Commons Sitting of 7 September 1909

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

  Opium Cultivation (China).
  Mr. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Consul-General at Szechuen informed the International Opium Commission that no trustworthy statistics exist as to the acreage under the poppy in China; and whether, if so, the British Government intend to adhere literally to engagements, the fulfilment of which by China, in the absence of trustworthy statistics, cannot be ascertained or assumed.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): We have no information to this effect, but the reports recently received from our Consular officers in China tend to show that the Chinese Government are both energetic and sincere in their attempts to suppress the cultivation of the poppy in China. Full reports of the proceedings of the International Opium Commission are now on their way home, and will shortly be laid on the Table of the House.

  Crime in Egypt.
  Mr. LUPTON (for Mr. Mackarness)asked whether the proceedings against persons suspected of being dangerous characters, before the Commissioners established by the Egyptian law of 4th July, 1909, will be conducted in public; and, if not, who will be allowed to be present at the hearings, and what record will there be of what takes place?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no provision in the law itself that the proceedings taken under it shall be conducted in public, but instructions have been issued by the Minister of the Interior to Governors of Provinces, that the public shall be admitted to them, so far as is permitted by the space in the Moudirieh in which the proceedings take place.
  Mr. LUPTON (for Mr. Mackarness)asked whether the Egyptian law of 4th
  1074
  July, 1909, which purports to render any person in Egypt liable to be placed under police supervision and to deportation without being charged with any criminal office or tried before any court of justice, applies to British subjects and to subjects of Foreign Powers who may be resident in Egypt; and, if not, against whom is the law directed.
  Sir E. GREY: The Commissions established under the Ordinance are composed of native Egyptians, and the law cannot be made to extend to British and Foreign subjects who are not justiciable by native tribunals.
  Mr. LUPTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there has been a great increase in recent years in crime in Egypt requiring the special legislation contained in the Decree of the 4th July, 1909; and if he can give the statistics of crime for the last five years?
  Sir E. GREY: The actual statistics of the last three years are given at page 34 of Sir Eldon Gorst's last report. I am expecting further information from Cairo, which I shall be glad to give when available. I must point out that the increase of crime, due to the great difficulty of obtaining evidence in particular cases, has led to some of the rural districts being terrorized by dangerous characters. I am satisfied that it was absolutely necessary for the Egyptian Government to resort to some special measures to put an end to this, and the legislation referred to has the approval of native opinion as well as that of British officials who are employed in the Ministry of the Interior.
  Mr. LUPTON: Has there been a considerable and striking increase of crime in Egypt in the last few years?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, there has been.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the increase of crime is somewhat due to laxity of administration owing to the withdrawal of British inspectors, who previously assisted in the administration?
  Sir E. GREY: No, I understand the British inspectors have not been withdrawn. The increase of crime has been due to the impossibility of getting, evidence.

  British Traders (Congo State).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

  1075
  whether he is aware that in July, 1907, two British subjects, Messrs. King and Woest, arrived with 12 wagons at the Kotanga frontier of the Congo State, and on various pretexts were prevented from entering Congolese territory for 12 months, eventually having to return to Bulawayo, having lost two years and some thousands of pounds; can he reconcile this act of the Congo Government with Article V. of the Berlin Treaty of 1885, by which subjects of any nation are guaranteed free entrance and trading facilities in the Congo basin; and whether representations have been made on the matter by this Government And compensation asked for loss sustained?
  Sir E. GREY: The case of Messrs. King and Woest has been reported to me by Mr. Beak, His Majesty's Vice-Consul in the Katanga, and I have brought it to the notice of the Belgian Government. I am meanwhile awaiting further details, for which I have asked Mr. Beak, before deciding how far a claim on the Belgian Government for compensation will be justified.

  Persian Affairs.
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether the new governor of Azerbeijan has arrived at Tabriz; whether there has been any reduction of the Russian troops since his arrival; and when the Russian Government propose to carry out their intention, officially conveyed to His Majesty's Government, to withdraw the whole of their troops at Tabriz upon the arrival of the newly-appointed governor?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, and that to the second in the negative. As regards the third part, the Russian Government have announced their intention of withdrawing their troops from Tabriz as soon as order is restored there.

  Plague (Punjab).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether the returns of plague mortality in the Punjab during the preceding years indicate that the disease is gradually disappearing; and how last year's death-rate on this account compares with that from small-pox?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The plague mortality in the Punjab in 1908, excluding native States, is given in the most recent returns as 30,708, against 608,685 in 1907.
  1076
  The death-rate from plague in that province in 1908 was 1.53 per thousand; that for small-pox was 1.42 per thousand.
  Mr. LUPTON: Does the hon. Member agree with the report of the Medical Commission in India that vaccination is absolutely of no use in the case of an epidemic?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that.

  Outbreak of Cholera (Calcutta).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can communicate to the House the results of the inquiry ordered by the Secretary of State into the outbreak of cholera amongst the hospital nurses at Calcutta?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has not yet received Mr. Haffkine's full report; but from a preliminary report made by him it appears that the outbreak of cholera was due to infection of the nurses' food by two servants, both in good health, who were found to be unconscious carriers of the bacillus.

  Explosives Factory, Rosyth.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have recently acquired some hundreds of acres of land for an explosives factory in the neighbourhood of Rosyth; if so, what was the date of the purchase, what is approximately the area of the land purchased, and what was the purchase price; and whether that price includes mineral rights?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The Admiralty purchased in March, 1909, 387 acres of land and 240 acres of foreshore at Crombie, in Fife-shire, on the Firth of Forth, for a magazine establishment. The price paid, which includes mineral rights, amounted to £30,000 with compensation to the existing tenant. Two small feus on the property are being acquired in addition.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Who is the owner of the land?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not sure.

