§ (1) The annual value of any premises for the purposes of any duty charged in the First Schedule to this Act shall be determined in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as the annual value of premises is determined for the purpose of a publican's licence, and in the determination of that value the duty on the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction.
§ (2) It shall be the duty of the Commissioners, as soon as may be, to prepare, and to keep corrected, a register as respects all fully licensed premises and beerhouses respectively of the amount which would be payable as compensation in respect of the premises under Subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Licensing Act, 1904, if the premises were premises in respect of which compensation was payable under that Act, and of the sum which is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as the annual equivalent of that amount (in this Act referred to as the annual compensation value). That amount and sum shall be certified respectively by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
§ In estimating for that purpose the value as licensed premises of hotels or other premises used for purposes to which the holding of a licence is merely auxiliary, no increased value arising from profits not derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be taken into consideration.
§ (3)The licence holder and any person interested in licensed premises shall, if required by the Commissioners, make a 710 return in such form and containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require for the purpose of the ascertainment under this Section of the annual value or the annual compensation value of the premises, and if any person fails to make such a return within the time, not being less than thirty days, specified in the return, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
§ Sir F. BANBURYmoved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words, "determined in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as the annual value of the premises, is determined for the purpose of a publican's licence," in order to insert instead thereof the words, "the annual value of that part of the premises in which intoxicating liquor is sold and consumed."
The object for the Amendment is to give some measure of fairness to the publican. If the annual value of the premises is to be justified as the basis on which our License Duty is to be assessed, it seems to me to be only fair that that part of the premises which is actually used for the business of a publican should be chosen. The rest of the premises are in many cases used for residential purposes, or if they are situated in the City or a place of that sort they are used as offices. The part of the premises generally used consists of the ground floor, and possibly the basement. In the country the question is also important, because it very often 711 happens that the stables are attached for posting and. livery business, and those have been reckoned to be part of the premises and included in the assessment. An hon. Member asked a question a short time ago of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what would be the result of this particular Clause in the case of a public-house in the country to which stables were attached and whether the stables would be included in the valuation. The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to the effect that the stables would be included. This particular Clause fixes the assessment upon the gross annual value, and I believe I am right in saying that this is the first time that has been taken, and in view of that fact I think it is only fair that it should only be taken upon that part of the premises which are actually used for the purpose of the consumption of liquor. It may be urged that it is difficult to determine how the valuation should be arrived at if my Amendment were carried. I belive that there are instances where a valuation has been made upon a separate part of the premises. I am informed that Sub-section (4) of Section (11) of the Licensing Act of 1902 gives the justices power on licensed premises to order alterations of certain kinds to be made in that part of the premises where intoxicating liquor is sold. So that principle has already been acted on, and I am informed that those words have been the subject of judicial interpretation, and if the Government urge that it would be impossible to do so, I refer them to that particular case. It may be said this is not a very important Amendment because by Sub-section (2) of the same Clause it is intended to enact that as soon as a valuation is made, the assessment for the purpose of charging the Licence Duty shall be upon this new valuation, and not upon the new plan set forth in this first Schedule. But yesterday we were informed that this valuation could not be made for three or four years.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELMy right hon. Friend was referring to the land valuation.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe Chancellor of the Exchequer defended making the difference in the charge of the Licensing Duty first upon the annual value and then upon some other basis of assessment, on the ground that the valuation would take three or four years, and he was interrupted by hon. Members who 712 asked how it was in that case that he proposed to make the landlords make their valuation in thirty days, and he replied that in that case the landlord would do it, and in this case the State would do it. I did not quite see the force of the argument unless it was that the State takes longer to do a thing than a private owner. That is an argument against the Socialistic tendencies of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and with the Front Bench opposite. It shows that business after all is managed better by private people than by the State. If this valuation is going to take three or four years, in the meantime every house under £500 a year will be charged upon the annual value, and we ought to see that no injustice is done during these three or four years. There is no obligation on the Government to Hurry with this valuation. If the Government remained in office for ten years there is nothing to compel them to make this valuation. They may say, "Oh! we are making it, but it is taking longer than we thought it would take." That might go on for ten years. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not want it."] My hon. Friend says that we do not want to make the valuation, but that is a point we had better discuss at another time, and not on this Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended it on the ground that this was only a temporary arrangement, and that when we got the new assessment everything would be for the best in the best of worlds. I hope I have shown to the satisfaction of the Solicitor-General that there is a strong case for the Amendment. The Prime Minister told us that one of the great objects of an Opposition was to suggest Amendments, and that the Government should accept them when they were reasonable. I have shown that it would only be fair to assess the premises which are used for the business. I have never heard of an assessment being founded on the annual value of premises which are not used for a particular business. I have received a letter from one of my constituents in which he informs me that he only uses the basement and the ground floor for the purpose of selling liquor, all the rest of the premises being used for the purpose of offices. The value of the whole premises is very much larger than the value of the part used for selling liquor, but unless this Amendment is accepted that unfortunate person will be assessed on the value of the whole.