consequence of that answer, applied for a licence who otherwise would not have done so How many such persons there may be we do not know, but if there is only one it is enough for my purpose; and I do not think that advantage should be taken of an error of that kind. Therefore, I should be disposed, the facts being brought to my attention on behalf of the Government, to say that in regard to people who have taken out these licences on 6th July that up to 30th September they shall continue to enjoy them and to be charged at the old rate. That, I think, will be a complete fulfilment of the pledge given in the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury. Let me make it perfectly clear that this only applies to persons who may be supposed to have acted on the faith of the assurance which was then given, and has no relation to those who have subsequently taken out licences, and who knew perfectly well that the increased Licence Duty will be payable for them. I hope that that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, and that the Committee will agree that that will meet all reasonable, requirements.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly did not intend to make a very offensive charge against the right hon. Gentle-
    460
    man of deliberate breach of faith, and that is a charge which anyone would be reluctant to make against a fellow worker, and we should only do so on what we thought the clearest evidence. If any language of mine implied that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had broken faith, I withdraw it. In fact, my whole argument and the strength of it was that the pledge was certainly given, and I was perfectly certain that the Prime Minister would honour a pledge given on behalf of the Government by any of his colleagues. I think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman has met the case, but I am not quite certain what he means by the reservation or exception, that he put in at the end, and the licences he had in mind.
    The PRIME MINISTER: All the licences which have not up to this time been granted, because it is perfectly possible that the Bill may not come into force until after the 30th September, and I do not want anyone hereafter to be able to say that he was misled into taking out a licence on the basis of the old rate.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It means only this, that a man who took out his licence on October 10th after the deliberations on the Bill should not assume that he escapes the new duty.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is what I mean.
    Mr. GRETTON: I think if I may say so that the Prime Minister has taken the right course, by the announcement which he has just made to the Committee. The question which I asked, and which has been referred to, was put deliberately, and at the request of persons in the trade, and there are a very great number of them interested in this question. It was not an isolated question, nor was the answer of the Government made on the spur of the moment without consideration, because I asked a similar question on behalf of persons dealing in beer, both by wholesale and retail, on 22nd June, and exactly a similar answer was given. These dealers were interested in licences which would expire on 5th July last, and were thoroughly well aware of the Resolution of this House which was passed on 10th May. The 1st of July had nearly come, and they were extremely anxious as to what their position would be, and I asked for and obtained an answer from the Secretary to the Treasury at their

    461
    request and on their behalf as to what their position was and the intentions of the Government in the event of the Bill becoming law. There is no doubt that if any other course except that taken by the Prime Minister had been pursued, a most serious breach of faith would have been committed. Before I part from this subject I want to point out that the concluding words of the answer to the question are extremely important, and I am quite sure the Prime Minister will adhere to them and the rest of the answer given on that occasion. The words I refer to are, "The Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall repay or allow the holder of any such licence an amount of duty proportionate to the time by which the period covered by the licence was diminished." That was the most important part of the question, and it was on the faith of the whole of that answer that these licences were taken up by the persons interested in this part of the trade.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is up to 30th September.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: On the question of the charge of breach of faith there is one piece of evidence which shows that there was no misunderstanding at all in the matter. The brewers, as the fatal day, 1st July, was approaching, issued circulars to their tied tenants in the following terms. They stated that the new financial burdens which were to be imposed upon them by the Budget were such that they could no longer continue to supply beer on the terms which had existed hitherto, and they went on to say:—
    "Under the financial Resolutions passed by the House of Commons the new scale of Licence Duties will come into force on the 1st July, 1909, and on and after that date it. will be necessary that our prices should be increased."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: What date?
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: That was 25th June. Such was the clearness with which the Government had communicated their intentions to the traders that they thought it necessary to raise their prices as from 1st July. They did so, and those prices have been charged as from 1st July. If they received any subsequent light upon it from the question which was asked in the House that did not in any way alter their intention to raise their prices to their tenants, and the prices are still being charged. Under the circumstances, in the interests of those tied tenants, and as the Prime Minister has given a wholly gratuitous concession on account of a misunderstanding which never really existed in the
    462
    minds of the parties, I trust they will see in their turn the necessity of being generous to their tied tenants and drop their prices. But I think the fact I have referred to entirely clears away the idea that there was any breach of faith or any misunderstanding.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the circular referred in any way to any licences which expired on 5th July 1 Are not the 5th July licences of a totally different character, not affecting in any way those to whom the circular was issued?
    Colonel WALKER: May I draw the attention of the Committee to the words used in the Sub-section? It uses the words "licences granted," and I understand that term only refers to new licences. It is a term generally applied to the renewal of licences, and if the right hon. Gentleman leaves out these words at this stage of the Clause he may find himself in some difficulty when he comes to the end of the Clause, because then he will find that he will only be able to charge the duties upon the new licences granted. I do not want to improve the Clause or to help the Government out of their difficulties, but it seems to me they will have to bring in a redrafting Amendment.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The consequential Amendment on the Paper will have to be remodelled to carry out the concession of the Prime Minister.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: I do not suppose there is any Member of the House who will expect absolute infallibility from the Front Bench, but we cannot forget that the Front Bench men are paid solely by the State, and we really expect they will do their work. When the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer allow what may be called the office-boy of the party to make statements before the House and the country to which they do not adhere, I think we are well justified in supposing that we are in a parlous state. If we do not get business men who will at least look over the headings of the Debates printed every morning at our expense, we and the people of England and Scotland and Ireland will give them short shrift.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: There is one point on which I should like an explanation. The right hon. Gentleman said there were certain classes of licences which would be

    463
    abolished, and among these there were two or three classes of 5th July licences. They presumably have already been taken out. What is their position in case the Bill passes? Will they be entitled to hold the licences for the year, or will they be cut short in their career the moment the Bill passes?
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Early in July I addressed a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what was the position of those persons who bought their licences on 5th July. The answer I got was substantially similar to those which have been read. I was assured that they need be under no apprehension, as their licences would expire on 30th September, and if they did not wish to continue them they would get a rebate for the unexpired portion. As far as that part is concerned, I am quite ready to admit that the Prime Minister, in marked contrast to the special pleading of the Solicitor-General, has done that and that only which was consistent with his position as the representative of the honour of the Government in this House, and I for one acknowledge that nothing more could have been done. But there was one observation made by the Prime Minister which is still ringing in my ears, and which the Committee seems to have allowed to pass unnoticed. It struck me as remarkable. The Prime Minister, we understand, is practically now taking charge of the interests of this portion of the Bill. The Prime Minister told us that he knew nothing whatever of these answers which had been given. What I want to ask is, Who is running this Budget so far as the Licence Duties are concerned? Who is responsible for the answers given to serious questions in this House on this important matter? The Member for Appleby (Mr. Leif Jones) smiles, as if to indicate by his self-contented expression that some of the answers were due to him.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I am only admiring the hon. Member's cleverness.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I do press this point, because I think it is important. If the Prime Minister is not told of the answers given in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this important part of the Bill, it seems to me to indicate that this House is not so much at the mercy of the Treasury Bench as in the hands of certain permanent officials and clerks, who give whatever answers to questions they like,
    464
    and that these answers are read out parrot-like to the House. At this early stage of the discussion of this portion of the Bill the prestige of the Government has received a severe blow.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask how this new duty is to be imposed. What machinery exists for collecting this money? We know the way in which the seller of dutiable articles has hitherto been charged when selling without a licence. These July men have got a licence, and I wish to know how the extra duty which this Bill imposes is to be collected from these men. Surely it will not be sufficient for an officer of the law to go and say to one man, "I want £10 from you," and to another "I want £20 from you. There is the Budget Act." The man may say in reply "There is my licence. You cannot fine me for selling without a licence because I have got a licence." Of course, I assume that you could sue him under one of the old writs of the Revenue, but that would be a cumbrous method of collecting duty of this kind. There may be something in the Bill that I am not aware of, and I wish to be referred to it.
    Sir S. EVANS: I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 29.
    Mr. REMNANT: Are we to look to the Prime Minister as taking charge of this part of the Bill, because it would undoubtedly help us on this side of the House if we felt that we were dealing with him in reference to this matter? When some question at the beginning of the Budget Debates was mentioned in this House his absence was referred to, and he then said that this Bill was entirely under the charge of another Minister, who took the responsibility for it, and that there was no occasion for him to be present. In fact, he strongly deprecated two Ministers taking charge of the same measure. From all accounts—and the Press seems to get the first information on these matters —the Prime Minister is now to take charge of this part of the measure. Personally I hope that is so, for, while he has been pretty hard on the trade, he has never let himself go in the same way as the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Herbert Samuel), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other Members of the Treasury Bench, who have accused the trade and everybody connected with it as almost belonging to the criminal class. If we felt that we had to deal with the Prime Minister we would be better satisfied. After all, it is a serious

    465
    matter for the country if we have to trust to Ministers who have accused the trade of robbery and swindling and all sorts of disagreeable things. I do hope the Prime Minister will let us know now to whom we are to look to in this matter.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a question as to the conduct of the Bill. We are dealing now with an Amendment.
    Mr. REMNANT: I hope I am not out of order. Other Members have dealt with the same question. I hope the Prime Minister will forgive me for asking the question.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I confess I cannot see what relevance these remarks have to the question before the Committee. It is only out of courtesy to the hon. Member that I will answer the question. I disclaim the compliment the hon. Member has paid me. We are one and indivisible. I hope my right hon. Friend and I speak with the same voice. So far as I am concerned, and so far as my other duties permit—and they are pretty heavy—I mean to look after this part of the Bill. It is a matter of which I have some previous acquaintance. I shall do so to the best of my ability, and if I am not here at any particular moment hon. Gentlemen will know that the pressure of other duties keeps me away. I take that course in order to relieve my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whose labours in this matter are arduous to a degree almost beyond precedent.
    Mr. J. S. ARKWRIGHT: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he expects to be in charge of the Bill when we come to the Schedules at the end. He has made tonight a very definite promise that we shall be allowed to discuss on the Schedules things which cannot be discussed on a clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is entirely outside of the Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to persons who took out July licenses which are to be abolished. Was it made clear to them when they took out these licences that they would be abolished? They expected to enjoy the licences for a year, and now apparently they are to be abolished altogether. I ask whether there was any information given to them by the Excise authorities that the licences would cease and determine on the passing of the Finance Act.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is the ground of the concession I have made.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I say that this is rather a different case?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is the same case precisely. I think the hon. Gentleman is a little unreasonable in quoting one part of my right hon. Friend's answer. They cannot act on one part of the answer and then claim not to have read the other part. He said that these licences will come to an end on 30th September. Therefore, if they took out licences and paid their money they knew perfectly well that on 30th September the licences would come to an end, and that they would receive repayment of a proportionate amount of the money.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In reference to the question raised by my hon. Friend, I desire your ruling as to whether — the Prime Minister having stated his intention of dealing with a certain portion of the Bill—it is not in order for us to inquire if the Prime Minister intends to deal with another portion of the Bill which correlates and corresponds to the portion now before the Committee. Am I not in order in asking this question?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Clearly not, because the interruption altogether was irregular.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Mr. JOHN REDMONDmoved, after the word "paid" ["charged, levied and paid "] to insert the words "except in Ireland."
    The purpose and effect of this Amendment are perfectly plain and therefore it is not necessary to waste any time explaining the meaning of the Amendment. It is one to which the Irish Members attach the greatest possible importance. I wish to commence my remarks by saying that I do not intend to base this Amendment upon what I may call the financial relations ground. I would have been glad if it had been possible in connection with this Budget to have had a full Debate on the question of the taxation of Ireland, in connection with the Report of the Financial Relations Commission, but I was precluded from the possibility of doing that, first by the action of the regular Opposition of this House, who moved an Amendment to the second reading of the Bill, which prevented my raising this question,

    467
    and, secondly, by a ruling of Mr. Speaker with reference to an Instruction which I put upon the Paper, and which I. hoped would have enabled me to raise this matter. I do not think it is desirable from our point of view to raise such a matter of vital and far-reaching importance as this question of the general taxation of Ireland on what I may call a side issue, such as would be the case if I raised it on this Amendment. Therefore the Committee will understand that I put that ground absolutely upon one side for the purpose of my argument here this evening, and I am the more willing to put it on one side, because I think, quite apart from the financial relations argument, I can put before the Committee a complete case for the exemption of Ireland from the operation of these Clauses. That case rests upon the difference which exists in the circumstances of the country, and in the conditions of the trade between Ireland and this country. That is a distinction and a difference which is practically admitted by everyone who professes to know anything of the conditions of the two countries. It has been admitted by both parties in this House; it has been admitted by successive Governments, Conservative and Liberal, and it is embodied in the whole of your legislation dealing with liquor licences in connection with Ireland.
    I believe I am correct in saying that, with the single exception of the recent legislation dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquors to children, there has been no liquor legislation passed applying to Ireland which applies also to England and other parts of the United Kingdom; and, even in the case of the Children Bill of last year, the Government —when the facts were put before them—had to differentiate between the treatment of Ireland and England and to insert a special Clause, Subsection (29) of Section 133, giving different treatment to Ireland from that which was accorded in the matter of these children in England and the other parts of the United Kingdom. In 1880, when Mr. Gladstone was dealing with the subject in his Bill of that year, he drew the distinction between England and Ireland, and he put in special provisions in his Act providing that the whole system of valuation for the purpose of licences should be different in Ireland from what it was in England. I will return to the question of Mr. Gladstone's valuation of 1880 in a moment, but I just want to go on briefly to show that the dis-
    468
    tinction bétween the conditions in England and Ireland has been admitted by all parties, and in every legislative Act that has been passed by this House. In 1904 the Conservative Government introduced a great Licensing Bill, but they admitted that the conditions were so different in Ireland that they did not apply it to Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen will understand that if I do not refer specifically to Scotland it is because I want to confine myself to the Irish case, and also because I am not as familiar with the Scotch case as with the Irish case. But the Tory Government of that day admitted that the conditions of the trade and the circumstances of the country were so different in Ireland and England that they did not attempt to apply the Licensing Act of 1904 to Ireland; and in 1908 the Liberal Government introduced their Licensing Bill, and again they admitted that the conditions were so different that they did not attempt to apply their Licensing Bill of last year to Ireland. And it is admitted by everybody, if you mention the matter casually, that if the licensing question had to be dealt with in Ireland it should be dealt with by separate legislation based upon different principles and in a different way. Therefore the difference between the conditions of the two countries has been recognised by everybody, and I may say by no one more completely and explicitly than by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with this Bill. I have here a report of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to an influential deputation which I had the honour to introduce to him on 14th June last, when the case was put before him, and he said:—
    "I agree with you. you have a special case for consideration in Ireland with reference to the Licence Duties. There are two statements made to-day which support that view. One of them is the fact that you have not got in the English sense of the term a marketable asset in your monopoly. It is not the same thing, not by any means. Whereas in England, Scotland and in Wales the number of public-houses is steadily diminishing and the population is increasing, and therefore the remaining public-houses are becoming more valuable year after year, and you have a market value because they are more valuable, and therefore the monopoly value in English public-houses has gone up enormously during the last few years: but in Ireland you have the converse. You have an increase in the number of public-houses and a diminishing population."
    Then he goes on to another difference between the conditions of the trade as to mixed trading, to which I will refer again. Then he concludes in this way:—
    "Therefore I think you have a special case for consideration in regard to Irish public-house Licence Duties."
    Therefore I bring the evidence right down to the present moment, to the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exche-