  Wear Fishery (Damage to Gear).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if he is aware that a communication has been forwarded to the Conservators of the Wear Fishery

  1077
  District intimating that fishermen should be warned that the Admiralty will not consider claims for damage to gear unless it is proved that it was attended sufficiently closely to enable adequate warning to be given to His Majesty's ships; whether he is aware that, owing to the speed at which vessels travel, combined with the darkness, it is often quite impossible to give the warning demanded; and whether, in view of the hazardous and precarious nature of such fishermen's calling, he is prepared to reconsider the notice so given, with a view to its modification?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "warning demanded" is merely the fulfilment of the existing regulations. In the majority of instances it is possible for such warning to be given in time to avert damage. In cases where an exceptionally high speed of one of His Majesty's ships renders it impossible for the warning to be given in time, such fact will receive due consideration.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL:If the warning is in accordance with the existing regulations, why is it necessary to issue the warning at the present moment?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no special warning issued in the case of the Wear Fishery District. It is a universal warning issued in the case of all districts alike.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL:The point is, if it is in accordance with existing regulations, why is it necessary to issue the warning at the present moment?
  Mr. McKENNA:I can only imagine because the existing regulations have not been sufficiently regarded.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: Am I to understand that compensation has been paid in similar cases up to the present?
  Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend will give me notice of the question, I should be glad to inquire whether compensation has been paid.

  American Beef (Smithfield Market).
  Mr. HUNTasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether, in view of the fact that only one-fifth or less of the beef now sold in the principal London market is British or Irish, and that the amount has been rapidly decreasing of late years and is still decreasing, he proposes to take any action to prevent British and Irish beef from being squeezed out altogether
  1078
  from Smithfield Market by the operations of the American Beef Trust?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the question of combinations in the meat trade has quite recently been the subject of inquiry by a Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade [Cd. 4643]. On the information available, this Board do not see that they are in a position to take any action for the purpose indicated.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Baronet aware that since the Committee sat it has been' publicly stated in the Press, including the Radical papers, that the City Corporation, after consultation with the Board of Agriculture, has been obliged to recognise that the American Meat Trust does control the Smithfield Market? Is he going to do nothing to prevent that?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Certainly not.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Baronet aware that the City Corporation have decided only to allow shops to be taken by people who will sell British meat?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to put that down.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Is the hon. Baronet aware that the Birmingham Guardians will only tender for meat supplied by Trust firms?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible for the hon. Baronet to know that.

  Foreign Meat (Fraudulent Sale).
  Mr. HUNTasked in how many cases since the Merchandise Marks (Prosecution) Act of 1894 proceedings have been taken by Government officials against persons fraudulently selling foreign meat as British?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Proceedings have been instituted by the Board in 38 cases in connection with the sale of foreign bacon and ham as British.
  Mr. HUNT: During how many years?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I cannot tell.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Have there been any prosecutions where American beef has been sold as English or Irish home-fed beef?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask for notice of that.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Baronet aware that the fraudulent sale of foreign beef is continually going on, and that it causes enormous loss, and is very unfair to both producer and consumer in this country?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Of course there is a continued sale of foreign beef, because people are able to buy it cheaper.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the hon. Baronet aware that all pork, wherever it comes from, is classed as British meat?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am not aware of that.

  Kew Gardens (Employés' Hours of Labour).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is yet able to give the decision of the Board with reference to the memorial from the Royal Gardens, Kew, Employés Union, asking for shorter working hours and increase of annual leave in lieu of bank holidays?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The matter is still under consideration, and we are in communication with the Treasury in regard to it.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: May I ask the hon. Baronet whether he is aware that this matter has been pending for several months.
  Sir E. STRACHEYindicated assent.

  Customs (Statistical Department Clerks).
  Earl RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to grant to clerks and assistant clerks in the Statistical Department of His Majesty's Customs whose unestablished service is throughout precisely similar to the established service following it the privilege of reckoning the whole of their unestablished service for superannuation, such as is now granted to the Customs boatmen?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The unestablished service of the clerks and assistant clerks referred to does not fulfil the condition stated in the question.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Captain CLIVEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the case of a wife who is disqualified from receiving an old age pension only because
  1080
  her husband has had 2s. 6d. a week outdoor relief, the death of the husband will enable her to establish her claim?
  The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The death of the husband of a claimant disqualified on the ground mentioned in the question would not affect the disqualification. Under Section 3 of the Old Age Pensions Act it would continue until 31st December, 1910, unless Parliament otherwise determines.
  Mr. O'DOHERTYasked the Chief Secretary if he can state why Edward Rodden, Terhillion, Termon, county Donegal, was deprived of the old age pension; whether he is aware that this applicant is over 70 years of age, as can be proved by the certificate of the parish priest and by sworn testimony; and whether, seeing that the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851 are in many cases unreliable, he will take steps to have the pension allowed to this applicant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal in this case as the claimant failed to prove that he had reached the statutory age. The parish priest certified that the claimant was married in 1885, and added that he stated that he was then 46 years of age, but no evidence was furnished in support of this statement. The claimant's parents and their family were traced in the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851, but his name did not appear in either year. It will be open to him to make a fresh claim when he can furnish trustworthy evidence that he has reached the statutory age.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. O'Doherty)asked the Chief Secretary on what grounds were the old age pensions which were being paid to James M'Getttigan and Mary Jane M'Gettigan, his wife, of Carrowmena, Moville, county Donegal, whose respective ages are 84 and 75 years, discontinued; what are the means of these parties; what is the nature, extent, valuation, and rent of the farm on which they live; on whose, and what, information were the pensions discontinued; and whether he will take steps to ascertain the true facts and have the pensions allowed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal in these cases on the ground that the claimants' means exceeded the statutory limit. The husband was reported by the pension officer to be in occupation of a farm with a stock of five cows, some calves,

  1081
  seven or eight other cattle, two horses, and 50 sheep. It was also reported that he kept a threshing mill, and sold a large quantity of turf which alone was estimated to bring in about £15 a year. The rent of the farm was £5 a year, and the Poor Law valuation the same. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision.