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe hon. Baronet reminded us of the statement of 713 the Prime Minister that we are always ready to listen to proposed Amendments, and to accept them when they are reasonable. I am sorry I cannot say that this is a reasonable Amendment. I will endeavour to show that it is not reasonable, and that it is disposed of by all the precedents of this kind in legislation. The hon. Baronet seeks, for the purpose of assessing duties, to value only that part of the premises in which intoxicating liquor is sold. The effect of that would be that it would be only the ordinary bar or taproom of a public-house, or a coffee-room, or commercial-room of an hotel that could be rated. Anybody will see that it would be extremely difficult to value those parts of the premises as distinguished from the other parts. Legislation up to now has proceeded on the value of premises as they are licensed by the licensing justices. In the case of a hotel, for instance, there are many parts of the premises on which intoxicating liquor could be sold or consumed, but on which in fact it is not sold and consumed, and it would be quite unreasonable to ask that those portions of the premises, which nevertheless are part of the licensed premises, should be excluded from valuation. We are not departing from the principles of the valuation according to the Act of 1880, although the duties are imposed according to a different scale. I daresay that the researches of the hon. Baronet will enable him to find that an Amendment similar in spirit, though not in words, to this Amendment was moved to the Bill then introduced by Mr. Gladstone, to exclude stables and various offices and gardens from the valuation, and Mr. Gladstone said he could not approve of the proposition, as the effect would be to reduce the valuation, say, from £20 to £13 a year, and the result would be that the small trader with spirits would pay a smaller tax than previously. And in the schedule to the Act of 1880 it is provided that if the annual value of the dwelling-house in which the retailer shall retail spirits, together with offices, courtyards, barns, etc., is under £10, £15, and so on. That was the state of things in 1880. The hon. Baronet now seeks to go much beyond that. He seeks to exclude from the valuation all parts of the licensed premises, whatever they may be, unless it can be proved that in those parts intoxicating liquor is not only sold, but is actually consumed. That I submit would be to reduce the valuation of the pre- 714 mises much below what it ought to be for the purpose of Licence Duty.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe hon. and learned Gentleman says that it would be difficult to arrive at a valuation of portion of the premises separately. On the 15th of June the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question, said that if portion of the premises were not in occupation of the holder of a grocer's licence, that portion would not count for the purpose of assessing the annual valuation for Licence Duty. Why should the grocer have an advantage which is denied to the publican, especially as the publican in this case in which I mentioned has part of the premises sublet for offices?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe principle is that you must value the premises which are included in the licence. With regard to the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which the hon. Baronet referred me, of course, if a part is sublet and under separate occupation, no doubt there would be no difficulty in making the valuation of that part; but I do suggest that in valuing you cannot separate the bar-place, coffee-room, tap-room, or whatever place in which intoxicating liquor is ordinarily consumed, from the rest of the premises. We do not depart in the slightest degree from the valuation which was made in 1880, and which has been made from then until now. The practice is to include in the valuation all portions of the premises—offices, stables, and so forth—comprised in the licence given by the justices, and therefore form part of the licensed premises.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI agree in principle with what the Solicitor-General has stated. But the moment you make a very large increase in the valuation then immediately an effort will be made to except from the licensed premises particular portions. When a man is paying a small duty he has no object in segregating particular parts of the premises. I submit that if the Customs authorities make entries of premises as being licensed premises, then there ought to be some provision for enabling those who have very high Licence Duties to separate portions of the premises from the rest for purposes of valuation. I quite agree if gardens are used on the Sunday, as we see in London and up the river, for the purposes of the licensed premises, then they are quite as much part of those premises as 715 if they formed part of the actual building. But that would be a wholly different case. Once you enormously increase the Licence Duty, then I think you should give to the occupier of the licensed premises the option of dropping that portion of them which is really not necessary for the purposes of carrying on his licensed premises, although it had not hitherto been worth his while to shed it or cast it off. Where a man carrying on the business of a jobmaster, or of a garage—and he has to pay the petrol tax separately, and the motor tax separately—I do not see why that garage, though it is annexed to his hotel for the purposes of his business, should be included in the valuation. In 1880 it was not worth his while to have a separate valuation. If the publican sub-lets a part of his premises he must take the risk; that is to say, he must be made to pay on the portion sub-let. He might evade the tax by saying, "Oh, I sub-let my garage, or I have sub-let the pair-back to a lodger." I would not tolerate for a moment such a state of things. What I am referring to is a separate portion of the premises which it was not worth while to take into consideration in 1880, but which it is well worth while to take into consideration now, when the tax is enormously increased.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI very much agree—a rather singular position for me to occupy—with the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) in the complaint which he put forward that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) in his Amendment does go too far. There is real substance in that portion to which the hon. and learned Member for Louth has referred, and for the very reason which he put forward I was surprised that the learned Solicitor-General did not see that the quotation he made from Mr. Gladstone told against himself. It was no defence whatever for what the Government are doing now. The passage from Mr. Gladstone stated:—
If I made this exception to the scale of duties which I have imposed, the publican would actually pay less than he has hitherto paid.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSBecause of the reduced valuation.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAnd because of the scale which Mr. Gladstone adopted, but that does not in the least 716 apply to the present scale. It is not the question whether Mr. Gladstone used those words, it is his statement of fact. If you have a low scale, such as Mr. Gladstone's was, it might very well be that to omit these exterior portions of the premises for the valuation would be under the new scale actually to demand less for the publican than he previously paid. That could not be the case under such a proposal as is given by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, coupled with the scale of duties the Government propose. The learned Solicitor-General will therefore find no defence for what Mr. Gladstone said. I have already said I do not go so far as the hon. Member for the City, nor desire to break up, so to speak, for the purposes of valuation, the actual building in which trade is carried on from which liquor is consumed, but I must say I was astonished to hear the Solicitor-General ask how can you value the ground floor part for the top floor; and he said in that case, how are you to treat the ceiling? I should have thought that the ceiling belonged to the ground floor, and the floor above it to the floor above it. The Solicitor-General has got to find a solution of that difficulty because in the Land Taxes the very thing which he declares impossible has got to be done as flats have to be valued. Then we will have to decide whether the ceiling belongs to that floor or the floor above it. I should have thought it was a very simple question, and I am sorry the learned Solicitor-General is puzzled by it.