    469
    quer himself, to show that the conditions and circumstances between England and Ireland are so different that it would be impossible and most unjust to apply to Ireland exactly the conditions that may be suitable, for aught I know, to England. What are those differences, briefly? In the first place, we have no such thing, practically speaking, as the tied house system in Ireland at all. In Ireland the man who pays the licence is not the brewer. The man who pays the licence is the owner of the house. In the next place, the legal status of the publican in Ireland has been for very many years entirely different from that of the publican in this country. So far back, I think, as the year 1877, what is known as Clitheroe's case was decided, to the effect that so long as the character of the publican was good and his premises were suitable he was entitled to a renewal or transfer of the licence. In England the law is entirely different. In Sharpe v. Wakefield, a case quoted here in this country, it was specifically decided that it did not apply to Ireland, and for all these years in Ireland the publican has had a different legal status altogether from that of the publican in this country. These are some of the differences. Let me give another. The overwhelming majority of publicans in Ireland are not publicans in the ordinary sense of the phrase, as used in this country, at all. These licensed premises in the overwhelming majority of cases in Ireland are not public houses as you understand the phrase in this country The overwhelming majority of them are houses where mixed trading is carried on, where all sorts and kinds of things are sold as well as liquor. I gave some figures when I spoke on a previous occasion, and I have investigated them since, and I find they are substantially correct.
    I find that 71.2 of all the houses licensed for the sale of liquor in Ireland are, according to the most recent Returns, houses in which mixed trading is carried on. In some of the counties the percentage of these houses is as high as 95 per cent., and in large cities, with the exception of Belfast and Cork, the custom is also general. In the city of Dublin the mixed traders hold 80 per cent, of the licensed houses. In the county of Cavan there are 80 per cent.; in the county of Clare, 95 per cent.; Donegal, 70 per cent.; Down, 56 per cent.; Galway, 89 per cent.; Monaghan, 80 per cent.; Westmeath, 90 per cent.; and so on. I need not go through all the list, but they work out at 71.2 per cent, of all the licensed houses in Ireland where mixed
    470
    trading is going on. Hon. Members may think that the system is an unfortunate one. They may not like the system of mixed trading. I had a document sent to me on the question yesterday or the day before, in which I was requested as a Member of this House to support the Budget because it would have the effect of destroying those houses. Why is it that such a large proportion of these houses in Ireland are houses where mixed trading is going on? The reason is the reason which lies so much at the bottom of Irish affairs, namely, the poverty of Ireland. It would be quite impossible for these men to make a living from the amount of drink they sell. They have general shops, where soft goods, groceries, and all sorts of things are sold, and liquor is only a small part of their business; and if these men attempted to make a living out of the sale of liquor alone they would find it absolutely impossible. Under this Bill, as it stands, I really do not think, after the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and after the matter has been investigated by the Prime Minister, that they will deny the statement that this Bill, without change, will undoubtedly absolutely exterminate thousands of these places. Ought they to be exterminated? There are hon. Members in this House, and many of them I believe, who not only object to mixed trading, but who object to small houses. They think that the small houses ought to be put down and ought to be destroyed. I am not concerned to deny that an excessive number of small public-houses in the country is a bad thing. I daresay, if you look forward to 30 years hence, Ireland will be all the better if the number of these small houses be smaller, and in saying that I think that the benefit would not only be to Ireland, but the benefit would be to the liquor trade itself, in the diminution of the number of these very small houses. But that diminution must come about gradually, and it must come about by natural means.
    At the present moment, as the Committee is aware, no new licence can be granted in Ireland, and owing to natural cause, and owing to the depression in trade and the poverty of the country these licences are gradually dropping off. Although there has been an increase of 3,000 licences in Ireland, if you take the period extending over a great many years passed, but in recent years I am glad to think by a natural process some of these houses are dropping off. But what this Bill proposes is by a wholesale and violent

    471
    process to destroy thousands of these houses, and if it is permitted to do that it will undoubtedly inflict the greatest possible suffering, misery, and injustice upon thousands of people in Ireland. To make these licence Clauses tolerable in Ireland, I say the minimum limit should be entirely abolished. That limit works injustice in every city, town, and hamlet of the county. Let me give some figures. Though mixed trading will be seriously affected, as I have pointed out, in the country parts of Ireland, in the larger cities, where perhaps the struggle is not so great, the minimum limit will also seriously operate. That remark applies in a special way to places like Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and Londonderry, and it applies also to the cities of Dublin and Belfast. In these latter cities the minimum limit means an absolutely crushing blow. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware how this works out. The minimum limit as applied to Dublin will mean an increase of over £12,000 a year. In Belfast the case is a peculiar one, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact. Belfast recently has been revalued, and the Licence Duties in Belfast after that revaluation have been increased by £5,000 a year. Now this new proposal will mean £14,000 a year in addition, if the Clause be left as it is. In the city of Cork the figures are between £10,000 or £11,000 a year. In Limerick, £3,566; Waterford, £2,543; Newry, £1,167; Dundalk, £1,351; Galway, £1,386; Sligo, £906; Drogheda, £800; Kingston, £978, and then you come to the smaller towns all through the country. These may seem small amounts to you who are accustomed to large figures in connection with this matter in the big towns and the middle-sized towns of England. Though the figures are small in amount, they will cause the greatest possible misery and suffering in Ireland. It will mean in all those small towns that the minimum Licence Duty which would have to be paid by those small people will be increased three, four, five, or six times by the addition that will be put upon them, and it hits Ireland far more in proportion than this country by reason of the fact that the proportion of those small houses is much greater in Ireland than it is here. The figures have been given already to the Committee when we were discussing the Resolution. The total number of houses paying the minimum duty at present in the United Kingdom is 7,952, and of those
    472
    7,190 are to be found in Ireland. Therefore, I say that this minimum limit of population, as provided in the Bill, hits. Ireland far more in proportion than this country. I would like to say to the Prime Minister that on this point the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement to the deputation was quite explicit. Speaking of the minimum limit to which I have been referring, he said:—
    "The minimum has had the effect of increasing enormously the Licence Duties in some parts of Ireland where there is a small population. I have already promised to consider how this affects Ireland. I agree that a population limit, suitable to this country, would not be equally applicable to Ireland at all."
    Therefore, I take it for granted that some proposal will be made on this question of the minimum limit of population. I want to say to the Prime Minister that simply a mitigation of this minimum limit will not meet the case. The only way the case can be met will be by exempting Ireland from this minimum limit altogether, and I have given my reasons why. It hits Ireland in a proportion which it does not hit England, and the cases are entirely different. If the Prime Minister simply alters the present minimum limits in the Bill, and proposes a new scale with a different population, he would not settle the question, and will not satisfy anybody in Ireland. He may give some little relief in some of the small towns; he will not give it in the larger towns, and will not remove our objection to this Clause, and injustice would be done to Ireland by a course which I certainly hope he will not take. I urge the sweeping away of this minimum limit altogether in Ireland on the ground of the difference in the two countries.
    Let me revert to this question of valuation. What exactly happened in 1880 when Mr. Gladstone settled the valuation for Ireland. Prior to 1880 the amount of Licence Duty was fixed by the local officers of Excise, but in 1880 the point was raised by representatives of Ireland that the system was an unfair system. A further point was made in favour of a fixed charge. In relation to both those points Mr. Gladstone, who was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, yielded to the demand that was made by Ireland. The way he yielded was he agreed that the existing valuation in Ireland—that is, Griffith's valuation—should remain the basis. It was argued in the House at the time that Griffith's valuation was too low, and Mr. Gladstone, in the first instance, to meet that argument, provided that there should be an addition of 20 per cent. in every case of Griffith's valuation. After

    473
    further discussion of this matter with the Irish Members on the floor of this House Mr Gladstone became convinced that Griffith's valuation, where it was not a fair valuation, was very often an excessive valuation, and instances were given to him to show that there were many cases in which Griffith's valuation was 10 or 20 per cent. too high. This case so impressed itself on Mr. Gladstone that he altered his hand again, and instead of making Griffith's valuation with compulsory 20 per cent, addition in every case, he made it Griffith's valuation with power to raise it 20 per cent. as a maximum in any case that the Excise officers so desired. That was settled in 1880, making an entire distinction from the case of England. It was settled for Ireland by Mr. Gladstone on different principles and for reasons set out by him at that time—Ireland's poverty, difference in the condition of trade, and so forth.
    That has remained the system of valuation up to the present moment, and licensed traders in Ireland are seriously alarmed by Clause 30 of this Bill. They are alarmed because they do not know exactly where they stand, and they do not. know exactly on what principles the new valuation would be made. They make a strong claim, and I make a strong claim on their behalf, that the valuation should be left as it was fixed by Mr. Gladstone in 1880; that is to say, that it should be Griffith's valuation plus a maximum of 20 per cent. in certain cases if so decided upon by the authority. It may be argued although that valuation would be right in 1880, that it must be wrong now, because the value of property has increased in Ireland. Let me remind the Committee of a fact I have already mentioned, which shows that any increase in the value of property in Ireland cannot apply to licensed property. In 1880 there were 17,000 licensed houses in Ireland, while to-day the total number is over 20,000, although the population of Ireland has diminished by one million people in those years. The competition, therefore, between those traders has enormously increased, and where Griffith's valuation was considered a fair basis for assessing licence duties in 1880, certainly it is not less fair or as fair, a basis to-day. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can, in addition to giving us some considerations with reference to a minimum limit, and as I hope a satisfactory declaration, I ask in the second place whether he would not give
    474
    us, at least so far as Ireland is concerned, the exception which Mr. Gladstone made in 1880, and continue it so that the basis shall remain Griffith's valuation.
    There are two other matters to which I wish to allude shortly. One is the question of brewers' licenses in Ireland, and the other is the question of the grocers, sealed bottles, and the quantities they can sell. With reference to the brewers I should like to remind the Prime Minister of the history of the brewing trade in Ireland. At one time there was a number of small breweries scattered throughout the country, carrying on a small but wholesome trade, giving employment to a considerable number of people, and incidentally promoting agriculture. They have almost all been swept away, and why? Chiefly because there has grown up in Ireland an enormous monopoly in Guinness' brewery, which has slowly squeezed out nearly all the small breweries in the country. The figures were given in answer to a question recently, but I will repeat them. Excluding Guinness' brewery, there are 28 breweries in Ireland, of which 14 brew less than 10,000 barrels each, five less than 20,000 barrels, five less than 100,000, and two less than 150,000. Taking the mean of the figures for all the 28 small breweries, less than 800,000 barrels are brewed altogether, whereas the number of barrels brewed by Guinness' is close en 3,000,000. I think an exception ought to be made in the case of all these breweries, but taking the 14 which brew less than 10,000 barrels each, this impost will undoubtedly mean the closing up of every one of them. What do you gain by that from the point of view of temperance, or from the point of view of revenue? What gain is there at all? The only gain is by the great monopolists Guinness, who, of course, will profit by the destruction of these smaller breweries. The monopoly exercised by Guinness' brewery is the main cause why this fairly successful small brewing trade has almost entirely disappeared. I said earlier in my speech that we had no tied houses in Ireland. That statement requires to be qualified. Guinness' have no tied houses, in the ordinary sense of the phrase, here; but, in effect, they have tied their customers through their registered label and their enormous prestige. Before they give any bottler their registered label he must sign an agreement to bottle no other stout than theirs; thus no other brewer has a chance of getting his-liquor put before the public, no matter how good an article it may be. I do not want to attack Guinness' in any way.

    475
    Everyone is proud of seeing in Ireland one of the greatest industries in the world, and I do not want to injure it; but I do say that it is a little too much that, in the name of temperance and of getting revenue you should extinguish these small breweries, incidentally destroy local employment, and diminish the assistance which breweries give to agriculture, all for the purpose of inflating the property of Guinness' monopoly. I therefore make a strong appeal to the Prime Minister to do something for us in reference to these small breweries in Ireland, to enable them to continue to exist, as they will not be able to exist if this Bill is passed in its present form.
    One, word with reference to grocers' licences, and the liquor which is sold in small quantities and in open vessels. I was not at all surprised at the fate of the Amendment which through some strange chance appeared on the Paper. I can quite understand that it was put on the Paper by mistake, because no one could conceive any Government proposing to create an entirely new trade in England as that Amendment would have done. At present the law in England is quite different from the law in Scotland and in Ireland. In England spirits cannot be sold except in quart bottles, and, I think, in the case of wine, in pint bottles. But there is no limitation in Scotland or Ireland, either as to the quantity or as to the sealed vessels. The deputation which I have already quoted brought this question as it affects Ireland before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are only a thousand of these cases in the whole of Ireland, but in certain places the injury to them will constitute a very great hardship. I am told that in the City of Belfast there are 400 of these cases. [An HON. MEMBER: "500."] They are a poor struggling people, and if you forbid them to sell except in fairly large quantities you will actually shut up their houses and destroy their trade. They are catering for very poor people, who are not in a position to buy a quart or a pint, or even a half-pint, of whisky. The: limitation proposed in the new Amendment of the Government will not meet this case at all. When the matter was put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the deputation, the answer he gave was that he had met the Scottish people a few days before, that he had made a proposition to them to which they had agreed, and that he was willing to give the same terms to Ireland.
    476
    These were the terms: "I met the Scottish brewers who had practically your case. I am disposed to think that they put in an important provision with regard to open vessels. Therefore, I will put it to you that if you sell in small quantities you have got to sell in sealed bottles. If you are prepared to meet me in that regard I am prepared to meet you." Then a member of the deputation interrupted and said, "We close at once." I remember the pleased look on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's face when he found himself in the presence of a deputation of brewers, distillers, and publicans, received with loud cheers by the whole assembly. What was the meaning of that promise as it was understood by us? It was that if the Scottish and the Irish brewers would agree to the sealed vessels he would give up the limitation of quantity. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in his Amendments to this Bill, to redeem that promise. These men are quite satisfied with the sealed vessels, but we ask him to take the limitation as to quantity out of the Bill as regards both spirits and wine. I confess I do not see why he makes a difference between Scotland and Ireland as to wine. That, I think, is another mistake in the Amendment. The proposal of the Government with reference to Ireland enables dealers to sell half a pint of spirits and a pint of wine, while in Scotland they are allowed to sell half a pint of spirits and half a pint of wine. Why there should be that difference against Ireland as compared with Scotland I do not know. What I press on the right hon. Gentleman is that the fulfilment of his undertaking to the deputation is not achieved by the Amendments on the Paper. We must ask him to remove the limitation on quantity altogether, and to keep in the sealing of the vessels. The poor trade done by these dealers in Belfast is. largely in glasses of whisky or even smaller quantities, while as for wine, I am told that they do a large trade in single glasses of port wine and other wines for invalids, the whole of which trade will be struck at if the right hon. Gentleman does not carry out in his Amendments the spirit of the promise he gave to the deputation. Now, Mr. Caldwell, I ask the right hon. Gentleman confidently for the exemption of Ireland from this Clause. I say to him if he cannot give us the complete and absolute exemption that I am asking for, will he accept the Amendment which we have upon the Paper? I have got an Amendment to the Clause a little lower down to exempt Ireland from the minimum limit.