  Congested Districts Board, Scotland (Inquiry).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Forsyth, the chairman of the small Committee appointed to inquire into the work and as to the usefulness of the Congested Districts Board, is a member of the Board and himself buys the stallions and bulls; whether he is aware that of the other members of the Committee one, Mr. Cameron, is a valuator for the Board, and the other, Mr. Angus M'Intosh, is a factor of the Congested Districts Board farm in Skye; and whether, in view of these facts, he could see his way to add three independent experts to the Committee?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The facts are not quite as stated by the hon. Gentleman. The Committee to which he refers has not been appointed to inquire generally into the work and usefulness of the Congested Districts Board, but into the methods adopted by the Board for the improvement of live stock, and the gentlemen who have consented to serve upon the Committee have been chosen with What end in view. It is the case that Mr. Forsyth is a member of the Congested Districts Board and has superintended the work of the Board in this respect. He is also a Crofter Commissioner, has a wide and intimate knowledge of the farming and live stock of crofters in the Highlands and of the conditions under which it is reared. Mr. Cameron is a well-known breeder of live stock, and though he has on occasions acted as valuer for the Board, is not otherwise connected with it. Mr. Angus M'Intosh is not a member of the committee, but an official of the Board, who has been appointed, as is frequently done, to act as secretary to the Committee. The Committee seems large enough for the purpose and reliable in respect of experience, judgment, and independence. It is not proposed to add to it.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will urge on the
  1082
  Government to appoint a small Committee of their own number to inquire into these matters?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a supplementary question arising out of the answer.
  Mr. DENIS KILBRIDE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board have been using hackney stallions and Clydesdale stallions for the purpose of destroying the native breed of horses?
  Mr. HUGH WATT: May I ask whether it is not the case that if Mr. Cameron is occasionally employed by the Congested Districts Board to make valuations he will in that way be bound to the Board and lose his independence?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir; he is a man of integrity.

  Postal Facilities with Turkey.
  Mr. MORTONasked the Postmaster-General whether arrangements are being made for a penny postage between this country and Turkey; whether there is a British post office at Constantinople and also one at Shanghai, China; and whether the penny post is in force to the latter place and other places in China?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): There is an agency of the British Post Office at Constantinople and also one at the Hong Kong Post Office at Shanghai. The penny postage rate is in force to the latter place, and also to all other places in China at which Hong Kong agencies are maintained. I do not contemplate any arrangement at present for the introduction of penny postage between this country and Turkey.
  Mr. HENNIKER HEATON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is penny postage with Shanghai, a distance of 12,500 miles, while the charge to Turkey, a distance of 1,200 miles, is 2½d.; and whether he has obtained statistics showing that at a small cost there could be established penny postage with Turkey?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am aware of the obvious anomalies between the penny and the 2½d. postage. Personally, I hope that at some time or other we may have universal penny postage. In regard to the question about Turkey, it must be quite obvious to my hon. Friend that if I were to extend penny postage to Turkey other Continental nations would be entitled to ask

  1083
  it also, and in the present state of our finance we are unable to afford the cost, which would be about £350,000 a year.
  Mr. MORTON: May I ask whether there is not a difference in the case of Turkey, where there is a British post office and a British postmaster?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think that comes in when considering the question. It does not affect the general question.
  Mr. HENNIKER HEATON: Has the right hon. Gentleman obtained statistics showing the ridiculously small cost of establishing penny postage with Turkey?
  Mr. BUXTON: It is not altogether a question of the small cost of establishing penny postage between England and Turkey. If we grant it to Turkey, we must grant it to other Continental nations, and in that case it would cost £350,000 a year.

  Disturbances in Liverpool (Public Inquiry).
  Mr. SLOANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received from the Watch Committee of Liverpool a recommendation to hold an inquiry into the recent disturbance in that city; if so, does he propose to grant an inquiry, and on what date; will the inquiry be held on oath; and will the Press be admitted?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I have received the resolution of the Watch Committee, and have agreed to appoint a Commissioner to make the inquiry subject to the arrangement of certain details with the council. The inquiry cannot, however, be held under statutory powers, and it will, therefore, not be possible to take the evidence on oath. The inquiry will be a public one.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I sent the right hon. Gentleman a question yesterday, which, I think, he did not receive, in regard to the incidents of Sunday. May I ask whether he has received any further information, because I have received rather alarming reports of what took place?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have received a full report. The riot was greatly exaggerated. The police gathered on the spot, and soon got the different parties to go to their quarters.
  Mr. SLOAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state on what date the inquiry will be held?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, I cannot. I will have to proceed to appoint a Commissioner first of all.
  Mr. SLOAN: Will the inquiry be held before the Session closes?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: A Commissioner will be appointed, and, of course, he must decide on the course of the proceedings.

  Punishment for Poaching (Welshpool Petty Sessions).
  Sir GEORGE KEKEWICHasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, on Tuesday last, at the Welshpool Petty Sessions, a labourer, named Buscoe, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, and an additional six months' imprisonment in default of finding two sureties in £5 each, for the offence of destroying by night nine rabbits, and that a sentence of two months' imprisonment, with a similar extension in default of finding sureties, was imposed on another labourer in his company for destroying three rabbits; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter as regards reduction of the sentences?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I will answer with this the question which the hon. Member for North Mayo put to me yesterday about the same case. I have made inquiry and find that the two prisoners were convicted as stated in the question. They were caught poaching with a dog at 3.40 a.m. One of them had a bag containing nine rabbits, the other a bag containing three rabbits and 60 yards of netting. Ruscoe had 28 and the other 12 previous convictions. I am sorry that the case is not one in which I can advise the grant of any remission other than what the prisoners can earn in the ordinary course by good conduct and industry.
  Mr. LUPTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it has been found in some parts of the country that a moderate fine has a better effect than imprisonment in stopping poaching and in getting poachers on better terms with landlords?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I have not found that that is so.