Mr. CATHCART WASONThere is one point which the Solicitor-General has overlooked, and that is as to season hotels in Scotland, which are only opened for a small portion of the year, and which fill a great public want. Owing to the necessary circumstances of the case, it would be impossible for them to have the large accommodation which they provide for the public utilised during the whole of the year, and as a consequence their bar receipts will not come within the limit proposed by the Government. The consequence will be that those hotels will have to be closed if the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City is not adopted. The Solicitor-General informs me now that the matter will be discussed later on, and I can do no more now than mention the fact. I have already mentioned it to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Duchy, and I have no doubt he will give it serious consideration when the occasion arises.
§ Mr. MARKHAMWill this discussion cut out the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Barnard)? If so, we must raise the point here.
The CHAIRMANI think it raises the same point; so that if this Amendment is decided, the other cannot be raised.
Mr. CATHCART WASONShall I have an opportunity of raising the question as to Scottish hotels on Clause 31?
The CHAIRMANIf it is a hotel matter it must be raised on Clause 31, unless the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor are more than one-third of the total receipts.
§ Mr. CAVEI have had a number of letters relating to country houses, where this is a very practical point. Frequently in the country a public-house has attached to it a stable, a garden, a courtyard, or something of that kind, and as the matter now stands the licence is for the whole premises. In the case of a beer-house, where the duty is fixed, it is immaterial whether you include these outlying parts or not; but it would be very material under this Bill, because every item which adds to the annual value will increase the amount of the tax. It may be said, why not get the licence altered so as to exclude these outlying parts. That is not practically possible. There would be a risk of losing the licence, or having difficulties raised. The buildings, having been once included, they must remain in, at all events for some time. The point is, therefore, One of substance, and I put it to the Government that some provision should be made to meet it. I hope this particular Amendment will not be pressed to a division, as it would prejudge a later question, but I trust the Government will consider whether something cannot be done.
§ Mr. BARNARDI understand I shall have an opportunity of speaking on my own Amendment?
The CHAIRMANIf this Amendment is withdrawn the hon. Member will be entitled to move; but not if this one is negatived.
§ 1.0 A.M.
§ Mr. GRETTONI do not ask my hon. Friend to proceed to a division, but I wish to impress upon the Solicitor-General the very great importance of giving further attention to this subject. I agree with what he has said as regards fully licensed 718 beer-houses. There are cases which press very hardly on the on-licence as well. I do not think the Solicitor-General or the Committee quite realise what these words which are now moved mean. Previously the beer-house paid the least charge. These words that are being moved into the Clause would make the beer-house pay on its annual value. In the same way, the wine licence is to be entirely altered and very largely increased. I really think the question raised is one which needs the very serious consideration of the Government, and I therefore press the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) to give it further attention, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not proceed to a division on the Amendment.
§ Colonel W. H. WALKERI desire to ask the Government for a definition in the case of an office. I have in mind the case of offices on the first, second, third, and fourth floors of a building, in the basement of which is a restaurant or very small room, probably for the provision of what are called quick lunches for busy City clerks. Rooms in the basement used for that purpose are to be found frequently, and the proprietors are not able to pay a very large rent, and therefore they would not be able to pay a very large Licence Duty. Now, in that case, is the restaurant to pay the Licence Duty on the assessment of the whole building? I desire to know whether that is so or not, because this Amendment does touch that, although it may not touch some other cases which have been referred to.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSClearly, no.
§ Colonel WALKERClearly no, says the hon. and learned Gentleman. If that is so, on what assessment is the retaurant keeper to pay? On the assessment of the licensed premises only?
§ Sir S. EVANSCertainly.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI rise to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But before doing so I wish to say I am glad that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General has seen the force of my argument in regard to restaurants in the City, though in some other places he finds the difficulty apparently insurmountable. I do not know how he arrives at that view. My hon. Friend (Colonel Walker) spoke of a quick lunch. I have seen quick-change artists, but I 719 have never seen such a quick-change artist as the Solicitor-General, having regard to the position he now takes up and that which he took up some time ago.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. JOHN CLANCYmoved to insert the words "including, as respecting licensed premises in Ireland, the provisions of Subsection (7) of Section (43) of the Inland Revenue Act of 1880." The Amendment is rather different to that which I have upon the Paper, though it does not differ in any way in substance, and it has been suggested to me that it should be moved in this alternative form. As to the subject, I do not think it is necessary for me, after what was said last night, to argue that at all.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
§ Sir S. EVANSI do not think the words are strictly necessary here; but I agree that it is better to insert them here than elsewhere, if they, are to be inserted at all. I do not object to the words at all in the form in which they are now moved. The result will be this, that so far as Ireland is concerned, the valuation will take place according to the principles laid down in the Act of 1852—the original Valuation Act. That Act was adopted as the basis of valuation in the Inland Revenue Act of 1880, which is the provision mentioned in this Amendment, and the result will be that everywhere in Ireland, where valuation has taken place under these valuation Acts, that will be the valuation for ascertaining the duties under this Bill when it becomes law. There are two cases of re-valuation which have either been made or are in course of being made. Since the Local Government Ireland Act, 1908, there has been a new valuation which has been completed in Belfast; there is also being made a new valuation in the City of Dublin. As to Belfast, the valuation which will apply will be the valuation made since 1898, and in Dublin the value which will apply will be that in the course of being made, because in both cases the valuation is made under the Act of 1852 and the Acts amending it.
§ Mr. CLANCYPending the re-valuation will the existing valuation be taken in Dublin?
§ Sir S. EVANSYes, that is so. It also follows that in every county borough in 720 Ireland where a valuation is made under the Act of 1898 that valuation will also-apply. It really means that in Ireland we are making no difference at all from the basis of valuation which would apply to these duties if this Bill had not been proposed. I accept the words.