    477
    My hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin has an Amendment on the next Clause preserving Griffith's Valuation as the basis of the valuation for the assessment of licences. Will he agree to that? If he is not prepared to go the full length that I ask, as I think he ought to go—and I think I have made a case for it—is he prepared to accept these Amendments? At any rate, let us know definitely what he is going to do. If he is going to propose Amendments, let them be put down on the Paper immediately. In this matter I respectfully assure the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to be guided by the experience, judgment and opinions of Irish Members. It is not with us a question of the interests of the trade on one side or the interests of temperance reformers upon the other. We are concerned in this matter with the interests of Ireland. I need scarcely remind the House that there are in the ranks of the Irish party in this House some most ardent and—if they will forgive me for saying so—some of the most extravagant temperance reformers in Ireland. We have always made it a rule not to bind Members of the party in any particular way on purely temperance questions. The result has been that on ordinary liquor questions in this House you have generally found a certain number of Irish Members voting on one side and a certain number voting on the other, and a third body abstaining from voting altogether. But in this case we do not look upon it as merely a liquor question, but as a question of justice to Ireland. We make an absolutely united demand—that is, all the Members of the Irish party —temperance men as well as those who do not share their temperance views—upon the Government to accede to the request that has been made. It would, if I may say so, I think, be an extraordinary thing if this Government, whose Members very properly tell us that they believe in the principle of self-government, if they, in a purely local question of this kind were to take upon their shoulders the responsibility of throwing over and flouting the opinion of five-sixths of the representatives of Ireland and the entire Irish party, drawn from every quarter of Ireland—North, South, East, and West. I hope and believe the Government will not do so. There is great anxiety on this question on these benches and in Ireland. I hope at any rate that we will learn after the right hon. Gentleman has spoken exactly where we stand, and that we will be able to decide what course we will take with refer-
    478
    ence to these Licensing Clauses. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to be candid with us, and I invite him to be sympathetic with the view we put forward. I ask him to be generous in the concessions that he makes. I beg to move.
    10.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has proposed this Amendment proposes to omit Ireland altogether from the scope of this Clause. That proposition I am sure he does not put forward with any idea indeed that it will be accepted. The Government could not possibly entertain it. I gather his real purpose is to find an opportunity, which no doubt will be afforded, for a discussion on what he conceives to be the necessary variation of the treatment in the application of this Bill to Ireland rather than to exclude Ireland altogether from its scope. It is quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, that Parliament has always dealt, in licensing measures especially, with Ireland on a different footing to England. The same is true of Scotland. But this is not a Licensing Bill; this is a fiscal Bill. As I have more than once pointed out in relation to this matter, this part of the Bill is a fiscal measure, what I may call, in the full-blown sense of the term, a measure which has for its object and effect the bringing in of a very considerable addition to the national revenue. I therefore cannot accept the contention that Ireland, and Scotland also, who are normally excluded from our purely licensing measures, should be excluded from a Bill in which Liquor Duties are imposed as a source of Imperial revenue. When this matter was last touched by Mr. Gladstone in 1880, not only did he not exclude Ireland from the purview of his measure, but he applied the same scale to Ireland as he did to England and Scotland. It is quite true, by way of concession, a very fair and just concession, he recognised the need to deal with the problem of valuation in Ireland on a different footing from the same problem in the United Kingdom. But he treated Ireland as equally with Great Britain liable to the payment of the duty, and the actual scale with the same for all the three kingdoms. What are the points which the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to impress upon us as differentiating the case of Ireland from that of England, and, to some extent, Scotland? I agree that they axe all well founded in point of fact, whatever be the argumentative conclusions to be

    479
    drawn. He says that, whereas in England and in Scotland the number of licensed houses to the population has for some years past been steadily diminishing, exactly the reverse is the case in Ireland. There we have had a dwindling population, accompanied by an accelerated growth in the supply of drink to public-houses. That is true. Whether it is a thing upon which those who are interested in the welfare of Ireland can congratulate themselves is, of course, another question. But it certainly does not afford any ground — that public-houses have multiplied in Ireland in proportion to the population rather than decreased, as in Great Britain—for the exemption of Ireland from the operation of these Clauses. What is the next difference which the hon. and learned Gentleman discerns? The undoubted fact that, in point of law, the publican in Ireland has a less precarious tenure than the publican in Great Britain. The decision in the Sharp v. Wakefield case that a licence in point of law was nothing but an annual licence, and that there is no right to a renewal, is not the law in Ireland. That the publican has a more secure tenure in Ireland than in England would not seem to be an argument for withdrawing the subject from taxation. So much for those two points. The third point of the hon. Gentleman—here, I think, what he said was more relevant—was that the business of the publican in Ireland is carried on in the vast majority of cases—I believe in proportion to the whole country to the extent of 70 or 80 per cent.—by mixed traders. That is to say, the shop where drink is sold is not as in this country, a public-house, and nothing but a public-house. The shop is a general store where groceries and almost every article that poor people need can be bought. That I agree with the hon. and learned Member does create a distinction and a valid distinction between the case of Ireland and the case of Great Britain—by valid I mean for the purposes of the present argument. What does it mean? It means that whereas in the case of England the annual rateable value under the Act of 1880 of the premises represents the whole value—that is to say, the only trade carried on there is the publican trade—in Ireland the publican trade is only a fraction of the other trade which is carried on side by side with the selling of drink on the same premises. That is a matter which I think is entitled to consideration. There is one other point, and it is
    480
    an important one, that I do not think was dwelt upon very much by the hon. and learned Member. Out of the 17,000 publicans licensed in Ireland— I am using round numbers—less than 1,000 licences, I think about 900, are granted in respect of premises the value of which is over £50. In other words, 16,000 out of the 17,000 so-called public-houses are valued at under £50—a very striking and significant fact. Now in the scale proposed in the Schedule to this Bill the Licence Duty on houses up to £50 remains practically intact. The changes are very small indeed, the difference is very slight, and the great majority of Irish public-houses, apart from the question of the minimum, would pay no more under the scale proposed by this Bill than they are doing at present. That is clear. The real grievance—the real points put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman which seem to demand the most serious consideration are founded upon the following facts: first, that the effect of applying the same minimum in Ireland as you do in England and in Scotland will be to throw an immensely disproportionate amount of taxation upon the Irish public; and next that having regard especially to the fact to which I referred a few moments ago, of the mixture of trades, and having regard also to other circumstances connected with the machinery and procedure of valuation, the system of valuation that might be perfectly appropriate to the conditions that prevail in England and Scotland might not necessarily be appropriate to Ireland, and ought not to be transplanted there. That is a fair statement of the hon. Gentleman's argument on these two points. I gather from the quotation he has made that the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago promised to give consideration to these matters, and such consideration has been given. While, of course, it is quite out of the question to accept the Amendment that would altogether exclude Ireland from the scope of these Clauses when we come to deal with them, and the Government will be prepared to recognise so much as they consider to be reasonable in the two points to which I have referred. What we propose to do, in effect, is this— I do not pledge myself to the precise form the Amendment will take—in the first place, as regards the minimum, I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Member that there ought to be no minimum, nor do I think it necessary—and I think perhaps he is under some misapprehension as to

    481
    the minimum—to alter the scale of population. We leave the scale of population as it is, but I think we might very fairly substantially reduce the minimum amount of Licence Duty payable in respect of public-houses in areas with a given population in Ireland as compared with houses in areas with the same population either in England or Scotland. That substantial reduction of the minimum on that basis would, I believe, have a most appreciable effect in easing the burden, and would get rid of most of the cases of serious hardship. Upon the other point, the point of valuation, I have carefully considered what Mr. Gladstone said in 1880 in the provision which he inserted in the Act of that year, and I should propose when we come to Clause 30, which deals with valuation, we should provide that in. the case of Ireland, instead of there being an assimilation, as that Clause proposes, of the valuations of the two countries, that in the case of Ireland the valuation should remain as it is.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is that on the Paper now?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, it is not.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: There is an Amendment to that effect on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North Dublin.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I thought there was an Amendment on the Paper, but what I meant was there was no Government Amendment. I am disposed to think that this is the best way of dealing with the matter. As regards the bulk of Ireland, the amount of the valuation would be Griffiths' valuation plus a possible 20 per cent., and in the case of Dublin and Belfast it would be the revaluation which has recently taken place. These are rather special cases. In substance we shall continue as regards Ireland precisely the same system of valuation as at present prevails. I think that entirely meets the hon. and learned Member's objections. [OPPOSITION cheers.] I do not know what is the object of those ironical cheers. We are not proposing to alter the system of valuation in Great Britain.
    Mr. SLOAN: Why make a distinction in the case of Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Because if I make the concession we shall be preserving the status quo exactly as regards both countries. England will be the same as before;
    482
    Scotland will be the same as before. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, substantially the same—I am speaking now of publicans' licences. Of course, I quite agree we extend them to other licences. I say, as regards publicans' licences, England and Scotland will be in the same position as before, and in Ireland, therefore, there will be no change. No doubt, in the opinion of those who framed the Clause in its present form, it was desirable to have uniformity as far as possible in the three countries. I do not think that would work. Now, in regard to the other points which the hon. and learned Member raised, the one in regard to breweries is, I confess, somewhat new to me, and I will give it consideration, but I am quite sure he would not like to see the Irish brewers as a class altogether excluded from the scope of this taxation, although his Amendment, if carried in its present form, would enable Messrs. Guinness to escape in the future as they have done in the past by the payment of an annual fee of £1. That is the most gigantic brewery operation carried on in the civilised world. I do not think the hon. and learned Member fully realises the effect of carrying an Amendment which would confer that exceptional boon upon such a distinguished Irish firm. I cannot go so far as he does in that respect.
    As regards grocers' licences, sealed vessels and the quarter of a quart, that is a proposal which does not affect Ireland only, but it affects Scotland also. I do not think this matter is strictly relevant to the Amendment now before us, and, even if this Amendment were carried, this question would remain unaltered. Consequently, I prefer to postpone any statement on that point to a later stage, and I promise due consideration to the arguments which the hon. and learned Gentleman has brought forward. The sum and substance of my statement is that while we cannot possibly accept an Amendment excluding Ireland from the scope of this Clause, we are prepared to make the alterations which I have suggested, and, with regard to the other points, we will reserve consideration.
    Mr. JOHN CLANCY: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has practically agreed to accept the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. I do not intend on this occasion to argue the question. It is sufficient for me to know that the Prime Minister admits that to extend the system of valuation for licensing purposes which are applicable to

    483
    England to Ireland would be altogether absurd and unjust. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accept the Amendment standing in my name, or words substantially to the same effect. This concession will leave the system of valuation as it stands in Ireland at the present moment, and as it has stood since the year 1880. It is the system of valuation adopted by Mr. Gladstone after very serious consideration and after several days' Debate in this House. I note with satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to disturb the present system and has decided that the new system proposed for England shall not be extended to Ireland. I think any other conclusion or action on the part of the Government would be almost absurd. Under the new system of valuation the new basis of assessment for England is based upon the Compensation Act of 1904. That Act applied only to England and it provided compensation to the publican for the deprivation of any licences. That Act did not extend to Ireland, and at the present time no publican in Ireland can be compensated for the loss of any licence. Therefore to extend to Ireland a provision based upon the compensation clauses of the Act of 1904 would be absurd. I think the right hon. Gentleman has acted with great propriety, and with a recognition, not only of the differences of the conditions of the two countries, but also of the differences in the laws regulating licensing in England and Ireland. With regard to the more important question of the minimum, may I say we must reserve our judgments? It is impossible for any hon. Member offhand to consider a schedule which is not before us. The right hon. Gentleman proposes a new Schedule, and it is impossible for us to say until we see the figures whether they will be satisfactory or not. My own conviction, and it is also the conviction of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Bedmond), that no alternative for the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend will be satisfactory. I desire respectfully to inform the right hon. Gentleman that his new Schedule will be very jealously scrutinised and critised from that point of view.
    I do not know really how much the right hon. Gentleman means by the statement he has made in regard to the brewers. I think, in regard to that matter also, we must wait until we see his Amendment on the Paper. The case for the small brewers seems to be overwhelming. Very little
    484
    revenue is derived from them at present, but it seems to me a great pity, seeing that the intersts of temperance cannot be advanced by their abolition, that they should be abolished. Nothing in the world can be gained by their abolition. Supposing for a moment you do abolish them, what do you gain from the temperance point of view? Guinness would supply all that is wanted, Guinness now supplies nine-tenths of all that is wanted, and it is inconceivable that they would not be able to supply all that is now supplied by every brewery which would be abolished in Ireland by this Bill. Then why should you abolish the small breweries, which in various parts of Ireland, although they are already struggling for their bare life, still do give employment to hundreds and perhaps thousands of people? It seems to me that you would add to the monopoly value of Guinness, the very thing you profess to wish to destroy in England. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether any proposal which tends to sweep away the small breweries in Ireland would not be inconsistent with the general position of this Government. The only remaining point was as to the quantities that can be sold in sealed bottles or otherwise. I am afraid as to that matter the right hon. Gentleman has not given any very satisfactory explanation of the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer two or three months ago. Probably, as the right hon. Gentleman has said in regard to another matter, he has never heard this statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But in an earlier speech he asserted that the Government was one and indivisible, and that, if he is satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer really did make a promise to the effect given by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, he will not hesitate to redeem it. Although we are gratified by the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the basis of valuation I am bound to say I think our claim to be exempt altogether from these Licence Duties still holds. It is not for me now to argue the financial relations question, but may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he himself has been among those who have made declarations upon this subject on our side of that question. He has admitted the justice of our case on more than one occasion. He has admitted we have been overtaxed, and he must admit that we are overtaxed now. I think if I could meet him in a room by himself, apart from some