  Primary Education Bill for Jersey.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked what will be the constitution of the Committee of

  1085
  The Privy Council which will consider the Primary Education Bill for Jersey, and when will that consideration take place?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The Jersey Education Act stands referred to the Committee of Council for the affairs of Jersey and Guernsey, which consists of the whole of the Privy Council, or any three or more of them. I am not yet in a position to say what will be the special constitution of the Committee who will consider the Act, or when the consideration will take place. It is necessary to allow some time for the receipt of Petitions for and against the Act. Perhaps the Noble Lord will confer with me as regards the repetition of his question.

  Royal United Service Institution (Admission Charge).
  Mr. MYERasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will endeavour to arrange that the museum belonging to the Royal United Service Institution, at present housed in the banqueting hall of the Palace of Whitehall, and which is now closed to the public except on payment of a fee of sixpence, may be opened to the public upon some days in the week free of any charge?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. L. Harcourt): This is not a matter in which I have any official authority, but I will take care that the hon. Member's wishes are conveyed to the council of the institution.
  Mr. MYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of private collections in London which are open to the public on certain days?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I was not aware that that was the case, but I am glad to hear it.

  FINANCE BILL.

    DEATH DUTY ON ANNUAL ALLOWANCES.
    Captain CLIVEasked whether the practice of not claiming Death Duty on the amount of annual allowances made during the 12 months preceding the death of the donor, if those allowances were reasonable in amount, having regard to the means of the donor, and represent a part of his regular expenditure, will be continued under Section 43 of the Finance Bill for the period of five years there authorised?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend will be glad to consider the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

    LAND FOR WATER WORKS (PROTECTION FROM POLLUTION).
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked whether land acquired by local authorities for waterworks purposes or for protecting their area from pollution will be exempted from the provisions of the land clauses in the Finance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Clause 24 (1) of the Finance Bill provides that no duty under Part I. shall be charged in respect of any land or interest in land held by a local or rating authority.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    Viscount HELMSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his proposed Amendment to Clause 25 of the Finance Bill, page 17, line 13, at end, differentiates between different types of friendly societies engaged in similar work; and on what grounds it is proposed to define a registered society in different terms to those previously employed in the Friendly Societies Acts?
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in amending the postponed Clause 25 of the Finance Bill as regards registered societies, he will consider the advisability of treating as registered societies all societies which have been registered as friendly societies under the Friendly Societies Acts, independently of whether they are or are not restricted by their rules from dividing any part of their funds amongst their members?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The proposed Amendment differentiates between societies which are, and those which are not, restricted by their rules from dividing any part of their funds among their members. This difference between dividing and non-dividing societies is recognised in the Friendly Societies Acts. The purpose of, the Finance Bill of course differs from that of the Friendly Societies Acts, and the question whether dividing societies can properly be given the same favourable treatment as non-dividing societies is receiving consideration.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: On what financial grounds do you propose to differentiate between dividing and non-dividing societies?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it pretty clear that there is a difference between the genuine society which exists for the purpose of promoting habits of thrift and the

    1087
    kind of society which is known as a slate club, which has very different aims and objects in view, and I think that a proper distinction has been made, whether for financial reasons or for social ones.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that all the dividing societies are slate clubs?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I do not think so. I did not say so.
    Mr. A. LUPTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are upwards of a million members of these societies who will be excluded by the Finance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is a question of which I should have notice.
    Mr. H. J. WILSON: As the matter just referred to is exciting a considerable amount of interest, would the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have his reply circulated to Members generally?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I shall be very glad to circulate it with the Votes.

    PETROL DUTY (REBATE).
    Mr. MORTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under Clause 65 of the Finance Bill, a person who uses a motor oar for the conveyance of goods and passengers will be entitled to a rebate of the Petrol Duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Clause 65 and Part I. of the Fifth Schedule of the Finance Bill provide for rebate of the Motor Spirit Duty in the case of motor cars which are constructed or adapted for use, and are used solely, for the conveyance of any goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with further particulars of the cases he has in mind, I shall be glad to bring them to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

    PAYMENT OF DEATH DUTIES.
    Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked what was the number of estates which became liable to the payment of Death Duties during the financial years 1906–7, 1907–8, and 1908–9 respectively; and what was the average value of these estates for each respective year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The number of estates which became liable to the payment of Death Duties during the financial years 1906–7, 1907–8, and 1908–9 respec-
    1088
    tively, and the average value of these estates for each respective year, were as follows:—

    Year.

    Number of Estates.

    Average Value.

    1906–7

    67,220

    £4,472

    1907–8

    68,670

    4,135

    1908–9

    68,465

    3,982

    STAMP CLAUSES.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE (for Major Coates)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state when the Government Amendments to the Stamp Clauses will be placed on the Paper?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is in communication on this subject with representative members of the Stock Exchange, and hopes shortly to be able to place the Government Amendments on the Paper.

    REDUCTION OF LICENSED HOUSES.
    Mr. YOUNGERasked what allowance was made, in estimating the revenue from the new scale of Licence Duties, for a possible reduction of licensed houses m consequence of the increased charge; and what was estimated to be the number of houses so affected?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In making his estimate of increased revenue from licences generally, my right hon. Friend did not overlook the probability that the higher duties would lead to a reduction in the number of licences; but he regrets that he cannot give a definite figure in the case of any particular licence.
    Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week that due allowance had been made for this factor in the estimate, and, therefore, I asked what the estimate was, and no answer has been given?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think that it is possible to give a thoroughly accurate estimate in a case of this kind, where the reduction might be greater or lesser according to fluctuating circumstances so that only an approximate estimate can be given.
    Mr. YOUNGER: I asked for the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman made, and he has not given it.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend says he regrets he cannot give that.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the House of Commons is not to be given the estimate on which this tax is based?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I think my right hon. Friend is entitled to make his own estimate, and I do not think that the Noble Lord is entitled necessarily to have that estimate given to him.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not refer to myself, but to the House of Commons.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND REVERSION DUTY.
    Mr. MILDMAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether under Clause 25 of the Finance Bill, as proposed to be amended by him, registered friendly societies will be liable for payment of Reversion Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty in respect of such land held by them as is not actually occupied and used by themselves?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the affirmative.