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONMay I ask the learned Solicitor-General if the result of this Bill be that so far as Scotland is concerned the levy will be made on the valuation in all respects as it is now.
§ Sir S. EVANSYes, that is so.
§ Mr. G. YOUNGERIn that case it is clearly to be understood that the right hon. Gentleman is differentiating very seriously against Scotland. I make no objection to and no complaint of my Irish friends getting this concession. I think they are very lucky to have got it, and I am glad Griffith's valuation is to apply in their case. There is something very different between that and the Schedule A valuation, which is to' apply to Scotland. I hope that the Committee will clearly understand that the differentiation, which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in answer to the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. J. Gretton) was not to be made between the three Kingdoms, is in fact now taking place.
§ Sir E. CARSONMay I ask the Solicitor-General as regards this so-called concession to Ireland, whether part of the Clause will not require to be altered if the valuation continues just as it is.
§ Sir S. EVANSWhat part of the Clause?
§ Sir E. CARSONThat part which deals with deductions.
§ Sir S. EVANSI do not think that any alteration will be necessary.
§ Sir F. BANBURYmoved to leave out from Sub-section (1) the words "and in the determination of that value the duty on the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction."
This is an extremely important Amendment, and unless it is accepted I venture to say that it will be absolutely impossible to arrive at a correct valuation of the annual value of a house. If the Government accept it we shall known that the Government are really desirous of 721 arriving at a true and correct valuation. If they refuse to accept it we shall be forced to the conclusion that their desire is not only to crush the publican, but to so manage the imposition of the charge that it shall be increased beyond any amount which in the ordinary course of events could possibly be imposed upon anyone. I cannot conceive what arguments will be used by the learned Solicitor-General against the adoption of the Amendment. The ordinary way of arriving at the value of a house or hereditament is by ascertaining what the house or hereditament would let for to a willing tenant in all the circumstances of the case. That is the sole method of arriving at the value of a house. If you do not accept my Amendment the result will be that you will not arrive at the true value which a tenant would give if he were asked to come forward and take the house. Any man in agreeing to pay a rent for a house would first of all say to himself, whether he is a publican or anybody else, "What are the burdens I shall render myself liable to if I agree to pay that particular rent?" I will give you a concrete case which will show what I mean. A man, for instance, may be willing to give a rental of £280 a year for a public-house, of which the Licence Duty would be £35. He would then be paying £.320 a year. But if the duty is increased to £140 the house would then be worth £105 a year or less, because he would have an outgoing of £105 more than now. If you are going to declare that annual value is to be calculated as if no extra charge is imposed, you are making the calculation of that annual value merely a sham and a delusion. Supposing no deduction is to be made for the Licence Duty, as is proposed in this Section, how would the valuation be made? It might be held that as no deduction is allowed in the future for the duty that is imposed, that in assessing the value at the present moment not only present rent should be taken, but that the amount of the present Licence Duty should be added to the rent.
I can easily conceive that a Treasury official anxious to gain that bounding revenue, which the Chancellor of the Duchy, in finishing up the second reading of the Licensing Bill, said would flow into the coffers of the Exchequer, would suggest that this would be a method of squeezing a little more out of the public. I believe there is an appeal, but even with that there is no doubt that the Commissioners, who are the first tribunal under 722 this Section, would take the side of the Treasury, and the publican would find that not only was he allowed no deduction in arriving at the annual value for the amount of the Licence Duty, but the existing Licence Duty was actually added on to the annual value of the house. I think I need not detain the Committee any longer. My proposition is so self-evident that I believe it to be quite impossible for the Solicitor-General to deny that there is justice in what I have said. The only conclusion I can come to, in the event of the Government refusing to accept my Amendment, is that they are determined by every possible means in their power to crush out the existence of this particular trade. I earnestly hope the Solicitor-General will accept the Amendment, and place the publican in the same position as any other person would be placed in who had to pay taxes or rates on his annual value.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe effect of the acceptance of the Amendment would be to make a very considerable change in the law as it exists at present. It is to be observed that the hon. Baronet's Amendment would, in the assessment of the annual value, allow deduction not only of the increased duty, but of the whole of the duties which are imposed on the house. The law and the practice invariably is not to allow as a deduction in ascertaining the annual value of licensed premises the duty paid on those premises. The hon. Baronet has not confined his proposition to the increased duties which are proposed to be imposed by this Bill. I only say that in order to show that the hon. Baronet is really proposing to alter the law as it at present exists, an alteration which, I need hardly say, the Government could not possibly accept. We adopt the law as it exists at present, and when the amount of these duties has been ascertained, after the Bill has become law, we do not propose anymore than now to make any deduction in respect of duty in the ascertaining of the annual value of the premises.