    485
    of the Gentlemen who now sit around him, he would be as ready to admit as we are to maintain that the proposals of this Budget aggravate the injustice, the existence of which he has admitted in past years. But neither my hon. and learned Friend nor myself desire to argue that question now. We would rather go on the special circumstances of this licensing question. We say we have made out a complete case. The right hon. Gentleman has met us on one point—the basis of assessment—satisfactorily. On the other points we do not know exactly what he proposes, and, in order to enable us to determine whether or not the concessions promised are substantial, it is desirable that, at the earliest possible moment, the Amendments should appear on the Paper. Let that be done with the least possible delay. Can they not be put on the Paper to-morrow or the day after, and then we shall be in a position to say whether or not it is worth our while to accept the offer which has been made? In the meantime I am expressing my own opinion, and I think the opinion of my Friends, that under the present conditions we are entitled to vote for the Amendment.
    Mr. T. H. SLOAN: I am sorry that the hon. Member is not in his place, but it is rather surprising to me that he speaks on this occasion for the entire Irish party. Of course, however, there must be discipline in a party, and freedom of will cannot always be exercised when there is the great power and influence behind a question such as there is on this particular occasion. I do not think I am wrong in saying that the majority of the people of Ireland are against the Amendment moved by the hon. Member, and he has given us no indication that any other persons but those in the trade are in favour of it. There is not a single Roman Catholic dignitary but who is in favour of placing Ireland on this question on the basis which exists in England, and why should Ireland have a special exemption in this case, as it does in regard to every other piece of legislation which is introduced into this House through the squeezing capacity of the Irish party? I regret it, as I have been in receipt, and so has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of hundreds of resolutions in favour of keeping Ireland within the Finance Bill, and not a single resolution has been received for its exemption. I have examined the case from what I believe represents the point of view of the best opinion in Ire-
    486
    land, both in Ulster and the South and West of the country as well. The question of the spirit grocers has been raised, and a great appeal has been made to the Prime Minister as to the great hardship put upon them if the present proposals are maintained, but I take the police report as regards the influence which these houses have with regard to working class people. I know, as a matter of fact, they are a great danger to the lives of the working men. They are houses in which liquor can be obtained without money at a given time, and they have a book with a weekly account. Drink is purchased and put down in the name of provisions, and at the end of the week 5s. or 10s. is charged by these spirit grocers in regard to facilities for drink which would otherwise not be afforded. The information of the police is as follows:—
    "In Belfast there are practically no public-houses where groceries are sold. The houses are purely for the sale of drink. The public-houses selected here for observation were, in nearly all cases, in thickly-populated centres, but here we have none of the tenement houses so numerous in Dublin. There are. too, an enormous number of spirit groceries in Belfast, and the women order drink there, paying for it as groceries, and in this way most of the drink taken by women is obtained. Owing to the very large number of these houses the number of women frequenting them would not be large at any single house. From a sense of pride women here won't go into public-houses if they can manage to get drink as conveniently from a spirit grocery. From what I can ascertain I don't think there is anything like as much porter drinking amongst women here as in Dublin. There are about 500 spirit grocers and beer retailers in Belfast."
    I have given some little attention to the financial relations between England and Ireland. I heard in the House the other day in reply to a question an answer given that Ireland was run at present at a loss of £1,100,000 per annum. If the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland are so enormously extravagant in the eyes of Irish Members, why is there this discrepancy 1 It may be through the old age pensions, but certainly if revenue has to be raised those who believe in the Act of Union must stick up for the Act of Union—what is good for the goose cannot be bad for the gander—and if the Prime Minister is to make these concessions I should like to get him to understand that he is making them against the will of the majority of the best-thinking people in Ireland. I have it from representative men from the constituencies of hon. Members below the Gangway. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who are they"?] Dignitaries of your own Church, and there are gentlemen in the Strangers' Gallery this evening who are of the same politics as hon. Members, and who are here to persuade them in this

    487
    matter, and there are Members of the Nationalist party who in their heart of hearts are in favour of Ireland being included.
    Mr. CULLINAN: Name one Member of the Irish party.
    Mr. SLOAN: So far as public opinion is concerned there is certainly no real opposition to the inclusion of Ireland. In fact, even some Constitutional Associations in the North of Ireland have emphatically declared themselves in favour of this. I do not believe there is an Ulster Unionist Member who will vote for the Amendment. We find resolutions are passed by every religious denomination and every organisation which has the soberising and welfare of the country at heart to an extent that is irresistible, and we are bound to meet the wishes of those who have a real interest in Ireland. I do not say that hon. Members below the Gangway have not a real interest of the welfare of Ireland; I am sure they have—perhaps they would say a greater interest than I have—but they may be the victims of circumstance, which I am not, and, of course, if the trade in Ireland are very strong supporters of the United Irish League, no one can blame them for standing up for their own interests. It is quite a natural thing for a man to use his position in the House to defend those interests Which are really his own, but are there not other people in Ireland as well as the trade, are there not the victims of these local spirit grocers to be looked after? Is it not time that illicit drinking to the detriment of the working men's homes should be restricted as far as the House can do it? I appeal to them in the interest of the welfare of the people of their own country to consider seriously whether the exemption of Ireland will not be sufficient to keep alive the evil which undoubtedly exists? The Report says with reference to Belfast:
    "Legislation is sorely needed to deal with this evil, which brings misery and ruin to the houses principally of the working class, but to be effective it should to a great extent restrict the grant of spirit grocers' licences. This city abounds with spirit groceries which form a training ground for the formation of habits which lead to misery and poverty. The spirit grocers have developed a profitable business in illegal sales, which are hard to detect and still harder to prove to the satisfaction of the local magistrates."
    That paragraph is worthy of their serious consideration. I quite agree that the poverty of Ireland is very alarming and pitiful, but it must not be forgotten that Ireland drinks over £14,000,000 a year, and that she cannot afford it. For hon.
    488
    Members to get up in this House and represent that they represent all Ireland when they ask that Ireland should be exempted from the licensing Clauses of the Bill is preposterous. I ask the Government to consider seriously the concessions they propose to make as regards Ireland. I believe that a large majority of the people of the country are against the making of concessions.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I was absent from the House for a very brief period— as we all have to be absent since the dinner hour was abolished—and I find on coming back that there is a new Licensing Bill, which has been born of the prolific brain of the Prime Minister during the short interval between a quarter-past eight and the present moment. It is a most extraordinary position. I have protested more than once against the habit which the Government have of springing new Bills upon us without notice, and making promises with regard to Amendments to be carried out in Bills which are not put into shape until they are on the very eve of discussion, and even then they are probably entirely altered before being put from the Chair. Now it seems that the Prime Minister has thought fit to announce an alteration of the whole, mode of valuation in Ireland under this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I did not hear the Prime Minister's speech, and I was obliged to collect the import of it from those who did hear it. Am I wrong in saying that the right hon. Gentleman announced that the valuation in Ireland is not to be that embodied in Clause 30 of the Bill? On what is that change based? It is based, as I understand, upon the fact that the Irish brewer is a small brewer, that the Irish publican is a small publican, and that the trade carried on by the Irish publican is a mixed trade. All these facts, I presume, were known to the Government when they brought in the Bill. They have had time to discover them if they did not know them at the beginning of April. They have had May, June, July, and August to discover them. They have been peculiarly blessed among other Members of this Committee, if they have not received innumerable letters from every species of affected individual on all aspects of the questions raised by this Budget. They must therefore have been perfectly acquainted with every single subject and with the broader aspects of those problems for months. Why have we never been told that they intended to make

    489
    a substantial alteration in the shape of their Bill?
    I myself put a question to the Government before the last sitting of the Committee as to whether there was any substantial Amendment proposed in this part of the Bill. The Prime Minister, if I remember aright, assured me that there were no substantial alterations to be made in the Bill. When did the Prime Minister become aware of the substantial alterations which he now announces, and which are now vaguely adumbrated, but of which he has given us, as far as I can discover, no very clear or precise account? I have no doubt that all this is a matter of arrangement with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. It is not my business to quarrel with any arrangement which the Government choose to make with their habitual supporters. When they depend, and in so far as they depend, on the support of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, they are perfectly entitled to justify that support by making any surrender which they think their Scotch and English Friends will tolerate. I do not see that it would be my business to quarrel with that Parliamentary diplomacy; but why were the Committee at large not informed that the Government meant to make some fundamental alterations in their treatment of Ireland in respect of these alterations in their Licensing Bill, and, if Ireland is to be specially treated, why is Scotland also not specially treated? I am utterly unable to understand how the Government, knowing all the facts as they must have known all the facts—they were brought to their notice by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and they have known them for months — were able to tell those attending this particular Committee some ten days ago that they did not contemplate any changes or alterations. When did they begin to make these changes and alterations? In what happy moment was it that they discovered that the Irish publican, the Irish brewer, and the Irish distiller had special grievances not applicable to his English or Scotch brother? When did they first learn that mixed trading is so admirable a thing that it should be encouraged by a special relaxation of the burdens put upon those who in this country are practically obliged to carry on a single trade? I listened in this House to the Postmaster-General struggling with some case in Ireland in which he had given, I think, some post office to a man who kept a public-house; and he was very apologetic in ex-
    490
    plaining that there was no alternative at all before him—that the one person of position in the place was the publican, and that he was the only possible person. There was a case of mixed trading. It was against that that the Postmaster-General was struggling in vain in this particular case, though, according to his own account in the House, he struggled successfully in a great many other cases. But now it appears that mixed trading is a virtue to be fiscally rewarded. The other theory they go upon is that the Irish publican and the Irish brewer are small publicans and small brewers. I have no doubt that is so. But I suppose there are small publicans in England, and I suppose there are small brewers in England. The case may be even the same in Scotland. Why, may I ask, does the small publican in Ireland and the small brewer in Ireland receive treatment different from his equally small brother in England and in Scotland 1 After all you may carry these political bargains too far. You may sacrifice too much for the support of a very able and not inconsiderable party in this House, but you are really going too far when you pay that the small Irish publican or the small Irish brewer is in a wholly different situation from the small English publican and the small English brewer, and must therefore be taxed at a smaller rate, must receive preferential treatment, and must be put on a different scale. That policy, which I think utterly wrong in itself, becomes perfectly scandalous as a matter of Parliamentary dealing when you keep your counsel. I suppose this is an old bargain; it was not made yesterday or the day before; it is an old bargain, I do not know how old, but perhaps the Government can tell me when they made this arrangement. At all events, they did not make it to-day. It was not the powerful speeches of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway which convinced the Prime Minister that he must extend preferential treatment to the small Irish brewer or the small Irish publican. It was not the mere power of eloquence and argument; it was evidently and plainly a long negotiation ending in a treaty. I think we should have been informed of the results of that Treaty. We do not ask to be required to accept it, to condone it, or to give our assent to it. But now we have the fact that the Government asks us to-day to discuss a Bill upon which the draftsmen and the Ministry have had a. holiday for discussion among themselves. For ten days or more they have had it in

    491
    their power to put down all the Amendments they desire, and they have had leisure to put down all the conditions they meant to introduce; yet they come down to the House, and, with all the airs of a Ministry open to argument, pretend to an amazed, and, I am bound to say, sceptical audience that they for the first time understand where the poor Irish brewer and the unhappy Irish publican stand, and the dreadful condition of these unfortunate people attacked by their Budget, and whose unexpected misfortunes have for the first time been brought home to them at 8.30 p.m. on 1st September, 1909. That is asking for a great amount of credulity from this Committee, and is really drawing cheques upon it which cannot be honoured to the full extent. I make no complaint of any arrangement they choose to make, but I do say the Committee as a whole are monstrously used by the Government, who come down and in this way pretend that for the first time they have got to consider these questions that they have had in their minds all these weeks. Even now they have not got the words in their box; certainly they have not put the words on the Paper which would have embodied the new proposals by which they, as I understand, intend to give a preferential treatment to the small brewer and the small publican in Ireland which they will not, or dare not, extend to their English or Scotch friends.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is quite obvious from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, even if he had not told us so, that he did not hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (the Prime Minister). If he had had the advantage of listening to the statement of the Prime Minister he would not have used such language of such gross and patent exaggeration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw, withdraw."]
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing whatever that he could be asked to withdraw.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: To suggest that the alterations foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend amount to flinging a new Bill at the head of the House—
    Mr. BALFOUR: Valuations.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A new Licensing Bill at the head of the House was the phrase used, and can only be described as a gross exaggeration. What are the cir-
    492
    cumstances? The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government propose to give special privileges to the small Irish brewer. No such suggestion was made from the opposite side of the House; and no such suggestion was for a moment contemplated by the Prime Minister. If there is to be any distinction made, and my right hon. Friend merely promised to give the matter consideration, since it was a point, as he himself said, which was raised for the first time, and which had been brought to the attention of none of us before — the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) must accept my statement—no representations, so far as I am aware, have been made on behalf of the small brewer in Ireland, no special representations have been made—
    Mr. BALFOUR: Or publican?
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am coming to the publican in a moment. The point, as the right hon. Gentleman (the Prime Minister) said, was new to him. He promised to give it his consideration, not, of course, solely with reference to Ireland. If any change in the scale is made, and I do not say for a moment it will be made, in the Licence Duty imposed on brewers whose operations are carried on in varying scales of magnitude, of course that alteration will apply to the whole of the throe Kingdoms. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) attacked us vehemently for an alteration which he suggested is to be made for the benefit solely of the small publican in Ireland because he was an Irishman as part of some corrupt or secret bargain with hon. Members opposite, the terms of which were not yet upon the Paper, although we are almost immediately approaching the Clause to which they belong. The alteration that is to be made is in respect of the fact that the Irish publican, as a rule, carries on his business, as the Prime Minister said, under completely different conditions from the English publican. First the rateable value is a rateable value on premises not wholly devoted to the sale of liquor, but the rateable value is on premises the greater part of which is used for the sale of commodities of other kinds, and where you are applying a minimum scale based upon population you are not asserting equality as between two parts of the United Kingdom if in Great Britain, where the publicans devote the whole of their premises to the liquor business, you propose the same scale as in Ireland, where

    493
    in the vast majority of cases the publican's I premises are needed for other purposes. The Amendment, so far from being soon reached, will not be reached until we get to the Schedule; and before then a considerable time must elapse, during which serious consideration can be given to the matter. With reference to valuation, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that by our new proposals we are making a complete change in the law. Nothing of the kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "In the Bill."] Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman; I should be sorry to misrepresent anything he said. He suggested that we were suddenly adumbrating a new scheme of valuation in Ireland, especially for the benefit of Ireland.
    Mr. BALFOUR: What I said was that the Bill suggested one scheme of valuation, and the Government now for the first time suggested that we were going to have quite a different scheme—for the Bill.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Precisely, the new proposal is this: in England to adopt for public-houses the present system of valuation; in Scotland, to do the same, and in Ireland to do the same; whereas in the. Bill as it stood, we proposed to apply the English and Scottish system of valuation to Ireland for the first time, making a complete change in the law. In deference to strong representations which have been made from that country—after all, the elected representatives of the people are not to be treated altogether as of no account—the great revolution which the right hon. Gentleman says has been suddenly sprung upon the House of Commons consists merely in leaving the law as it has stood ever since 1880.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Why is not the Amendment on the paper?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Amendment will consist merely in leaving out a single line of the repeal Schedule at the end of the Bill.
    Sir E. CARSON: Leave out the word "England."
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Thus the Committee will at once perceive that when reduced to their true proportions the changes which have been made in no way justify the exaggerated language of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I really regret that the Prime Minister has not been here to listen to the defence made for him and his Government by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. Samuel). The critics of the attitude of the Government will wish for nothing better than the speech just delivered. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman's temperance supporters like the principles of morality or policy therein enunciated. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) complained that the Government made great changes in their Bill without notice. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? "All that we have done is this: We proposed in our Bill to apply to Ireland the system applicable to England and Scotland. But the Trish Members do not like it; the elected representatives of the people have a right to be heard; there are some 80 Votes which we cannot afford to lose, but which we shall lose if we attempt to impose upon their constituents a burden which falls upon Englishmen and Scotsmen; therefore we now think it would be better that the burden should not extend to Ireland, but should be confined to England and Scotland." That is the little change which the Government announce at the last moment. At Question time to-day I asked the Government whether the Amendments which they had now placed on the Paper expressed their mind upon the licensing proposals, or whether they had other changes in contemplation of which the House had as yet got no notice? I need scarcely say—I was going to say that they had taken care!—but I will put it differently—by a fortunate accident no Minister who knew what was their mind was present. The Prime Minister was absent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was absent. The Chancellor of the Duchy was absent.
    An HON. MEMBER: Mr. Hobhouse was here.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will not follow the course suggested to me by the interruption from the hon. Gentleman opposite. It would be too invidious if I mentioned all the Ministers who were here, but none of whom had the slightest idea of what were the intentions of the Government. I confine myself to the statement that there was no Minister in the House who could answer that question, and the Government—who, I think, had given an assurance to my right hon. Friend before we parted from this Bill 10 days ago that we should have full notice of the Amend-