    REGULATIONS FOR COMPENSATION VALUE.
    Mr. CAVEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now say that a draft of the Regulations proposed to be made under Clause 30 of the Finance Bill, for the ascertainment of the annual compensation value, will be laid upon the Table of the House before the Report stage of the Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Regulations will not be laid upon the Table of the House before Report stage.
    Mr. CAVE: Why cannot it be done at present?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I understand, the discussion on the Clause in the Committee stage is not yet finished, and, therefore, clearly the regulations could not be made at the present moment.

    INCOME TAX (ABATEMENTS TO COLONIAL RESIDENTS).
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now say when he will be able to give an answer to the communication addressed to him by the council of the Royal Colonial Institute concerning abatements to the Income Tax being withheld from British people resident in the Colonies?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already informed the hon. Member that my right
    1090
    hon. Friend is considering this matter, and an answer will be sent in due course to the council of the Royal Colonial Institute.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot be more definite in his reply, inasmuch as this important and responsible body has been in communication on the matter since the midle of July?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think that it is unreasonable that the matter should, require a certain amount of time between the question being put and the reply being given.

    SPIRITS EXPORTED.
    Sir GEORGE WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether every shipper of whisky or other spirits to the United States receives in cash from the British Customs 3d. per gallon for each gallon of proof spirit exported; and, if so, whether he will consider the effect that such a bounty may have upon British trade under the new Aldrich tariff, which provides that an additional 25 per cent. ad valorem duty shall be paid by any country which pays a bounty upon any of its exports to the United States?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by myself and by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for North-East Manchester on the 2nd instant.
    Sir GEORGE WHITE: If he has not already done so, will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the United States Government take the same view of this payment as his Department take, as it is a matter of great interest to manufacturers in America and in this country, and we should be quite sure?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order. Is it correct to describe on the Notice Paper of this House as a bounty what is merely a rebate, for the purpose of prejudicing certain manufactures with a foreign Government?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think that the request of the hon. Member (Sir George White) is an unreasonable one to make, and I will consider the matter. I do not think that there can be any possible doubt about it.
    Mr. LUPTON: If a manufacturer is exporting it he can decline to take the rebate.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not in any real sense a bounty, but is a payment to the manufacturer in consequence of demands made upon him by the Excise authorities?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is not it the case that this was simply a grant to manufacturers because of restrictions imposed upon their business in this country, as distinguished from the business of manufacturers abroad?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It was in consequence of restrictions placed upon the manufacturer by the Excise Department.

    Allocation of Untenanted Land (Kildrum).
    Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will ascertain from Mr. Sydney Smith, Estates Commissioners' inspector, the precise nature of the exceptional circumstances which led or induced him to allocate the largest and best portion of the untenanted lands of Kildrum, on the Kingston estate, to Thomas Robinson, land steward in the employment of the landlord, and possessed of ample means; if he will state the number of acres allotted to Thomas Robinson, and the value of the same, and amongst whom, and in what way, has the remaining portion of these lands been divided; how many applications for allotments were made to Mr. Sydney Smith, and how many were refused on the plea of insufficiency of land to go round; and whether the Commissioners will amend the scheme in question?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners inform me that Mr. Robinson, who was allotted a farm containing 119 acres on the Kingston estate, is the eldest son and representative of an evicted tenant on the Bowen estate, and had acted for a number of years as manager of the lands on the Kingston estate, on which the farm allotted to him is situate, prior to the sale thereof under the Act of 1903. The residue of the lands was allotted amongst eight other persons coming within Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The Commissioners are unable to state how many applications were refused on the ground mentioned in the question. The persons to whom allotments have been made have signed purchase agreements, and the scheme of distribution cannot now be amended.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it the case that Mr. Robinson's father was evicted since 1st May, 1879, and that he therefore came within the statutory period?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know how that would be. The fact is he is the eldest son of an evicted tenant.

    Irish Land Commission (Delayed Replies).
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is delay in the office of the Irish Land Commission in replying to correspondence and supplying information to members of the public communicating with the Estates Commissioners; and, if this delay is due to the limitations on the staff in the offices, does he propose to take steps to increase the staff at once, so that communications may be replied to within a reasonable time, and the work of the Department carried on with expedition?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar question asked by the hon. Member on the 8th June last.

    Sea Armaments (Great Britain and Germany).
    Mr. W. P. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he has noticed the renewed interest awakened in Germany on the subject of a possible agreement as to sea armaments between that country and Great Britain; and, having regard to the growth of naval expenditure disclosed in the Return just issued to Parliament, is he able to hold out any hope that fresh efforts will be made by His Majesty's Government to arrive at the basis of some understanding which would relieve the peoples of both countries of the burden of such expenditure?
    Mr. ALLEN BAKERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement signed by His Excellency Dr. von Holleben, late Ambassador at Washington, as well as other representative public men of Germany, in favour of a reduction of armaments; and whether, in view of this pronouncement and his statement that the Government were anxious to come to some arrangement with other Powers, he will take advantage of this opportunity to make further representations to the German Government, with a view to a mutual understanding as to a limitation of naval armaments?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): My hon. Friends may be assured that

    1093
    any intimation that the German Government desire to take such an arrangement as is suggested into consideration will meet with a most cordial response from His Majesty's Government, and it must be quite clear after the public statements which have already been made by responsible Ministers of the Crown that no representations from His Majesty's Government are required to prove that this is the case.
    Mr. BYLES: Is it not possible for the initiative to be taken on this side, considering the enormous international interests involved?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have taken the initiative.
    Mr. BYLES: Information which has been received in a more or less informal way—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked his question and has had his answer.