§ Mr. CAVEI must confess that I do not understand the argument of the Solicitor-General. The effect of the words if they remain in is to alter the law, and if we take them out they leave the law as it now is. The Amendment in no way embodies a proposal to alter the existing law, but leaves it as at present. We are dealing here not with the net value, the rateable value, but with gross value, and in connection with gross value the question of deduction does not arise at all. 723 I have never been able quite to understand the wording of this part of the Clause: "In the determination of that value the duty on the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction." It is not so allowed now. There is no question of deduction, and therefore the words as they stand really have no meaning or effect. I think the meaning must be that in ascertaining the gross value you are not to take into account the fact that the duty has been raised. If that is the meaning, I am opposed to it. The assessor has only to consider in the first place what the house will let at. It is quite clear, if you do not insert the words, that in considering what a house will let for he must consider what a possible tenant would give for it, and in considering the rent he would offer a possible tenant must take into account the amount of the duty. What by these words do you enjoin on the overseer? Either that he is to ascertain the annual value in the proper way, and then add the increase of duty, or that in estimating the annual value he is to shut his eyes to the facts; he is to put out of account the fact that the duty has been raised—he is, that is to say, to act as if it had not happened, and is to put therefore a wholly fictitious value on the house. If it be the fact that the Licence Duty is not now deducted in the sense of this Sub-section, then the increased duty would not be deducted, and so we do not want these words. If, as I believe, the words would have the effect of forcing the overseer to put on the premises a fictitious annual value, clearly they are unjust and ought not to be kept in the Bill.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI do not think the Government have quite considered the true effect of these words. Let us suppose that the words were "increased letting value." Take the ordinary rates, say, of London and Dublin. When you are letting a house how do you decide what is the letting value of that house? The letting value must be considered in connection with the rates. If the rates have been compounded and the landlord pays them, the letting value of a £100 house is £150. But if the tenant pays the rates and the rent is £100, the letting value is only £50. Surely it must be the same with taxes. The value of anything is what it will fetch in the market. The word "value" is a fictitious thing. What is the value of a sovereign? What is the value of any- 724 thing? It is, I repeat, what it will fetch. Here you say in this case: If my lease was £100 a year and my taxes were only £50, and you increase my taxes to £100, the value of my lease remains the same. It is a contradiction in terms. This thing will not be carried out. Human nature is above all Governments. You may direct a man to do what is wrong until you are black in the face, but he will not do wrong unless it is to his advantage. If this direction were given the Government officials would not act upon it, because they know very well that these enormous taxes which are being put on will pull down the value of every public-house in England, Ireland, and Scotland. You say you will direct your valuers not to take into account a fact over which all Great Britain will be "sizzling" when the Bill has been 12 months in operation. The Government have not begun to understand this Bill yet. I respectfully say this, that these words are against public justice; I say they are against public policy, and I say, furthermore, that such will be the outcry at this valuation all over the country, that in Ireland—I do not know what you have in England by way of appeal—in Ireland, at any rate, our courts will be glutted if any such thing is to take place. Dublin is now being re-valued and the re-valuation will come into effect in the course of a few months. In Belfast there has been a re-valuation and the whole value of the licence has been added to the valuation: in consequence of the decision of a Court of Appeal it was decided that it was to be added to the valuation. Here you say it is not to be taken into account in the valuation. I should like to know what the effect of this Clause will be in Belfast. Am I to understand that Clause 30, Sub-section (1), is to apply all over England, Ireland, and Scotland—that is to say, in the manner and subject to the same conditions? I assume that is the meaning of this Clause. It goes on to say, "And in the determination of that value the duty on the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction." It seems to me that the result of that will be that we shall have to have a fresh valuation of Belfast, because, undoubtedly, in valuing the Belfast premises the fact of the Licence Duty was taken into account; the existence of the licence, and with it the duty was taken into account. Therefore, as I understand this Clause, it will give the Commissioners of Valuation fresh letters of marque as against Belfast.
725 But why should the Government propose this at all? Surely you are slicing down these unfortunate public-houses sufficiently by means of the Whisky Duty, the Beer Duty, and these enormous charges. To go on with this penultimate injustice is against all human fairplay. It is against all notions of justice. Would you say as regards any other premises throughout the Kingdom that the public charges, whether they be taxes or whether they be rates, shall not be taken into account? I respectfully think that sufficient consideration has not been given to this Clause. These Clauses are an amalgamation of all the Treasury cunning and of all the Treasury malice—not political malice. There is the ordinary teetotal malice against the publicans of which you cannot complain, but the Treasury see how they can skin a man whether Tie is a Liberal or a Conservative. And yet you have put in this Clause the very acme of extortion. The learned Solicitor-General may have answered off-hand without consideration, but if he has considered it I respectfully think it requires re-consideration. To make any such provision will lead later on to such an outcry against it, as being against public interests, that it cannot very long stand upon the statute book if, indeed, it is ever put upon it.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERThis may not be more than a matter of words. I am not quite sure of that. But I am quite sure of this, that the Government must deal with this matter one way or the other. They must either strike out these words or in some way alter them so as to make it perfectly clear what the intention of this Section is. As these words stand they may mean one of two things according to the intention and meaning of the Government. Either the words are unnecessary and confusing, and may be exceedingly dangerous, or else they bear a meaning that suggest the grossest position of injustice. I cannot conceive that they are meant to give this 'direction to the valuer, that in valuing licensed premises he is to value them as though they were gratuitously licensed. I cannot conceive that that is the instruction meant to be given to the valuer. Now, of course, when a valuer values licensed premises as a going concern, he takes the licence into account. There is no question of deduction at all. The valuer takes the licence into account on both sides of the ledger. He asks what 726 would the tenant say. He would say on the one hand, "These premises have got a valuable licence, and therefore I can give a good deal more rent than I should otherwise." That is on the