    495
    ments on the Licensing Clauses—have failed to carry out their promise. Here at the very first moment that we approach their licensing proposals they spring an entirely new proposal upon us! The right hon. Gentleman did attempt to offer an excuse in the case of the small brewer. He made—and for that we, at any rate, are grateful—one addition to the statement made by the Prime Minister. He announced that whatever concession was made to the small brewer in Ireland would be of universal application. But why, if the brewer in England and Scotland is to be treated as the brewer in Ireland, is not the publican in England and Scotland to be treated as the publican in Ireland? The Chancellor of the Duchy repudiated with scorn that there should have been contemplated any differentiation of treatment between the small brewer in our island and the small brewer in another island of the United Kingdom. In the next breath he went on to say that the small publican was to be treated differently to the other. Now, he says, the case of the small brewer was brought to the notice of the Government for the first time this evening. I am speaking within the recollection of the Committee, or those who here attended those discussions throughout, when I say that the right hon. Gentleman is misinformed. The Government are managing this Bill by compartments. The hon. Gentlemen who manage one compartment do not attend to the discussions on the other compartments. Accordingly, they do not know what has happened.
    But I was on this Bench and heard the case of the small brewer in Ireland put exactly as it was put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North County Dublin who put it this evening. I have heard the full statement of the great growth of Guinness's, and the way it has thrashed out or threatened to thrash out the others. The hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) put exactly the same case several weeks ago. The Minister in charge of the Bill, I think, undertook to consider it. It is quite untrue to say the Government had no notice of these cases when inside this House. The right hon. Gentleman justified the differentiation in the case of the Irish publican from the case of the English publican upon the ground that the Irish publican is a mixed trader. He is not always a mixed trader; he is often, but not always. Hitherto, at any rate, amongst those who profess to speak specially for temperance reform, that has been thought
    496
    a regrettable thing which should be discouraged and avoided wherever possible. The Government, on the contrary, are going to encourage it, but in Ireland only, and for the publican only. They do not propose to extend the same privilege to the mixed trader who sells groceries in England or in Scotland. They have not the same sympathy with him. I will not say of what character the bargain is, for I think the Chancellor of the Duchy has sufficiently revealed it. Eighty gentlemen whose support he could afford to lose have issued their command. The right hon. Gentleman the Member from the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) and the hon. Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Leif Jones) and their colleagues are thrown over; they do not weigh 80 votes in the scale. The high temperance principles the Government profess, and which they are ready to fulminate on special platforms, go to the wall at once in face of a little Parliamentary pressure, and this announcement was made at the last moment, singularly ungratefully, as a result of the political necessities of the Government.
    Mr. R. G. GLENDINNING: I am sorry that the Prime Minister has seen his way to differentiate in this matter of the Licence Duties. I have had repeated letters from leading Protestant denominations which number from 1,200,000 to 1,250,000. The Presbyterians passed a resolution endorsing the action of the Government in their Licensed Duties, the Methodists did the same thing, the Episcopalians in all their temperance associations did the same. I cannot imagine a greater calamity possible to Ireland than that it should be treated in this matter different to the rest of the United Kingdom. Ireland is a poor country, and one of the reasons for that is the consumption of drink. We spend £14,000,000 per annum in drink, and we are to be facilitated by the statement of the Prime Minister tonight to go on in that direction. We have helped Ireland as far as we can in reference to the Land Bill. I want to see Ireland a prosperous and a sober country, and that is not to be done by the statement of the Prime Minister. The hon. and learned Member opposite said that in Ireland there was no such thing as a tied house. Perhaps in the sense in which the term is understood in England that statement is true, but I may point out that in Cork alone three-fourths of the public-houses are owned by two firms. In Belfast half the trade is run by the wholesale publicans who supply the money. They

    497
    may allow the dealers to participate, in the profits, but I call them to all intents and purposes tied houses. Therefore, to make the statement that there are no tied houses in Ireland is misleading. Mixed trading has been referred to, and the percentage has been given as 71·2. That may be so, but mixed trading in the City of Belfast means that a number of dealers carry on a grocery trade which is carried on as a cloak for selling liquor. There may be two or three of the larger concerns which have legitimate licences, but that is not the general rule in Belfast. I should be sorry to think that Ireland requires any different treatment in this respect than any other part of the United Kingdom. There is at least 1,250,000 of the Protestant population scattered all over Ireland, who endorse the financial Clauses of this Bill, and I hope the Government will think better of their action than to concede any different terms to Ireland to those which they propose to apply to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. J. C. FLYNN: The hon. Member who has just spoken has dealt with only one portion of this subject. May I remind him that this is not a temperance measure but a Finance Bill. These are fiscal proposals, and it is on that ground that we are dealing now with the proposals of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire came down to the House in a fine frenzy of indignation, and discovered, or pretended to have discovered, after some hours absence, that some terrible conspiracy had been entered into between the Prime Minister and hon. Members sitting below the Gangway. This, however, is capable of a much more simple explanation. As a matter of fact this alleged conspiracy must have been hatched, perfected, and all its conditions fulfilled within about an "hour and a half. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why?"] Because the Liquor Clause of Part II. of the Bill only came on this evening for discussion. For weeks and months the Committee have been engaged in the difficult and laborious work of discussing the Land Clauses. We had only disposed of the, Land Clauses a short time after Questions this afternoon, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford got up at the earliest possible stage. It is really too much to ask the Committee to believe that this terrible conspiracy has been hatched since then. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of drawing on the credulity of the Committee. Is he not inspiring the imagination of his followers
    498
    in a rather over-sanguine manner? The question is plain. There ought to be a differentiation between the treatment of public-houses in Ireland, England and Scotland, for the obvious reasons enunciated by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). It is at any rate permissible for an Irish Member to call the attention of the Committee to this point, because, whatever may be the difference in the view of Englishmen and Scotchmen with regard to licensing reforms, we Irishmen have nothing to do with any quarrel between this House and the House of Lords, or between one side of the House and the other. For the first time you bring the Irish publican in and impose a tax upon him. Why should that be so? The Leader of the Opposition was for a considerable time Chief Secretary of Ireland, and he has some knowledge—I confess it is limited —of that country. He must know there is no comparison between the small public-house in the county town and scattered rural districts of Ireland which engage in mixed trading and the gin palace or the large public-house in England which retails nothing but drink; and surely you should not carry out the principle of cast iron rigidity and identity of treatment, and apply to the furnishing public-house and to a poor and unprosperous trade in Ireland the same treatment as you extend to the gin palace and a powerful and wealthy trade in England.
    I cannot complain of the right hon. Gentleman wishing to obtain an obvious advantage. But I can assure hon. Members that the Irish representatives, in the action they are taking, are acting in the interests of Ireland and not in defence of any particular interest. We hold no brief for the trade—for brewers or for distillers. There are in our party men who are as staunch teetotallers as are to be found in any part of this House; men who have worked and will continue to work for the temperance cause. Others among us take a different view. We are all quite as sincere in our views as the hon. Member for Worcester; but we stand independent of all sections of the trade. It is a matter of common knowledge that among the leading distillers of Dublin and Belfast are men who have proved themselves out and out opponents of Home Rule, who are bitterly opposed to the national demands which we are voicing; therefore, how can it be for one moment suggested that we are actuated by any desire to serve the trade? The

    499
    Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has the support of the whole Irish party; I hope it will also have the support of those who believe in fair treatment. We are voicing popular opinion in Ireland; we are protesting against further attempts to impose fresh burdens of taxation upon our people.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: The hon. Member who last spoke, with considerable simplicity seeks to repel the charge that he and his friends have entered into a conspiracy with the Government; he denies that there has been a deal which has secured for the Irish publican, and to some extent the Irish brewer, advantages which are not extended to English and Scotch publicans and brewers. How does the hon. Member seek to meet that suggestion? With a simplicity which, I confess, astonishes me, he says: "How can there be any such conspiracy? Why, the liquor clauses have only been under discussion since eight o'clock this evening!" But it has never been suggested on these benches that the deal was made during the progress of the Debate in the House of Commons. If the persuasions embodied in the speeches of hon. Members for Ireland had been effective in extorting concessions, there might have been adequate justification for the omission of the Government to put the Amendments on the Paper at a time which would afford a reasonable opportunity of examining them. The deal has been made, not during these perfectly spontaneous harangues to which we have listened, but at some earlier period, and the only reason we can assign for the omission of the Government to place on the Paper the results of the deal in the form of Amendments is that they thereby deprive us on this side of an opportunity of discussing them with some knowledge of their meaning and tendency.
    A conclusion, if I may say so, about this category of the hon Gentleman's arguments, is not assisted by his observations as to the precise moment when the so-called conspiracy was hatched. The hon. Member, in dealing with the fact that these small houses in Ireland were apparently to secure some special treatment, said they bore no really great relation to the great gin palaces which existed in England. That is no doubt true, and as far as I am able to appreciate the argument of the hon. Gentleman, it
    500
    comes to this, that there may be some special reason why we should impose some special restriction upon our gin palaces in England, but you ought to grant an exemption when you are dealing: with small houses in Ireland; but surely the Prime Minister, in one of his illuminating expeditions into the Debate in regard to the purely financial character of this Bill, has dealt with this. The right hon. Gentleman said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly justified in regard to his Liquor Licence Duties, considering whether the effect might not be to discourage the growth and existence of some of the worst class of small houses. What is the effect of that? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is prompted and encouraged by the Prime Minister, in a Bill which the Prime Minister has said is purely a Fiscal Bill, and is said to be entitled to discriminate in order that small houses may be destroyed at the same moment at which the party which has just made the alliance with the Government comes forward and says the arrangement is to be justified, because it spares small houses in comparison with large houses.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy in the speech which he made a short time ago accused my right hon. Friend of gross and patent exaggeration. The Chancellor of the Duchy invariaby, in every proposal that he recommends to the House, is in the habit of doing so in a manner which, if I may use the expression, is too cocksure, that is, if he will allow me to say so without offence, not very far removed from offensiveness. Having commenced, with the assigned purpose before himself of saying that my right hon. Friend had been guilty of gross and patent exaggeration, how did the right hon. Gentleman proceed to establish that proposition? He complained of the statement made by my right hon. Friend that when he entered the House he found we were discussing a new Licensing Bill. I should have thought my right hon. Friend was abundantly justified in that misconception, considering that the two speakers who spoke after his entry into the House were concerned with no subject at all, except as to whether the natural and inevitable, consequence of this purely Fiscal Bill would not be to encourage the drinking habits of women, or the closing of a certain number of public-houses. If that does not justify the description of a new Licensing Bill I cannot conceive what

    501
    would be an adequate defence of the remark of my right hon. Friend. Throughout this discussion the remark has been made frequently as to how it is that this new Amendment is not on the Paper, and the Chancellor of the Duchy says it is not on the Paper because so far as he knows the suggestion has never been made before, and the exception has never been suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that he is much in error on that point, as gentlemen who are in the habit of stating their opinions so confidently, not infrequently are, because I find, if one looks at the proceedings of a deputation of the Irish trade to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on June 14th, that Mr. Russell had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Irish trade, and he said:—
    "In 1880, in response to representations made, Mr. Gladstone inserted in the Act of that year a section which provided that annual value in Ireland was to be Griffith's valuation, plus a sum not to exceed 20 per cent. Mr. Lloyd-George, after hearing this suggestion made to him, promised the deputation that he would reconsider the case of the mixed trader, with the full licence hours and also the question of the population limit in respect of the minimum duty in Ireland."
    So that on June 14th every specific point and every individual argument which has been used from these Benches in the course of this Debate, and which were relied on by the Prime Minister as a justification for his spontaneous concessions, were most fully placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I was referring to the brewers—to the particular point about the new Licence Duty on the small brewer.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: Of course, that part of the speech of the hon. Member which the right hon. Gentleman purported to be answering was in no way so confined, but contained a general complaint of the failure of the Government to put their Amendment on the Paper. While I fully accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the intended scope of his own observations, that the small brewer was at that time before him, I assure him that he conveyed the impression very clearly to me, and I think to many around me, that the whole of those representations, which had elicited the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, were new to him and had never been raised before. Every one of those representations had been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he promised to give them considera-
    502
    tion. If there had been a misunderstanding in anything that the Chancellor of the Duchy said, it is fortunately at the hours at which we conduct our protracted discussions, no irreparable objection to further explanation on the part of the Government with the full facts before them. I may, therefore, now, perhaps, ask that some other member, either the Prime Minister, or, perhaps, even some of those right hon. Gentlemen who are more eloquent in the country than in the House, will take an opportunity of explaining how it was that having had every one of these grievances, of which the Prime Minister quite obviously had never heard before, before them, having known since June 14th that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to reconsider the case of the mixed trader and also the case of the population limit, the House of Commons is kept in complete ignorance of the whole proposal until the conclusion of the speeches made from below the Gangway.
    It is no part of my duty to teach the Irish Party with what arguments they could commend the suggestion that it was reasonable to differentiate the case of Ireland from the case of England. I do not assent to the force of the contention at all myself, but I think I could have found a better argument had I been a Member of the Irish Party than I have yet heard. I will tell the House what I conceive—[An HON. MEMBER: "Don't."] The hon. Gentleman's own contributions to our Debates are not of a particularly articulate description, and we are glad to welcome even a monosyllabic contribution from him. There was considerable reason why the case of Ireland should be differentiated, and I will tell the committee what I conceive the justification to be. It has never been concealed from either the House of Commons or the country that the real justification of these licence duties is, that they are imposed as a punishment on the licensed victuallers' trade because the Licensing Bill was thrown out by the House of Lords. I do not need to quote the expression as to "swingeing duties" of the Lord Advocate, and the phrases which were expressed with so much elegance and taste by the President of the Board of Trade. The House will recollect the phrase in which he advised the members of the licensed trade when assembled round the flowing bowl drinking the health of the House of Lords, to remember that Budgets are beyond the control of that assembly. If I were an Irish member, and wished to develop a reason why Ireland should be