    Committee on Procedure.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. John Redmond)asked whether adequate time will be afforded for the discussion of the Motion for setting up a Committee on Procedure, of which notice has been given on behalf of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee was proposed in response to an appeal from hon. Members opposite to deal not with procedure generally, but with one of its special aspects. The Amendments which have been put down would introduce into the discussion elements of complication and controversy, and in the circumstances the Motion will not be persisted in this Session.

    Untenanted Land (Kilkenny).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the right hon. Gentleman will state the amount of untenanted land in county Kilkenny, with the names of the owners and the localities situate; and whether he will be prepared to recommend the Estates Commissioners to acquire these lands with the object of dividing them between the landless men in the county and the owners of uneconomic holdings in the districts bordering on them?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Return of Untenanted
    1094
    Lands in Ireland which was presented to Parliament in 1906. The Estates Commissioners have acquired 3,545 acres of untenanted land in county Kilkenny and proceedings are pending before them in respect of 807 acres.

    Yeomanry Horses (Compensation for Injury).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether Yeomen living in the Outer Hebrides are entitled to compensation if their horses are injured on their way to or from their annual camp training in Inverness-shire?
    The HON. MEMBERfurther asked whether Yeomen get any compensation if their horses get influenza or bad colds in camp and are thereby incapacitated from working for weeks or months afterwards?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland): In reply to these questions, I would point out to the hon. Member that Territorial Force Regulations, paragraphs 660 and 661, clearly show that compensation is only granted in case of loss of a horse through death, destruction, or fatal injury. Such compensation is admissible if the loss is the direct result of the performance of military duty at annual training in camp, or on the journey between the place of assembly and the place of encampment with a detachment under the command of an officer or non-commissioned officer not below the rank of sergeant. The hon. and gallant Member will see from paragraph 644 that the grants given for horse hire cover insurance for injury other than that provided for by paragraph 660.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that horses have been hurt while travelling between the Outer Hebrides and Inverness-shire, and that they could not get anything given for them?
    Mr. ACLAND: If that is the case, the association is expected to cover the interest by insurance, and the grants given to the association for horse hire cover insurance, and it is so stated in the Regulations.

    Sunderland Barracks.
    Mr. SUMMERBELLasked if the hon. Gentleman is yet in a position to state the intentions of the Government as to the future use of the barracks at Sunderland; whether the suitability of such barracks has had consideration in regard to the

    1095
    removal of the Durham Light Infantry from Newcastle; and, if not, if he is prepared to take into consideration the facilities of the barracks at Sunderland for the purposes of the Durham Light Infantry?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am not yet able to give any information in regard to Sunderland Barracks.

    New Short Rifle.
    Mr. MYERasked whether the whole of the Special Reserve, numbering over 70,000 men and forming part of our striking force, went through their annual training this year with bayonets that would not fix on to their rifles; and, if so, who was responsible for this condition of things?
    Mr. ACLAND: As I have already explained to the House, every effort was made to issue the new short rifle to the Special Reserve in time for this year's training, but it was not found possible to issue the new bayonet simultaneously, and thus in a large number of cases the issue of bayonets was not completed until after the training period.
    Mr. MYER: Are we to understand that there were 70,000 men, with 70,000 rifles, and with bayonets that would not fix upon the rifles?
    Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir. In a large number of cases bayonets were supplied, but we were so anxious that the troops should have the short rifle in time for this year's training that we could not supply bayonets in proportion to the number of short rifles issued.
    Mr. MYER: What proportion of the men had not bayonets?
    Mr. ACLAND: It is rather difficult to follow the exact dates on which the issues were made in each case, and, therefore, I cannot give the hon. Member the information for which he asks.

    Gordon Territorial Camp.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that at the camp of the Gordon Territorial Brigade last July there was no good drinking water in the camp, and no beds for the men for some days after their arrival; whether he is aware that there was no single utensil provided to enable the men to have a wash for quite a week; and, in view of these facts, whether he could see his way to ensure
    1096
    better accommodation for the men in future years?
    Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Member has been somewhat misinformed. The Brigadier reports that there was plenty of excellent drinking water, and washing appliances were ready for the men on arrival in camp. Owing to gross carelessness on the part of some men the water taps were left running on the first day of camp, and the reserve tanks were emptied thereby. Ample drinking water was, however, at once supplied in carts, and a full supply both for drinking and washing was furnished with the least possible delay. As regards the beds, some palliasses were deficient for two or three days, apparently owing to delay in delivery by the railway, but waterproof sheets and blankets were complete.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the beef supplied to the Gordon Territorial Brigade was Argentine frozen beef, and very tough and unpalatable; and whether he can see his way to provide the Territorial troops with good beef in future years?
    Mr. ACLAND: No complaints have been received at the War Office in regard to the meat supplied to this brigade. The meat was of the same quality and description as that supplied to Regular troops, and was obtained under contract, the specification of which includes stringent safeguards as to the quality of the meat, and provides that the beef supplied on four days a week must be fresh (i.e., from cattle slaughtered in the United Kingdom) and that imported frozen beef may be issued on two days a week only. The necessary care will continue to be taken to ensure that the meat supplied to the Territorial troops is of good quality as stipulated for in the conditions of contract.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the men said the meat was tough?
    Mr. ACLAND: I think we could have relied on the men themselves or their representatives, if that was the case, to have made some complaint.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether any other Yeo-manry regiment complained of the quality of the meat?
    Mr. ACLAND: I said there was no complaint in this case—the case referred to by the hon. Member.