one side, but on the other hand he would say, "I shall have to pay for the licence, and in so far as I have to pay for the licence, so far, of course, it must reduce the rent." Therefore the licence tends in one case to increase the rent, and in the other case to decrease it, and the valuer takes the matter into account on both sides, and arrives at the result. Is that what the Government intend him to consider and intend him to do? I understand their intention to be England, Scotland, and Ireland, according to the separate systems which respectively prevail, those systems are to continue, and there is to be no change. If that is so, these words are perfectly unnecessary. The Section is complete without them, and their insertion can only be to the greatest danger and confusion, because any valuer reading this Section, and reading down to this point, which says that the annual value is to be ascertained in this manner, and then goes on to say, "and in the determination of that value the duty on the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction"—the valuer will be put to it to give a meaning to those words. The Solicitor-General has given no indication, as I understand, why they are there and what practical effect they are intended to produce. There is the greatest danger that the valuer, in trying to decide, and the Court in trying to give some meaning to these words, may say, "They must mean that the licence is not to be taken into account so far as it reduces the rent, but only so far as it increases it." I do not think that that can be the intention of the Government.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhere learned experts differ in the interpretation of this Clause it is, perhaps, unwise for a layman to express any opinion. I do not do so, but simply rise to recall the fact that the Government have as yet supplied no answer to the arguments advanced to the Committee. I desire to ask the Solicitor-General one question: His conclusion, which is challenged by my hon. and learned Friend, is that this makes no change in the law?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSPractically so; it is the law as it is understood.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat is the difference between the law and the law as it is understood?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe law can be stated to be the law if it has not been disputed, if no case has arisen that gives a legal decision upon the matter. The statement of the law must be taken, of course, through the authority of the person who makes it. What I say is that the practice has been since 1880 not to make a deduction for the Licence Duty. That has never been challenged, although there has never been, so far as I am aware, legal decision upon it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThen the contention of the Government is that the practice has been exactly what these words say. The preceding words of the Section state that the practice shall continue to be what it has always been. Accordingly, if these words make no change in the practice, why are they necessary? That is a very simple question. Will the Solicitor-General point out to the Committee what change would be made in the existing practice if these words were omitted? When we find that tire preceding words of the Section distinctly state that the present practice is to continue, and then this additional provision is put in, it is natural to suppose that this additional provision has an additional meaning. The Solicitor-General says it has no additional meaning, but leaves the law exactly as it was. In that case I submit it is wholly unnecessary, and we laymen learn in this House from learned Gentlemen that unnecessary words in a statute are always bad and ought to come out.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expects me to jump up after every speech without waiting to weigh the value of the speeches. I have been endeavouring to gather their effect, and, of course, I never intended to let the matter remain without explanation, if explanation was necessary. I want to make it plain what the law is and what the practice has been. Since 1880 the existing duties have never been deducted in the ascertainment of the annual value. That, therefore, we may assume to be the law. It never has been challenged, but everyone can see that it may be desired to challenge that practice because the duties have been increased. There is reason, therefore, why it should be made perfectly clear. Let me give a case to show how dangerous it would be to leave out these words if it could be shown by any court that the practice has been a wrongful practice. It does not matter 728 whether the practice has prevailed for 20 or 30 years; a court of law may still declare that the practice has been against the law. Supposing the annual value of the premises, taking everything into consideration, has been fixed by the Commissioners at £100. According to the law, as it will be when this Bill passes, the duty will be £50. When that annual value has been ascertained you cannot deduct the £50 duty from it and say that the annual value has been reduced from £100 to £50. It is abundantly clear that it is necessary from the point of view of caution to put these words in, lest by reason of the increased duty to be placed upon the licence a test case may go to the Courts, and the Courts may decide that the practice has not been in accordance with the law. We think it has been in accordance with the law, but, at any rate, we want to perpetuate the practice beyond any question by the insertion of these words.
§ Mr. W. PEELMay I put a question to the Solicitor-General to make the matter-clear, at any rate, to my mind? Of course these licensed houses are valued for the purpose of rates and also for the purpose of the Licence Duty. Are there to be two annual valuations or not? For the purpose of rateable value certain deductions are made, but first they arrive at the annual value. I want to know whether the Government are setting up, for the purpose of levying the publican's licence-duty, a new or special gross valuation?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSNo.
§ Mr. PEELThe hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that it is to be done in exactly the same way as for the gross, annual value for rates.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI never said anything of the kind. The annual value has to be ascertained for the duty in precisely the same way as the annual value has been ascertained for the purpose of the existing duty.
§ Mr. PEELOf course you make certain deductions to get the rateable value, but,, in getting at your annual value for rates, in order to make your deductions afterwards, you will of course take into account what the Licence Duties are, and obviously, if those duties are going to be higher, the gross annual value from which you are going to make your deductions will be very much altered, and, of course, very much lower. For the purpose of ascertain- 729 ing the gross annual value on which you are going to levy the publican's Licence Duty, presumably in the same way the gross annual value would be very much less. It is not technically a deduction, although I suppose it comes in some ways very much to the same thing, because you ask what a man would give for it. But is it to be a new method, or is it to be arrived at in exactly the same way as the gross annual value is arrived at for the purpose of levying a rate? I confess, after the explanation of the Solicitor-General, I still do not feel clear as to what is the precise meaning or the value of the words inserted in the Section.
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONAs the result of the Amendment of the hon. Member below the Gangway the words we are now discussing will have no effect in Ireland.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYOh, yes, they will.