    503
    differentially treated from England, I should put the case in this way: "Here you have the admission of every minister who has spoken that the intention is to punish the licensed trade because the House of Lords rejected the English Licensing Bill. We in Ireland did not reject the Licensing Bill. Not only did we not reject the English Licensing Bill, but it did not even apply to us. Why is Ireland, which has never rejected anything, to have these duties imposed, which by universal admission are only to be imposed to punish the licensed trade because the Licensing Bill was rejected by the House of Lords?" I do not pretend that that is a very good argument. [Nationalist cheers.] I will tell hon. Members below the Gangway who cheer my modest argument that it is incomparably more cogent than any advanced by them, or any that has received the adhesion of the corrupt, in the political sense, Government of Ireland.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: After the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith), I doubt if the front Opposition Bench or the party above the Gangway can any longer claim that they did not know what the intentions of the Government were in respect of the Amendment before the Committee to-night. We now know, at all events, from the hon. and learned Member, that on 14th June he knew well what we were leading up to, and I have not the smallest doubt that his leaders were equally well apprised of what our intentions were at least. I should have wished indeed that my hon. and learned Friend and his leaders had offered some serious answer to the speeches which have been delivered, not only by the Government, but also by those who sit around me. We have not had any serious answer from his quarter of the House. We have not had any argument except that advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, in which he himself feels no confidence whatever. He has stated in his last words that his reasons were not sound or good. He has endeavoured to lecture us as to the grounds on which we ought to base our position, and then he has stated that they were not good grounds. Instead of serious speeches this evening we have heard a great deal of indignation from the Front Opposition Benches because, for-
    504
    sooth, the Government pay some attention to the representations of Irish Members. Is the present Government the only Government that has paid attention to the representations of Irish Nationalists? Do we not remember—it is not so long ago—in the year 1903 when the representations of Irish Members in respect of the settlement of the land question were accepted and agreed upon by those who now occupy the Front Opposition Bench? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A. Chamberlain) blamed the Government very seriously because by their acceptance of the suggestions this evening they were seeking to get 85 Irish votes. Is the present Government the only Government that sought the assistance of 85 Irish votes? I remember many years before 1903 that I myself and other Members that sit around me were upon Tory plat-forms up and down the country trying to get a majority for the poor Tory party that were seeking then to come into power. They held out high hopes to us at that time of a Home Rule Bill if only they could get a majority. There was no objection then on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire—I suppose he was too young— but there were those who are sitting round about him now who accepted our aid and who would accept it again, I am sure; and it may come to pass before I die, or before I leave this House, I may have the peculiar satisfaction of standing upon the same platform with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, and probably with my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down, endeavouring to get them returned to this House by the aid of the Irish vote in Great Britain, and the support of the 85 Irish Nationalist Members will not be despised then as the hon. Gentlemen have despised it this evening. I listened to two very similar speeches this evening. Those who delivered them are not now here. They have retired after their great labour.
    The hon. Members for South Belfast (Mr. T. Sloan) and North Antrim (Mr. R. Glendinning) delivered two very powerful speeches, but they were entirely out of place. They were temperance speeches. They were speeches that have been delivered" upon scores of occasions that I remember in this House. They were speeches which I have heard before and probably shall hear again, and they will be in their proper place when we are discussing temperance. They are

    505
    entirely out of place when we are discussing the fiscal question and the taxation of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Antrim said that Ireland is a poor country, and it does seem most illogical that he should follow that up by saying that because she is a poor country we will tax her more and drag more money out of her. We were told by the hon. Member for South Belfast that all our supporters in Ireland—bishops, priests and our Constituents—have come over here, and on their bended knees almost have begged us to support the proposals of the Government, saying that we were going outside our mandate in seeking to alter those proposals. It stands to reason that, if we are opposing those who have come here to bring pressure to bear upon us, we are in a very false and insecure position in making the suggestions we have made. It has also been stated that no representations have been made by public bodies in Ireland in support of our attitude and our suggestions. That is not a correct statement. I have here a printed resolution which has been passed by every county council, every district council, and every corporation in the south and west of Ireland. That resolution protests in the strongest manner against any further taxation of Ireland; against any further dragging of money out of an over-taxed country, a country declared by the Royal Commission to be over-taxed. This resolution having been passed in the manner I have described, I am surprised that the hon. Member for South Belfast should make a statement so far from the real facts of the case as that which he has made to the Committee. I would suggest one good reason why there should be differentiation in respect of the valuation of public-houses in Ireland and in England. Has there not been already differentiation? Has there not been a Licensing Act passed by the Leader of the Opposition whereby compensation is given in respect of Irish licences suppressed? What is the use of compensation? Why, like charity, it blesseth him that gives and him that takes. It is a blessing to those licencees whose licences are not suppressed, because their trade is increased by reason of the suppression of other licences. It is also a blessing to those whose licences are suppressed because they are sent away full-handed. In Ireland there is no such provision. In Ireland there is differentiation, and if in all the licence proposals and Acts that have been passed for Great Britain and Ireland there
    506
    is great and wide differentiation, why should not there be differentiation in the future, if such differentiation be just?
    We all know in Ireland, those of us who are intimately acquainted with the social and commercial condition of the country, that the public-house in Ireland is a different institution from the public-house in Great Britain. The licensed house in Ireland is not merely a public-house, it is very often the very smallest part of the house that is devoted to the sale of liquor. The other parts of a long shop, perhaps, are devoted to the sale of ironware, soft goods, groceries, or it may be a bakery, and one small corner is devoted to the sale of liquor. How can you treat the valuation of that house as you would treat the valuation of great gin palaces in London, in Manchester, or in the constituency of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just engaged the attention of the Committee with so much pretty badinage and persiflage, for which the hon. and learned Gentleman is remarkable since he came-into this House. I wish he had devoted himself to the consideration of the subject in a more profound manner than that in which he did. I do allow that I am very much pleased, very much amused, to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman from time to time, just as I am pleased and amused when I hear my favourite actor or my favourite actress. The hon. and learned Gentleman always excites my sense of amusement and pleasure in that respect, and I trust that whatever fortunes may befall his party in the future it will be my lot to hear him very frequently in many Parliaments to come. I rose to make these few observations, not because I intended to address the Committee at all or at any length, but the-observations I have made have been provoked by the speeches that I have listened to, by the want of argument that has distinguished and characterised those speeches, and to express the very great disappointment that I have felt because the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who endeavoured to answer the speeches that were delivered this evening failed to do so in any measure that would bring conviction to any reasonable mind that the Government were wrong in accepting the suggestions that have been made from these Benches on this matter of immense importance to the Irish people.
    12.0 P.M.
    Mr. HORATIO BOTTOMLEY: I do not propose to follow any of the previous speakers into any attempt to further

    507
    elucidate the mystery of the alleged compact which has brought the Committee to its present position. So far as I have been able to observe the working of the machine I imagine some such compacts always will be in course of being arranged at the back of Mr. Speaker's chair. I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to express any disapproval of such compacts per se. His complaint, I think, was that the result of this particular one was not placed on the Paper of the House in order that we might have the opportunity of considering it before it was sprung upon it. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John O'Connor) was really in error in attributing any such complaint on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to the compact itself. So far as the Amendment itself is concerned, I intend to vote with the Irish party. I do so for two reasons. First of all, because in all matters exclusively Irish, whilst under party government, knowing nothing more than a mere observer can learn of the actual facts, I feel in safer company with the accredited representatives of the country than in that of other people. I do not know whether from the point of view of Ireland or of temperance it is a good thing that the mixed trade should go on in connection with the licensed trade. It may be that to value premises which are only to a small extent concerned in the trade at the entire annual value would be a gross injustice to the licensee. On the other hand, it may be an advantage that men carrying on any section of the licensed tirade, finding themselves with burdens suddenly imposed upon them in connection with that trade, should have an opportunity of recouping some of that burden by other portions of their business. It may or may not be a good thing that the Irish grocer should be permitted to sell whisky in thimbles or any other infinitesimal measure which the peculiar and moderate tastes and habits of the Irish people demand. In all these things, like the Leader of the Opposition in regard to other matters, I am a mere child, and I shall follow the Irish party.
    But I have another motive in following them to-night. They have succeeded in convincing the Government that where there is hardship under these provisions of the Finance Bill there shall be concessions; and I am not without hope that,
    508
    when we get away from Ireland and come to England, and we are able to show similar cases of hardship, the Government will feel bound not to refuse to the Englishman engaged in the same trade the treatment they have extended to Ireland. I noticed with qualified satisfaction that the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Samuel), when replying to the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the small brewery, took upon himself, in. the absence of the Prime Minister, to say that if any concession were made to the small brewer in Ireland, it would be made equally to the small brewer in England and Scotland. I hope that that will not be one of those unauthorised declarations made in the absence and without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. In the absence of any disclaimer—I notice the Prime Minister has an expression of curiosity on his face just now—I take it that any concession to the small Irish brewer will be made equally to the small English or Scottish brewer. If that be so, any concession to the small publican in cases of hardship in Ireland must be given to English and Scottish small publicans. The mixed trader we have not over here. He may be a necessity in Ireland; again, I do not know. But throughout these licensing discussions we have always been told, whether under the Licensing Bill or under the fiscal edition of the Licensing Bill, that the object to be aimed at is to eradicate and annihilate the small, irresponsible, and more or less uncontrolled members of the licensed trade. But now, because a man is a small man in the trade he is to be entitled to special consideration. I do—and with this I conclude—urge upon the Prime Minister to prepare himself for the many appeals which will come to him before this discussion is over for consideration of an equally generous character towards the small brewers and small licensed traders in this country. I hope when the time comes that we shall not be told that that particular speech on the part of the Chancellor of the Duchy is not binding upon the Government. I hope that we shall not also be told that what may be a political party consideration in that section of the House counts for nothing when it comes from this unauthorised quarter.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 250.

    Division No. 582.]

    AYES.

    [12.8 a m.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Healy, T. M. (Leuth, North)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Boland, John

    Hunt, Rowland

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Reddy, M.

    Crean, Eugene

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Devlin, Joseph

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Doughty, Sir George

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeiqh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    M'Kean, John

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Field, William

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Muldoon, John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ginnell, L.

    Murphy, John

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Nannetti Joseph P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph

    Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Havlland-

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

    Burke.

    NOES

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Agnew, George William

    Crooks, William

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Hills, J. W.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol S.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Jenkins, J.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Elibank, Master of

    Johnson-Hicks, William

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Kelley George D.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Beale, W. P.

    Falconer, James

    Keswick, William

    Beauchamp, E.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lambert, George

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Forster, Henry William

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Brace, William

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Branch, James

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Bright, J. A.

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Glover, Thomas

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

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lupton, Arnold

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Byles, William Pollard

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gulland, John W.

    Maclean, Donald

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Cecil, Eveyn (Aston Manor)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Clough, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Harwood, George

    Mond, A.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Morrell Philip

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Myer, Horatio

    510

    511

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Tomkinson, James

    Nuttall, Harry

    Rowlands, J.

    Toulmin, George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Ure, Rt Hon. Alexander

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Waring, Walter

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Watt, Henry A.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Starkey, John R.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Strachey, Sir Edward

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

    Renton, Leslie

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Summerbell, T.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Winfrey, R.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Robinson, S.

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

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Mr. WILLIAM PEARCEmoved, after the word "paid" ["paid on the licences "], to insert the words "except on licences for sale within the County of London."
    Unfortunately, I do not possess the Parliamentary experience or the powers of persuasion possessed by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, but I appeal to the Government to make the same concession which they have just made to Ireland to London. I think it will be admitted that London in this matter is in an exceptional position. I only need to quote the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who said he did not believe that annual value in the provinces represented anything like 50 per cent. of the real value, but in London annual value approximated to its real value. With regard to the assessment, the proportion of trade is not in proper relation in London to the rest of the country. Besides, in London it is quite clear that the expenses of general management are very much higher than in the rest of the country. So that really London is on a different plane to the rest of the United Kingdom. Under the old duties on beer-houses and public-houses alone, leaving out hotels, London paid £195,951, and that happens to be about one-tenth of the total sum paid in the whole of the United Kingdom. The population may be calculated on the same basis. The population of the area of London I am referring to is 4,500,000, and, roughly, the population of the United Kingdom is about 45,000,000. I am aware that it is proposed to institute a new valuation to take the place of
    512
    annual value, and this will get rid to a large extent of the hardships I am describing, but for the first year it is evident that this new valuation cannot obtain, and the duty in London will be levied on the annual value.
    The London County Council have a return of the annual values for London, and from this it is perfectly evident that, when the annual value is the basis of the duty, London's share for public-houses and beer-houses alone will amount to £836,000. That means there will be a difference between the old duty and the new duty of £640,000, which will fall upon the County of London. I am aware that these figures are to some extent alleviated by concessions the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made in regard to public-houses of high rental value. Originally, this concession only applied to houses of £700 value, but the Government have decreased this to £500. I am, as a London Member, very grateful for that concession, but it does not go very far, because no account is taken of the sums to be raised from hotels, restaurants, and theatres. These amount to a very considerable sum, and, when that is taken from the figures raised on the high rented houses, it still leaves a total sum for London of something like £800,000. There will, therefore, be a difference between this Bill and the old duty, so far as the County of London is concerned, unless the Government see fit to consider the hardship of this case of nearly £600,000. Roughly, it is only desired to raise £2,000,000, and, unless the Government see fit to make some new

    513
    concession, London's share of that will amount to £600,000. This only applies to the first year. These figures are striking, and a hard case is certainly made out, and I appeal to the Government that in some form or other the position of London should be reconsidered. The heavy burden on the London trade, altogether out of proportion to their right share, should in some way be relieved. I am quite aware the brewers have not responded to the overtures of the Chancellor, and that has made it very difficult for anyone on these benches to speak in support of their case. At the same time, being a London representative, and knowing that the bulk of the London representation is in Liberal hands, I do think, when there is really an actual case of hardship as exists under the present proposal, it is the duty of a London member to put the case before the Government in the hope that in some way they may see fit to reconsider the position and alleviate this burden, which I am quite sure will be a crushing one on the trade of London as it at present exists. I do not think, if they are able to meet my point, they will be accused of having made a party bargain. That is not the case. I can only appeal to that consideration. I believe they have all through the Debates been prepared to give to a case which is really substantiated, and in the hope that they will do something to alleviate the London position I beg to move.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Amendment which the hon. Member has moved is intended to raise a discussion on the subject; it is not, of course, in a form which the hon. Member can possibly expect the Government to accept, for the proposal is to cut out not merely the new duties, but all Licence Duties affecting licensed premises in London. There is a difference between the case for London and that for the rest of the country, and it is due solely to the fact that in London, as compared with the rest of the country, there is a remarkable number of highly-assessed public-houses, and in the case of many of the public-houses the trade done is not altogether in proportion to the assessment which is placed on the licensed building. If it were the case that we were charging on highly assessed houses a Licence Duty equal to one-half of the annual value, there would be an undoubted hardship. Under the Bill as it stood, the licensee of a house of over £700 annual value had a right to have the compensa-
    514
    tion value assessed and to pay one-half of the equivalent of the compensation which, in the majority of cases, would be considerably less than if charged on the annual value.
    Mr. YOUNGER: In many cases it would be far more.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has stated, in reply to a deputation, that he is anxious to meet special grievances that may still remain in the case of London in respect of the new Licence Duties, and that is done by an Amendment which the Leader of the Opposition will be glad to know has been on the Paper some days. Licensed houses which have a value of over £500 may be assessed on their compensation value, and instead of paying one-half of the compensation value yearly they will only be required to pay one-third. This concession, according to the estimate of the Board of Customs and Excise, will, in itself, involve a loss of revenue to the extent of something like £300,000 a year. This is a very considerable concession, therefore, to the owners and licensees of the more highly assessed houses.
    Mr. REMNANT: Does this refer to London alone?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, to the country as a whole. But in the case of the 2,023 houses above £500, more than one-half are in London, and more than one-half of the benefit of the concession goes to the Metropolis. The next clause proposes that the valuation shall be made on similar lines for the whole of the public-houses of the country and it is probable that in the case of many houses in London of £200, £300, or £400 annual value some reduction of the Licence Duty payable will be found to accrue to them under this new basis of valuation. Further than that the Government cannot go, and they cannot accept the suggestion embodied in this Amendment, which would involve a still greater reduction.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is a great relief to find that on one occasion, at any rate, the Government believe what they have put upon the Paper is right. It is not merely a relief but a surprise, as far as Parliamentary procedure is concerned, but when you come to the merits of the case, I confess I am not satisfied that the decision of the Government is right. I think it is an extraordinarily difficult question, but it does not seem to