    Military School Grants.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether officers who passed their examination before the school grants were awarded are expected to pay for their uniforms entirely, or whether a grant of £20 will be allowed to them?
    Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Member presumably refers to the Officers' Training Corps. Officers on first appointment to the Territorial Force for service with the Officers' Training Corps can obtain an outfit grant of £20 at once. In the case of officers already holding commissions, if any change of uniform is entailed by the formation of an officers' training corps contingent the actual necessary expenses up to £20 can be claimed on production of receipted bills.

    Special Reserve Battalion (Colonel's Pay)
    Mr. PIKE PEASE (for Captain Morrison-Bell)asked why a colonel commanding a Special Reserve battalion is only allowed 3s. 6d. a day and travelling allowance, and no pay for the four days that he has to perform the duty of inspecting the recruits at his headquarters?
    Mr. ACLAND: A commanding officer of a Special Reserve battalion is merely authorised to visit the depot with a view to inspecting the recruits of his battalion. There is no order that he must do so. Pay is issued only when officers are ordered on military duty. It is greatly regretted that the reply given to a previous question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member was incorrect.

    Quartermasters' Retiring Allowances.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked whether any decision has yet been reached on the subject of the proposed increase in the retiring allowances of quartermasters and riding-masters holding the rank of major?
    Mr. ACLAND: The question of improving the pensions of quartermasters and riding-masters of long commissioned service is still under consideration.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: As this question has been under consideration for more than 18 months, is it not time that something should be done?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, I think so, but the matter is extremely complicated, though we hope to arrive at a result.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: When may we hope for an answer?
    Mr. ACLAND: When we have agreed what the answer should be.

    Dr. Lalcaca.
    Mr. SIMONasked whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any practical step to show their appreciation of the self-sacrifice of Dr. Lalcaca?
    The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have already expressed to the House on behalf of the Government their deep appreciation of Dr. Lalcaca's heroic action, and explained that the circumstances of the case are such that appreciation could not appropriately be marked by a money grant to, his surviving relatives. I can now add that the Government of Bombay have been authorised to contribute from public funds a sum of £100 to a memorial for which subscriptions are being collected in Bombay.

    Wireless Telegraph Stations.
    Mr. GEORGE TOULMIN: May I ask the Postmaster-General whether the statement which appears in "The Times" today that he has acquired the wireless telegraph stations belonging to the Marconi Company is correct?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Buxton): The announcement which appears in "The Times" was not supplied by the Post Office. The statement is premature, as the arrangements are not yet complete. The negotiations are, moreover, to a certain extent contingent on the success of somewhat similar and simultaneous Post Office negotiations with Lloyds, which also are not yet complete. When the arrangements are finally completed I propose to make a statement on the subject in the House.
    NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Arthur Lynch, esquire, for the county of Clare, West Division, in room of James Halpin, esquire, deceased.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[25th Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.
  PART II.—DUTIES ON LIQUOR, LICENCES.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Valuation of Licensed Premises.)
    (1) The annual value of any premises for the purposes of any duty charged in the First Schedule to this Act shall be

    1099
    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 beer-houses respectively of the amount which would be payable as compensation in respect of the premises under Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Licensing Act, 1904, if the premises were premises in respect of which compensation was payable under that Act, and of the 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 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.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "respectively" ["shall be certified respectively by"], insert the words "for the purposes of this Act."—[Mr. G. Cave.]
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer)moved, at the end of Subsection (2), to insert the words "and any such certificate shall be subject to the like appeal as that to which the determination of the Inland Revenue Commissioners of the amount to be paid for compensation under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Licensing Act, 1904, is for the time being subject."
    1100
    This Amendment deals with the subject of appeal from the Inland Revenue Commissioners as to the amount of compensation value. The same matter was dealt with in the Amendment which appears on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). We had some discussion about this on Friday, and I gather that the reason the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not move his Amendment is that he is satisfied with the Amendment which I now move. The effect of the Amendment is to give the same right of appeal from the decision and the certificates of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue fixing the amount of compensation value for the purpose of this Clause, for the purposes of this Act, as is now given on the question of compensation value in the Act of 1904. That, of course, will not include any proceedings at quarter sessions. Quarter sessions only act in this way, that when the amount of compensation which is to be given in respect of a licence is agreed on between the parties it goes to quarter sessions for their approval. If the quarter sessions approve, well and good, and if they do not the matter must be taken to the Commissioners to decide.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: This Amendment would have been very much more valuable but for the words which were included in the Clause by the Amendment proposed by the Government on Friday last. That Amendment was to the effect-that compensation value shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury. I need hardly point out to the Committee that when the matter reaches the Court of Appeal it may have practically been decided. The rules laid down by the Treasury may lay down, seriatim, in black and white, a hard-and-fast scale by which you are to evolve the annual compensation value. The party aggrieved appeals to the Court of Appeal, which will find itself cribbed, cabined, and confined, gagged and bound, by the provision of the rules themselves. They will not be able to go behind the rules, and will say, "We cannot go into the matter; here are rules made by the Treasury laying down the scale by which the annual compensation is to be arrived at." Therefore it appears to me that, for shop-window purposes, the Government are giving an appeal, while they are taking away with the other hand any indulgence they are giving by deciding to have the regulations.