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONI hesitate to express a contrary opinion, but so far as I can understand the Amendment, the result will be that in England and Scotland the duty will be taken into account, whereas in Ireland it will not be.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI think these words cover the case of Ireland as well as England.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI presume the primary purpose of valuation in England as well as in Ireland is for the purpose of rates, and your licensing valuation, Income Tax valuation, and so on, are taken upon that valuation. I have never read the English Valuation Act, but I have read the Irish Valuation Act, and it is substantially what, allowing fair wear and tear, and even deduction for insurance, a place would let to a tenant from year to year. I suppose, roughly speaking, that is also the plan for England. If the basis of valuation be letting value, I wish to ask, is there a tenant in England, Ireland, or Scotland, who, when he is taking or making a letting, will not take into account the question of rates and taxes? Therefore, the question here will be for English Members to ascertain what is the basis of the English rating system. I do not know it; but I do know the basis of the Irish system and, therefore, I stay it is making a change in the law. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General made one very important admission. He said since 1880 this must be assumed to be the law, because it has never been chal- 730 lenged. Why has it never been challenged? Because it was never worth while for a man to enter into a lawsuit with the Crown for £3 10s. But now it may be a matter of £300 or £400. The English brewers and holders of licences might easily make a pool and light the Crown and, therefore, the Government have to put in these words so as to prevent that course being adopted to see whether the basis is practical or not. In Ireland I think there is a change in the law. All the Excise authorities do in Ireland is to look at a man's valuation, and that was imposed by Griffiths, who is now posing in his grave. It is admitted now that as regards Ireland a change in the law is being made. What is the consequence of that change? Why, you are arranging that practically a new valuation in Ireland may be made as a consequence of the passing of this Act. I think my hon. and learned Friend is giving us a concession with one hand and he is taking it away with the other, because he is saying that in future this deduction shall not be taken into account. This I say is bringing about an absolute change in the law in regard to Ireland. Can any Christian say that it is not? The basis is that all taxes and charges are to be paid by the tenant. I therefore respectfully maintain that you are now making a new law, after having accepted valuation on the preceding lines, and after having made a compact with my Irish Friends, many of whom have gone home to bed. You give them, I say, a concession with the one hand and you take it from them with the other.
§ 2.0 A.M.
§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERI think we are not quite clear about this Clause. I think we have a right to expect from the learned Solicitor-General that he will make it quite clear before we go to a Division. Does the Solicitor-General mean that there will be two systems of rating? Does he mean that there will be the ordinary system in which you have to go to the assessment committee and then to quarter sessions, and then you will get your basis of rating on the judgment of those authorities? You cannot dictate to the quarter sessions nor to the assessment committee, and the assessment committee will undoubtedly take into consideration all the circumstances in connection with the property. It seems to me there will be two assessments—one for licensing purposes and the 731 other for rating purposes. The one for rating purposes will be an honest assessment. The other one will be the dishonest assessment, based upon an addition of a rent charge which had been established on the property in order to raise the amount which the Government are to exact. This is a perfectly clear point. It has been taken up by all the municipalities. They are perfectly clear in the knowledge of the fact that this, which I may call a rent charge, now put on all property in the Kingdom which is held under licence, is going to reduce the assessment which quarter sessions will allow to such an extent that they will put a very heavy burden on the ratepayers. That is perfectly clear. There will be a deduction of something like £4,000,000 from the rateable value of the property in the United Kingdom, and an addition of that amount to the burdens of the other ratepayers. The Exchequer will get the benefit of the £4,000,000. The Government say they will not accept the
§ judgment of quarter sessions for the purposes of these licences, and are going to add the £4,000,000 to the charges. When quarter sessions have fixed a proper value for the assessments of the houses the Government say, "I will have my £4,000,000, and on that I will base the amount of the Licence Duty I am going to exact." Is that fair or honest? Surely the Government must know their own minds. I see the learned Solicitor-General poring over papers—
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI assure the hon. Member I was looking at another Amendment.
§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERI am sorry that what I have said is treated with such discourtesy. That being so, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 126.
733| Division No. 587.] | AYES. | [2.5 a.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Oddy, John James |
| Arkright, John Stanhope | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gretton, John | Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Renton, Leslie |
| Barnard, E. B. | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Renwick, George |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Healy, T. M. (Louth, North) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Heaton, John Henniker | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Helmsley, Viscount | Stanier, Beville |
| Cave, George | Hill, Sir Clement | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Wore.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Crean, Eugene | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott- | Magnus, Sir Philip | Whitbread, Howard |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Fell, Arthur | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Forster, Henry William | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.) | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) | Harmood-Banner and Mr. Remnant. |
| Gardner, Ernest | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Cooper, G. J. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Berridge, T. H D. | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bottomley, Horatio | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Brace, William | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Brooke, Stopford | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bryce, J. Annan | Crosfield, A. H. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Byles, William Pollard | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Duckworth, Sir James |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Beale, W. P. | Clough, William | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Clynes, J. R. | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) |
| Brnn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Elibank, Master of |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Maclean, Donald | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Macpherson, J. T. | Shaw, Sir Charles Edward |
| Fullerton, Hugh | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Glover, Thomas | Markham, Arthur Basil | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Gulland, John W. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)* |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Summerbell, T. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morse, L. L. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Nussey, Sir Willans | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Nuttall, Harry | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Harvey. W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Tomkinson, James |
| Harwood, George | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Toulmin, George |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Pirle, Duncan V. | Waring, Walter |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Pointer, Joseph | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Radford, G. H. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Rainy, A. Rolland | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Jowett, F. W. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Lambert George | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton) | Williams, Sir A. O. (Merioneth) |
| Lamont, Norman | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Winfrey, R. |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Robinson, S. | |
| Macdonald, J. R (Leicester) | Rowlands, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
§ Question put, "That the words 'and in the determination of that value the duty on the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction,' stand part of the Clause."
734§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 78.