    515
    me that it is confined to the house over £500 in value. If it were, we want a great deal more information before we could accept the obiter dictum of the Chancellor of the Duchy that there the case is fully met, and they have all the relief to which they were entitled by the alternative which the Chancellor's scheme affords to such houses. We have not had the official information of the Government, and we have had to gather it from other sources, but such information as I have had leads me to doubt the view taken by the Chancellor of the Duchy, that the concession of the Government will be at all as widespread in its effect or as available to the bulk of the individuals concerned as he thinks it is. But my object is not to discuss that now, but it is rather to say that even granting what the Chancellor urged upon that point, surely it does not meet the special case of London. The special case of London is that the assessments there are higher than the assessments of similar houses doing a similar trade elsewhere. The fact that a house over £500, whether in London or elsewhere, has an alternative method which it may adopt at its discretion, on which it is to be taxed, does not meet that case at all. The assessment of London is uniform throughout the whole district. It is carried out on uniform principles practically throughout the whole district.
    I think it was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister that the assessment in London was a good assessment and a fair assessment from their point of view, but they contended that the country assessment was not, and I think it is generally admitted that the country assessment is not generally at as high a level in the case of like houses doing a like trade. If that be so then I do say that a simple proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to omit London would be feasible, if you are to have these new duties at all, but I do say that there is a case which the Government do not appear yet to have considered, for special treatment of London—special treatment for London, not of the kind which was promised just now to Ireland, and which was to put an Irishman in exactly similar circumstances to an Englishman, in a better position because he was an Irishman, not special treatment of London, which puts a man in a better position than any man doing business outside London,
    516
    but special treatment to prevent the Londoner being put in a different position, and to keep him in the same position as he would be if he were doing a similar trade outside. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deal with that point and did not disclose that it had ever occurred to him. There was a further observation which the Chancellor made as to which I should like a little information. He says the next Clause provides for a new valuation of these premises, and that that may become effective in future years. I am not quite certain what is the object of these provisions in the next Clause. Are they intended to supersede the existing valuation, and, if so, where is the provision in the Bill for that supersession? I see that this new valuation has a certain reference to the alternative, and is, in fact, the basis on which alone the alternative is offered to assessment on the present valuation. But did the Chancellor of the Duchy intend to inform the Committee that this new valuation was to supersede the old valuation in all cases after a short time, and was not merely to be an alternative option offered to the licensee?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Eventually it is the intention.
    Mr. JOHN GRETTON: The discussion this evening, first on the question of Ireland, and then on the question of London, appears to be a very excellent illustration of the extraordinary applicability of the system which the Government have introduced into the Bill for the taxation of licences. The Irish grievance was that the Government proposal places an extraordinary hardship on the small license-holders of Ireland. Now we have supporters of the Government saying this scale introduces extraordinary hardships in London because it presses so heavily upon the heavily rated and more expensive premises in the Metropolis. I believe there is substance behind those complaints, and they show that the Government is working on entirely wrong lines and that their system of the taxation of licences is not to be applied at the top or the lower end of the scale. But we have this great difficulty in discussing the case as regards London. No one has yet been able to fathom exactly what is the meaning of Clause 30, which is the alternative on which the London houses and those above £500 annual value have to rely for some relief against the overwhelming pressure of the increased charges proposed in the Schedule of the Bill. We ought to have

    517
    some indication of the nature and extent of the relief which the Government intend.
    I have to the best of my ability gone into this question, and I have made a calculation as to how the proposals of the Government would work out, though it is not possible to ascertain on 48 hours' notice what will be the precise effect on licence holders. I have taken at random certain London houses which appear to be representative houses, without any previous bias as to what the result of the calculations would be. I find that in each of these cases the alternatives proposed by the Government under Clause 30 work out very much higher than under the scale of charges proposed in the Bill. I mention the case of one representative house which has an annual value of £500. Of course the scale proposed in the Schedule of the Bill would take the license value at £250. On the scale which the Government now suggest—one-third of the annual compensation value, whatever that may be, as ascertained under the Kennedy judgment, and as divided by some factor, say eleven or twelve—I have worked it out and the amount would be £472 instead of £250. That house is paying a Licence Duty of £60. I worked out another case where the annual value was £800. Of course, under the proposal which is adumbrated, the charge will be £657 against the present licence charge of £60. That is nearly eleven times as much. The charges certainly worked out rather lower in the case of the smaller houses. Every case which I have had the opportunity of investigating, under the scale of compensation value, works out higher than the overwhelmingly crushing charge of the scale which the Bill proposes. It is very clear that the relief which the Government are suggesting for the licensed trade of London, so far from being relief, is merely a cruel addition to the overwhelming burden which the London licensed trade is to be called upon to bear under these proposals. I think before we can go into the question before us with any accuracy, before we can attach the slightest value to the undertaking given by the Government, we should have some definite indication of what the Government mean by annual compensation value in Clause 30. The sooner that explanation is given the better the position of the Government will be in defending their proposals, and the better we shall be able to understand on this side of the House what the proposals are.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: It must be admitted by anyone who has given attention to the subject that the relation between annual value and the amount of liquor sold is nothing at all. We can have a house in a manufacturing town rated at £100 and paying a duty of £50, and a house in London at £500 paying £250, and the house in the manufacturing town might be selling three times the quantity of liquor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech, "We have therefore come to the conclusion that it is essential in order to ensure fair treatment as between one publican and another, that there should be a valuation based upon the principle on which publicans have been receiving compensation, and therefore generally acceptable to the trade as a basis for appraising the value of the monopoly. This assessment, when it is complete, will be translated into terms of annual value, and the licence will be levied accordingly." I gather from that that my right hon. Friend is adhering to the Kennedy judgment. I should protest most strongly against that valuation. I do not think it would be right at all, but this is not the proper place to discuss that. But I put this case: Suppose a London publican pays this year £250 Licence Duty, and when you have got the compensation value next year you find that the duty should only have been £150, are you going to give him any remedy for his over-payment this year? It would not be right because of the exigencies of time to charge him 50 per cent, on the annual value this year and then come next year and say, "There was a mistake; your Licence Duty should be only half." If we could get some reasonable adjustment of over-payments it would influence me with regard to the vote I should give.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Really I am puzzled at the view that the Government themselves take of their own Bill. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment based it on the fact admitted, I believe, in all quarters of the House that the assessment in London is higher in proportion to the real value than in most other parts of the country. I believe that in Scotland also it is based upon the full annual value of the house. I would like to know what view the Government take of their own proposals? They are assessing a new and very heavy duty on a certain basis. As far as I can discover they admit themselves that their basis is an unfair basis. They admit that it will hit the London publican and the Scotch publican, and

    519
    may here and there hit other publicans throughout the country whose licences are at their true value. They admit that it will do a great deal to favour the publicans in the greater part of the area of England in which licensed houses are valued at something below the full annual value at which they are valued in London and Scotland. If these are the admitted facts, the tax stands condemned as admittedly, clearly, and grossly unfair. What is the only palliation brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy in defence of the Government? He points to the extraordinarily obscure and difficult Clause which we are next going to discuss, and he says under that Clause there will be a great relief in the case of houses of over £500 valuation. The amount and the very reality of that relief are denied by my hon. Friends behind me and others. I am not competent to give an opinion upon it as yet, and I shall wait to hear the question discussed before expressing my view. But whether it be true that it gives relief or not, does it give proportional and accurate relief? And the next question is, does it give relief to the houses under £500 value?
    Manifestly, it neither gives relief nor does it profess to give relief. We are therefore left in this position. Even if Clause 30 does all the Government say it does, it only gives relief to houses over £500 value, and it does not give that relief in any very accurate or proportional manner so as to make it just. But as regards the houses below £500, as are the great mass of houses throughout the country, the plan does not aim at fairness, and even the Government do not claim fairness for their proposal. It is a strong order in a great fiscal arrangement like this, which it is admitted weighs most unequally on publicans in different parts of the country, that Ireland, I regret to say on far more flimsy grounds, is to be taken out of the general purview of the Bill and given quite different treatment. Here we have a much clearer and much grosser case, admitted by the Government, and it is urged by one of their supporters, and not denied by the Minister momentarily in charge of the Bill that for that injustice, as far as I can make out, there is no remedy at all. That is a most extraordinary position to take up. Though I support the Amendment, I hope an attempt will be made on the part of the Government to frame their Bill so that it
    520
    will do justice to all publicans in England and Scotland. I think we ought to have some explanation from the Government as to how they view the situation, because even in the short Debate we have had, it is admitted that the Bill is left grossly unjust as regards the largest number of publicans in this country. I have not got the figures by me—I am not sure that they are in existence—but it is admitted by the Government themselves, that a number of publicans in Scotland and in London under £500 valuation are in a worse position than publicans in other parts of the country. I hope the Government, on a general view of the facts of the case, will explain how they reconcile the provisions of their Bill with what we are accustomed to think are the elementary principles of fiscal justice.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman criticises the scheme of valuation as if it were proposed for the first time by the Government, though it has been in operation in this country for over a hundred years, and publicans have been assessed unfairly upon it and publicans have paid unequally upon it. Men who ought to-day probably to pay £60 are only paying £20, and men who ought only to pay, on the basis of their trade, £20 are paying £60. At the present moment, in the course of five years, there is the difference of £200, and there are publicans, who, in the course of twenty years, have paid three or four hundred pounds more on the licence than they ought to pay. On the other hand, there are publicans who have got small houses with a very considerable trade and who have paid hundreds of pounds less than they ought to pay. You have got that unequal system now, and let the right hon. Gentleman remember we are the first to recognise that and we are the first to make a real effort. We put down and submit at any rate to the House and Committee definite proposals to redress what we admit to be a real grievance and inequality. The right hon. Gentleman says, Why will you not do it at once? We do not, for the simple reason that it is impossible to get a valuation of all the houses only in the course of four or five years, and before the end of the financial year it is absolutely impossible. With regard to land it is admitted that it will take five years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thirty days was the first idea."] The hon. Gentleman must have entirely forgotten facts. I do not want to go back on

    521
    the proposals as to land, but the proposal was that each man should value for himself. That is not the proposal here. The proposal is that the Government should value; that there should be a monopoly valuation taken of all the houses in the Kingdom. I am putting it to the hon. Gentleman that that could not be done in the course of two or three months with a view to fitting it in with the financial proposals of the Government this year. We thought it could be done for houses over £700, but it could not be done for all the houses of the Kingdom. Next year it can be done, and I believe it will be a fairer basis to the publicans throughout the country. We are the first to make an effort to treat them on what is an equitable basis as between one publican and another. My hon. Friend says, "Supposing you find a publican is paying £100 too much, will you restore that sum?" Will he come to another case where a publican is paying £100 too little and say that he should pay that. [Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: "Certainly."] That is a totally different proposal, and I do not think he will find the publicans of the country will subscribe to that doctrine. On the contrary, I do not think they are in a hurry; certainly not in the provinces, to get a valuation by any means. I agree as between London and the provinces it may be in favour of London; and in Scotland, so I was assured by the deputation of the representatives of the trade, the assessment there represented very fairly the real value of the premises—the annual value of the premises. Therefore, any provision applicable to London ought to be applicable to the case of Scotland. We are the first to make a real effort as to the system which has been in existence for over one hundred years, and as that cannot be done in the course of the current financial year; therefore, the only thing we can do is to take the basis which has been accepted by the trade for so many years for this current financial year, and then to proceed next year.
    1.0 A.M.
    Mr. J. F. REMNANT: As a London Member, I do urge the Government to try to meet the case which has been so strongly put forward for the relief of the London trade. If I may say so, it seems to me the effect of this new system will be to ruin absolutely many of the houses in London. That effect is what the Government have been wishing to bring about. All their speeches have
    522
    said that extra taxation must be put on with the sole object of decreasing the number of licensed premises. As a London Member, may I urge a point which, perhaps, has been lost sight of during these Debates, and that is the extraordinary effect which this taxation will have in London upon the rates. Not so long ago the London County Council had before them a report as to the likely effect of this new licensing proposal of the Government, and it was stated that the County Council would be a loser of £30,000 a year, and the borough councils of £45,000 a year. On the 29th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if the new valuation when made so raised the duties as to make the contribution required from the publican appear oppressive the scale would be reconsidered. In view of his many allegations of the inadequacy of the present arrangements, he need not be surprised if we are considerably doubtful as to the likely result of the new valuation under terms and conditions as to which the Government have not vouchsafed to give us information. In speaking of the increase of the present duties it seems to be forgotten that the sum of £195,951 does not include the Licence Duties to-day. Under Clause 30 no Licence Duty may be deducted before arriving at the annual value. Therefore you have to add to that sum £96,930, which is the present amount deducted, before you can arrive at the likely result of the present proposals of the Government. I venture to say that the result will be that instead of London producing, as has been submitted, £836,664 out of the proposed £2,000,000, it will produce considerably more than 50 per cent, above that. Instead of over-estimating, the Government have considerably under-estimated, and I believe in a good many cases the Chancellor of the Exchequer has boasted of having under-estimated the result of the proposed taxation. I think the right hon. Gentleman said at one of his meetings that he had taken good care to provide a sufficiency over and above what he wants.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about that.
    Mr. REMNANT: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I want to give a few instances of the effect of these taxes upon some licensed premises in my own Division of Holborn. Here is one, and it will be well known as the site of a very festive occasion when a lunch or dinner was given to the Prime Minister. I refer

    523
    to the Holborn Restaurant. At the present time the duty is £60. Under this Bill, after making all allowances it will be increased to £3,110. Could the right hon. Gentleman say for a moment that that place is a badly conducted or badly managed place? It is one of the best, if not the best, in London, and is recognised as such by the frequency with which right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen go there for their festive occasions. I have picked out as impartially as I can eleven licensed premises in Holborn. Their present annual value amounts to £17,926, the duty on which is £558. Under this Bill they will have to pay £8,963, or 16 times the present amount. The Leader of the Opposition gave instances such as that of Whitbread's, shewing how this taxation is going to affect some of the big London brewers, and these instances can be multiplied. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite really meant what he said when he stated that if cases of oppression were brought to his notice and were proved to be such he would take steps to remedy the oppression, he can have any number of them. I do not profess to be able to put my case fully before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he knows perfectly well that the case for the special treatment of London is far greater and stronger than it was for Ireland, and I do hope he will see his way to meet it.
    Mr. A. J. SHERWELL: I only wish to express my own personal scepticism as to the legitimate strength of the case that has been put to-night for exceptional treatment for London. So far as I gather, the plea is put forward on the broad ground that in London the assessments of licensed property more nearly approximate to the value of the trade done than is the case in other parts of the country. If the assessments be more strict in London than elsewhere the necessary deduction from that is not that the assessments themselves are excessive, but that the assessments elsewhere may be unduly low. Even the hon. Member for Rutland and the hon. Member who has just sat down suggested considerations which rather point to the fact that these relatively higher assessments in London do not at the present time represent the real value of the licences. The hon. Member for Rutland said that the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made would be no real gain to the licensee.
    524
    So far as I and others have understood the clauses of the Finance Bill, the concession in the alterative option represents a real benefit to the licensee. But I altogether dissent from the argument advanced by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment when he proceeded on the ground because London at the present time pays in the proportion of one-tenth of the total licence Revenue of the country and because the population of London represents one-tenth of the population of the country that therefore the revenue from it should be one-tenth. That overlooks the value of the trade in London compared with the trade elsewhere. I confess that the concessions which the Government have put down on the Paper do seem to me fairly substantial concessions. The Leader of the Opposition said why, if it is necessary to make these concessions in regard to houses of £500 rateable value, houses below that valuation should not also claim consideration? The position, as I understand it, is this—that while the basis of annual value is not an ideally perfect basis and is misleading in character, the annual value as a basis tells much more powerfully against the higher rated houses than the lower ones. Therefore, it follows that it is the houses of high rateable value which claim exceptional treatment if exceptional treatment is to be claimed at all. In some quarters the fact seems to be overlooked that London has for a long time past contributed relatively considerably less than it should have done having regard to the contribution by houses in other parts of the country.
    Mr. YOUNGER: It is not very often that the hon. Member for Huddersfield falls into the mistake he has fallen into tonight. What is the hon. Member's argument? He said that if the alternative suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his new Amendment proves to be higher than the return of the Licence Duty on the existing valuation, therefore it goes to prove that the assessment value at present is too low. The hon. Gentleman forgets that the existing Licence Duty and the new Licence Duty are based en annual rental value, and that annual value excluded the value of the goodwill, whilst compensation value included the whole of that valuable asset. After what the Prime Minister has said it is not unreasonable to suggest that the alternative is a great deal worse than the original proposal. Now I come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made a very interesting contribution

    525
    to this Debate, but a very futile one I thought, if I may say so without offence. He said that this is no new proposal—that we have been dealing for 100 years with these Licence Duties, and the scale was fixed by Mr. Gladstone in 1880, and was full of anomalies. I have admitted that myself before now. I have admitted that the scale was anomalous; but I would much sooner submit to these anomalies than accept the offer of the Chancellor of the Exechequer to set them right. The Chancellor of the Exchequer forgets that these duties as they stand are not Licence Duties in the ordinary sense of the word, they are purely Registration Duties and nothing more. There may be anomalies in the manner in which they fall. The maximum is £60 a year. Mr. Gladstone's principle—a very wise one too—was to take these duties as registration duties, and to get all the revenue that the liquor trade could afford by taxing the liquor itself. Whether drunk in a private house or in a public-house the liquor was to pay its quota to the revenue. Be that as it may I do not think that at this moment we should argue that matter out. We should argue that out on Clause 30, when we shall have a great deal to say on the alternative. I really could not allow the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield to pass without an immediate contradiction of the correctness of the basis on which he put his argument, nor could I allow the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be considered as satisfying us on this side of the House.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: I rise to support the Amendment, and am glad that one hon. Member on the Government side of the House is ready to do justice. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not deny that the incidence of the taxation imposed by this Bill will fall far heavier on London than on any other part of the country, whether he takes it by way of valuation or in any other way. In London it will be £600,000, as against £1,400,000 for the rest of the country. What is the reason for that? London is valued under a different Act of Parliament from the rest of the country, and there is no uniform valuation. I will give the right hon. Gentleman the evidence of the legal adviser to the Local Government Board before a Committee of this House in 1902. He was asked: "Now I believe the English system is not a uniform system?" And his reply was, "No. There are several distinct
    526
    systems of valuation; and for the purposes of local rates, the general law has set up three principal systems." "What are those?"—"The system set up under the Union Assessment Committee Acts, 1862 to 1880 operates, outside London, with regard to rates for the relief of the poor and rates required by law to be based upon the poor rate. In London the system is that authorised by the Valuation (Metropolis) Acts, 1869 and 1884." The valuation in other parts is by local committees, whereas in London the valuation is revised only by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. He has power to interfere in London in regard to valuations which he has not in other parts of the country. The legal adviser to the Local Government Board was further questioned: "Passing now to the Metropolitan system under the Metropolis Valuation Acts, what is the system there?"—"In that case a different course was taken; for 'Gross Estimated Rental' the Act of 1869 substituted 'Gross Value'; and this it defined as meaning 'the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for a hereditament.'" You cannot impose one system on London and the rest of the country, because London by Act of Parliament must necessarily be valued higher than the rest of the country. Therefore a case is made out for differentiation in favour of London. I ask the Committee to take action at once. If there is a case for differentiation we ought to begin it now, and I, therefore, support the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) told us that the higher annual value of a public-house in London arose from the fact that superior structural accommodation was required, and that superior structural accommodation meant better and more profitable trade. I venture to say that the higher annual value does not arise from structural accommodation, but from the fact that land in Bond Street or in the City is very much more valuable than land in Huddersfield, and consequently the annual value is very much higher, although the returns of trade done may be the same. In Huddersfield a man may pay £100 a year for a house and sell as much or more drink than a man in London who is paying £500 a year. That is the foundation of the request made by London Members, and I hope by other Members of the Committee, who see the justice of the

    527
    demand that there should be some alteration in the assessment so far as regards London. I am afraid I cannot support the Amendment in the form in which it stands because it is to exempt London altogether. Having voted just now against the exemption of Ireland altogether I cannot turn round and vote in favour of the exemption of London altogether. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because I hope I am consistent. I did hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have given something in the nature of an answer to the London Members similar to that which the Prime Minister gave to the Irish Members. There are, I believe, some 63 Members for London, and although I am not sure that we are one and indivisible, yet on this particular point I trust we shall be united. Surely 63 London Members are entitled to as much consideration as 80 Members from Ireland. I am astonished at the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered to us. It was no concession at all. It does not apply particularly to London, and will not deal with 82 per cent. of the houses—I am taking the figures of the hon. Member for Hudders-field. According to his own showing this proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's will only apply to 18 per cent. of the houses in London, and it does not touch the Question raised by the Amendment, namely, that the annual assessment in London, partly owing to the quinquennial valuation, and partly owing to the fact that the site value—so dear to hon. Gentlemen opposite—is higher than in other parts of the country, an injustice will be done to the holders of licences in London by the Bill.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells the Committee that one man pays £60 when he ought to pay £20, and that another man pays £20 when he ought to pay £60, and he says: "Look what a fine fellow I am; I am going to remedy all these injustices." But how does he propose to do it? I have here a list of twenty houses, under date August 30th, so I suppose the figures include the concessions which appeared on the Paper on that date. I find that under the old scale of duties they paid £1,185, while under the new scale they will have to pay £9,905. Although I have no interest in public-houses and do not happen to be an owner of a brewery, I would rather have the injustice under the old scale than that under the new scale. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to pose as the
    528
    champion of lost causes, I hope he will not champion them in that way, or at any rate not champion those in which I have any particular interest. I see the Prime Minister is in the House. He is in a mood to grant concessions. He has granted some to the Irish Members. I am not an Irishman and I am not eloquent, but I hope I have put the justice of my case in such a way as will appeal to the Prime Minister, and enable his ready wit to find a way out of the difficulty, especially as in this particular case the Amendment is moved by an hon. Member who is a faithful and loyal supporter of his own, who is looking forward with hope beaming on his countenance to the rising of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with some proposal which will induce him to withdraw the Amendment and go happy to his constituents. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not really realised the position. The position is that the annual value in London, owing to site value and the quinquennial valuation, is higher than it is in the case of a similar house doing a similar trade and earning a similar profit in Huddersfield or other parts of the country. But while those are the circumstances, it is not claimed by London Members on this side of the House that houses in the Metropolis should be exempted entirely. We do claim, however, that their case should be considered, and that London licensees should not be treated worse than publicans in other towns.
    Mr. PEARCE: As I do not think it will advance the cause of London to press my Amendment, I should wish to withdraw it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I must oppose the withdrawal of the Amendment moved from the other side. May I say that I do not quite follow the logicality of my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), because I do not see how he can defend the exemption of London and at the same time dissent from the exemption of Ireland.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to my hon. Friend that that is exactly what I did not do. I said I could not vote for the entire exemption of London because I did not vote for the exemption of Ireland. All I wanted was for some hope to be held out to us that the case of London, which I pointed out was an exceptional case, should be met in a modified form.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I had no wish to misrepresent the hon. Baronet, but, in any case, I think I may claim that my position is more logical than his, because I did vote for the exemption of Ireland with the intention of voting also for the exemption of London, so as, if possible, by a continuous process of exemption to arrive at the exemption of the country altogether from what I consider to be an unjust and vindictive tax. That it is an unjust tax in the case of London has, I think, been amply proved by the speeches made from this side of the House, as well as by the eloquent and convincing speech of the Mover of the Amendment, who now wishes to withdraw. It is easy to see the reason why such a vindictive tax has been proposed, because, going back to the days of the present Government's Licensing Bill, everybody will remember that the trade in London were among the strongest opponents of the Measure and took a most active part in exposing the weakness of the case put forward by its supporters. Bearing in mind these facts, it is not surprising to find that the Government are now disinclined to grant an exemption in favour of London, although such an exemption is certainly justified in the case of the Metropolis, even more than in the case of Ireland. Strongly supporting as I do the case for exemption, I hope the Amendment will not be allowed to be withdrawn, but will be put to the vote.
    Mr. W. H. DICKINSON: I only wish to add a word on this subject. I cannot help expressing the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may even now see his way to hold out some prospect that we may expect a certain measure of relief for London. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that in the course of a year he proposes to introduce a reformed system of assessment, and when that system comes into operation undoubtedly London will have no ground for complaint. But so long as the present system obtains London has a grievance, and I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman might find some means in this Bill of allowing the Metropolis temporarily to have some advantage which will remedy the existing injustice. Even if it were decided to allow London to have that advantage only for one year it would go a long way, and if the right hon. Gentleman can hold out some hope that during the further consideration of the Bill he will give some assistance in this direction we shall not
    530
    wish to divide against the Government on the matter. I would really ask him, therefore, to consider whether he cannot offer at any rate a temporary alleviation of the injustice and thus tide over the time until the new system is brought into operation.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: The appeal of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) is almost pathetic. In fact one can hardly believe that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be so hard-hearted as to resist a request from their own side couched in such moving terms. The hon. Member asked for relief for London only to carry matters on for one year until the new method of assessing licences on their annual compensation value is brought into effect. It is temporary relief he wants. Had not the hon. Member better say straight out what is in his heart, namely, that he and his friends want the Government to carry them over the General Election by giving London temporary relief? When once the election is safely over I feel sure their concern will vanish, and they will be prepared to pour their blessings on the new method of basing the assessment on compensation value. The case for London is a strong one. The assessment is very high, and I should like to refer the Committee to some statistics to prove the serious character of the injustice that will be done. I have here a list of 30 public-houses in the Metropolis. Their present assessment is £12,000, and their Licence Duty is £1,285, but under the Bill the duty will run up to £6,000. That means the multiplication of the existing Licence Duties nearly four and a half times, which nobody can pretend to defend as fair.
    I have another list which I venture to say is even worse. The present assessment of 20 houses here mentioned is £19,000, and the present Licence Duties amount to £1,100. The new Licence Duties will be £9,900, which means the multiplication of the existing Licence Duties nearly eight and a half times. The teetotal party tell us that under the new system London will come out better, but I am sure that London does not think so. She thinks she is going to come out much worse, and that at any rate, she does not wish to be killed with kindness of that sort. The Chancellor of the Exchequer saw no doubt how unequal it is to base assessment on annual value, but, when confronted with his alternative the trade

    531
    prefer Mr. Gladstone's system of 1880. Mr. Gladstone did not try to get money at both ends. He taxed the liquor at the source. His methods as regards Licence Duties were not strictly logical, but at any rate they did rough justice. Now comes the new proposal in this Bill of assessing the license on half the annual value. That is going to kill the London trade, and then, forsooth, you hold out this consolation, this olive branch, that under your new system London is going to come out better than she will on the half the annual value basis. We do not think so. We ask you to treat the trade justly in this matter. We ask you not to extinguish the trade in the way that you will do, and extinguish it not for the sake of revenue, but for the sake of revenge.
    Mr. S. H. WHITBREAD: I really think the Government ought to give some further explanation of their position in this matter. If they do not, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division on this Amendment I shall certainly support him in the Lobby. I do not know that this Amendment is an ideal way of meeting the question, but it certainly is an improvement on the position as it is at present in the Bill, and I do hope we may have some assurance from the Government that they are prepared to consider the position as it is now. What is the position? I think every speaker who has touched on this question on either side of the House has admitted or maintained that there is a grievance made out on behalf of the London trade. I have heard no contradiction of that. I think it is generally accepted that under the provisions of the Bill London will be exceedingly hard hit. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is convinced of that, because, if I remember rightly, he issued a kind of invitation to the London trade to come and see him and to discuss this very point, and he held out hopes that he could produce an alternative proposal which might, to some extent, remedy the grievance of which they complained, and which he has more or less admitted to exist. That interview did not come off, and when we begin to
    understand what is the nature and extent of the remedy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put forward for this grievance it is not altogether a matter of surprise that the representatives of the London trade did not accept his invitation to walk into his parlour. We have now the position of a grievance stoutly maintained by the representatives of the London, trade, admitted on all sides of this House, and, as I believe, admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government. The Government say that they have an alternative proposal, which they put forward as the remedy for this grievance. I am not a brewer, and I have no direct connection whatever with the trade, but, like the Postmaster-General, I have several relatives and friends who are interested in the trade, and I therefore have opportunities of information which I consider I have very good grounds to regard as accurate. I have figures which I do not propose to read at this hour of the morning which show that certainly, in a great many cases, and to a very large extent, this proposed alternative which the Government put forward is worse than the original state of things. Therefore you have this position—a grievance admitted by the Government, a remedy put forward by them which, on examination, turns out to make the matter worse instead of better. That being the admitted position of things, is it not rather lamentable that my hon. Friend should be allowed to withdraw his Amendment without any indication on the part of the Government that they are prepared to re-consider this matter and to bring forward at some later stage of the Bill some improved alternative to their present proposal? I really believe that the case of the London trade is one which merits their attention and which ought to receive their attention. Unless some indication is given that they are really willing to reconsider the case and to endeavour to find some adjustment of this position of simple inequality then I hope my hon. Friend will proceed to a Division, and if he does I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 145.

    Division No. 583.]

    AYES.

    [1.45 a.m.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Balcarres, Lord

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Clyde, James Avon

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanier, Beville

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Starkey, John R.

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fell, Arthur

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Newdegate, F. A. N.

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

    Oddy, John James

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Williams Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Winterton, Earl

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.)

    Renton, Leslie

    Younger, George

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Renwick, George

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Whitbread and Mr. Bottomley.

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Gulland, John W.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Radford, G. H.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Harwood, George

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Barnard, E. B.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Beale, W. P.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

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

    Hogan, Michael

    Robinson, S.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rowlands, J.

    Brace, William

    Jenkins, J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

    Bright, J. A.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Lambert, George

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Lamont, Norman

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Summerbell, T.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Clough, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Tomkinson, James

    Clynes, J. R.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Toulmin, George

    Cooper, G. J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Waring, Walter

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Curran, Peter Francis

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

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

    Elibank, Master of

    Mond, A.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Falconer, James

    Morrell, Philip

    Williams, Sir A. O. (Merioneth)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Myer, Horatio

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Winfrey, R.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Nuttall, Harry

    Glendinning, R. G.

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Glover, Thomas

    O'Grady, J.

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).

WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY PROTECTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at two minutes before Two o'clock.