735| Division No. 588.] | AYES. | [2.12 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Pointer, J. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Glover, Thomas | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Gulland, John W. | Radford, G. H. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Harvey, W E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Harwood, George | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Robinson, S. |
| Beale, W. P. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Rowlands, J. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Hedges, A. Paget | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland). |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Higham, John Sharp | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Brace, William | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Brooke, Stopford | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jowett, F. W. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Lambert, George | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lamont, Norman | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Summerbell, T. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Clough, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Collins, Stepnen (Lambeth) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Tomkinson, James |
| Cooper, G. J. | Maclean, Donald | Toulmin, George |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Macpherson, J. T. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Waring, Walter |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Micklem, Nathaniel | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Morse, L. L. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Nussey, Sir Willans | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Nuttall, Harry | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Elibank. Master of | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Winfrey, R. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | |
| Flennes, Hon. Eustace | Pickersgill. Edward Hare | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Pirie, Duncan V. | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gretton, John | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Renton, Leslie |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Renwick, George |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Healy, Timothy Michael | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Heaton, John Henniker | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Helmsley, Viscount | Stanier, Beville |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hill, Sir Clement | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Crean, Eugene | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Warde, Col. E. C. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon C. Scott- | Magnus, Sir Philip | Whitbread, Howard |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Foster, Philip S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Gardner, Ernest | Oddy, John James | Frederick Banbury and Mr. Cave. |
§ Mr. E. B. BARNARDproposed, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "but the Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall allow as a deduction so much of the annual value of the said premises which are used for any business or purpose distinct from and independent of the use of the premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors."
The Amendment which was discussed a little while ago covered most of the arguments which could be adduced on this point, and, therefore, I need not detain the Committee at any length. I should like to say at the outset that my Amendment meets very largely the objection the Solicitor-General raised against the previous Amendment. In answer to a question the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that where a portion of properties was sublet, then the sublet portion would not come under the purview of the Revenue authorities for taxation as licensed premises. What I should like to emphasise is that it would be very hard if, when some person happens to occupy two portions of a property, that he or she should be in a worse position than another person who has happened to sublet. The Solicitor-General said the only portion on which it was wished to levy the charge was that portion licensed by the justices. If anybody who has a property such as I have alluded to went to the justices and asked for a licence only for that part of the premises used for purposes of the trade, would he expect to get it? The principle of the Act of 1880, said the 736 Solicitor-General, was adopted here. But the principle of the Act of 1869, which made beer-houses pay only £3 10s. was not adopted here. The view I wish to place before the Committee is that in future if the whole hereditament is to be subject to paying one-third of the annual value the position will be very acute. I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment, which only carries out the principle accepted by the Prime Minister last night in connection with Ireland.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSMy hon. Friend said, and said rightly, that there is a distinction between the Amendment which he now proposes and the one proposed earlier in the evening by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Frederick Banbury). The law at present is, I think, perfectly clear. We do not propose to alter the law at all. We propose to allow it to remain as it has been certainly since 1880. But in answer to the specific question put to me, I may say that I think it would certainly be competent on the justices, upon an application being made to them, to say that a part of the premises used distinctly and independently from the intoxicating liquor business is not included in the licensed premises. If the justices did say that, it is perfectly clear that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in making their valuation, would not go outside the licensed premises as defined by the licensing justices.
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHI am not at all satisfied as to the point on which the Solicitor-General has just expressed his opinion. I venture to suggest that the object might be obtained if the Amendment were made to read. "But the Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall allow as a deduction so much of the annual value of the said premises as are stated, or certified, by the justices to be used for any business or purposes distinct from, and independent of, etc." I would point out that if the Amendment were accepted in the form which I suggest, it would make certain that which I understand the Solicitor-General desires shall be the law. If it is not accepted in that form there is no such guarantee, and when the Solicitor-General says that nothing is provided here that is not already law, of course the observation which at once suggests itself is that we have here a very large addition indeed to the existing burdens, and, therefore, it may be very reasonable to insist, so far as one can, that the way-weight of these
§ burdens shall be mitigated by seeing that they attach only to that part of the premises actually used for licensed purposes. I do not understand why the Solicitor-General should object to accepting the Amendment, and if what I suggest were done the object with which the right hon. Gentleman declares himself sympathetic would be secured beyond all doubt. In answer to a question a few weeks ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly indicated that he recognised the reasonableness of making a deduction in the case where there was a letting. It is impossible for anyone to suggest that there is any distinction at all between the case of a letting and the case of ordinary usage for a purpose unconnected with licensed premises.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 120.
739| Division No. 589.] | AYES. | [2.30 a.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Forster, Henry William | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding. Edward Alfred | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gretton, John | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.) | Renton, Leslie |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Renwick, George |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Healy, T. M. (Louth, North) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Heaton, John Henniker | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Helmsley, Viscount | 0Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hill, Sir Clement | Stanier, Beville |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hunt, Rowland | Starkey, John R |
| Cave, George | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Wore.) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Valentia, Viscount |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Clean, Eugene | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Younger, George |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | Barnard and Colonel Walker. |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Elibank, Master of |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Byles, William Pollard | Evans, Sir Samuel |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Fiennes, Hen. Eustace |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Clough, William | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Clynes, J. R. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Glover, Thomas |
| Barnes, G. M | Cooper, G. J | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Gulland, John W. |
| Barran. Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Beale, W. P | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Beauchamp, E | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Harvey, W E (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Duckworth, Sir James | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Brace, William | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Summerbell, T |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pirie, Duncan V. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Pointer, Joseph | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, N.) |
| Lambert, George | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Lamont, Norman | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Tomkinson, James |
| Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Radford, G. H. | Toulmin, George |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Rainy, A. Rolland | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton) | Waring, Walter |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Macpherson, J T. | Roberts, Sir J H. (Denbighs) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Robinson, S. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| M'Laren, H. D (Stafford, W.) | Rowlands, J. | Williams, J (Glamorgan) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Williams, Sir A. O. (Merioneth) |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Morse, L. L. | Sherwell, Arthur James | Winfrey, R. |
| Nussey, Sir Willans | Silcock, Thomas Ball | |
| Nuttall, Harry | Simon, John Allsebrook | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Parker, James Halifax) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to leave out Sub-section (2).
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Friday).
§ Adjournment, — Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes before Three o'clock.