    1101
    That is what I mean when I say that this Amendment would have been very much more valuable, more vitally valuable, but for the words which were introduced into this Clause on Friday afternoon. Although I should accept the Amendment, as it is better to have something than nothing, the panties may discover when they go to the Court of Appeal that it has no power.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: We understood on Friday last that the Government were prepared to accept an Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), who wanted a decision as if there had been litigation. The extraordinary thing is that the amount is to be ascertained in England for the purpose of compensation by a fight in court. Nobody can determine what the result of that fight might be. It might be the result of different expressions of opinion by valuers, or of different views expressed by judges. However, it was to be an appeal decided upon a fight. But the right hon. Gentleman is not going to move his Amendment. Let us see what is the nature of the proposal of the Government. This valuation is in future, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, to apply to every hotel in Ireland, as well as to five public-houses of over £500 valuation. I imagine that as regards a portion of their premises—the house and buildings—under Clause 30 they will have an appeal as at present, namely, first to the county court judge, and secondly, on a case stated on a point of law, to the High Court. There is now brought in for the purposes of the Irish hotel-keeper an element which does not exist in Ireland, namely, the right to compensation for disturbance. What is the appeal proposed by the Government? It is that "any such certificate shall be subject to the like appeal as that to which the determination of the Inland Revenue Commissioners of the amount to be paid for compensation under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of The Licensing Act, 1904, is for the time being subject." Does that give the Irish hotel-keeper an appeal? The Irish hotel-keeper at present does not know this law. The Irish Courts are not seised of it; they have no jurisdiction under the Licensing Act of 1904. Therefore this Amendment gives the Irish hotel-keeper, quoad the certificate of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, no appeal at all. Until this Bill passes the Commissioners have no power whatever to issue certificates in Ireland. I should like the Solicitor-General to make a statement of fact as to whether this Clause gives the
    1102
    Irish hotel-keeper an appeal. In my opinion it does not.
    There is another matter of great importance. This proposal is to apply not only to hotel-keepers but also to five publicans. In all Ireland five publicans are to get an appeal under this Clause—for the curious reason, as I understand it, that there is somewhere a £500 clause which will admit them to an appeal. Where that clause is, and how the £500 has been arrived at, I am in a state of ante-baptismal ignorance. The importance of this matter to us is vital. If principles are to be laid down as regards publicans of £500 valuation, must not the proposal necessarily hit the publican of £499, £400, £300, £200 or £100 valuation, and right down to the smallest man? Hitherto the Commissioners have had absolutely no jurisdiction in our country. They live in London, and, as I understand it, this is a local jurisdiction. I leave on one side for the moment, the burning trouble of the Treasury rules, which are to be brought in in a Clause which we have not yet seen, and which, of course, is to illuminate this dark transaction. I want to know whether any publican in Ireland is safe in admitting the jurisdiction of these Commissioners under a Bill to be developed in a clause we have not yet seen, when as regards the higher class of publicans the Commissioners will have laid down these rules? The Prime Minister spoke of this as an alternative system. Will these £500 publicans have a choice between remaining as they are—which I take it they would gladly do—and accepting the position in which this Clause would place them? If these £500 men are to have an alternative, why should not the man of £400? If the £500 man is to have this advantage—the Prime Minister contended that it was an advantage—why should not the £400, £300, or £200 men have it also? Personally, I do not believe he is getting an advantage. On the contrary, I believe he is being disadvantaged by this Clause. At all events, let us see where we are, because, at present, we are only groping in the dark in clauses that we cannot clearly understand. Where are these five publicans situated? Are they mixed traders? The Government must know their names and places of business, because they are to have such a fine mesh that out of 20,000 publicans affected by the Bill they can tell there are five to whom this Clause will apply. I should like to know where these men are, and to have their verdict on the advantages which the Prime Minister said they were to derive from this Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Member is taking a rather wide view of the Amendment. He is really going back on what the Committee have already passed.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wanted to show that the ingredients which the appeals will affect will undoubtedly come up on this Clause. In deference to your ruling, however, I will simply ask to whom will these appeals lie, and will the hotel-keepers and the five publicans have the existing appeal to the county court judge, and, on a point of law, to the High Court? Further, I would ask under what authority will they get it? It is all very fine to say that this Sub-section gives them the right of appeal, but if it gives them the right of appeal at all it gives them that right of appeal which has been settled under the Act of 1894. It cannot give them the right of appeal which they had under the Irish Valuation Acts. I respectfully ask for information. I am not a bit ashamed to confessing my besotted ignorance in regard to this new ingredient that is being introduced into our law. The Government alone possess the knowledge of what their intentions are. I respectfully say that if their intention is to reserve the old right of appeal for the purpose of appealing against the Commissioners this Clause does not do it. The right of appeal which we have is a right of appeal from the valuation under the Commissioner of Excise to the Commissioner of Valuation, and later, curiously enough, from the Commissioner of Valuation to himself. Then, if he insists upon his own valuation—which frequently he does not in the light of new facts—you have an appeal from his final and corrected judgment to the county court judge. If still dissatisfied you can get a case stated for the High Court. There is nothing like that in England. In introducing this new and novel proposal the least that may be done as regards hotel-keepers and these five publicans is to deprive them of a right which already exists.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If I rightly understand the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, he has grave doubts whether this Sub-section as now worded gives any right of appeal in Ireland at all. I will not pretend to express an opinion upon a point of Irish law. But there seems to me to be an even greater primary question involved, namely,
    1104
    whether the right of appeal which the Government now propose to allow in Ireland is worth having: Whether there is virtue in it or whether it is a mere substantive shadow of a name? The matter is of much greater consequence than might appear upon the cursory reading of this Bill. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, in the immediate future this Sub-section of the Clause is of a most limited application. In the case of Ireland it refers to five men, besides the owners of hotels.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I said the Government said it affected five men. I did not say it affected five men.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not worth quarrelling over. [An HON. MEMBER: "Six."] Whether it is five or six, that is its utmost limit in Ireland. In England it refers to a rather larger number of people; in London to a considerable number; and, in the country, to a less proportion. It is one of the mysteries of this legislation that this new Clause—not a Section of the Bill, but a Subsection of the Clause—is intended to be the foundation that the Government intend at some future time for the whole of a new Finance Bill, and the scheme of valuation which we set up here is eventually intended by the Government, when they have got their valuation made, to supersede the whole assessment and valuation for public-houses throughout the United Kingdom existing at the present time. It is, therefore, not the interests of possibly five or six in Ii eland, or a small number in the rest of the United Kingdom, but every licence holder who is involved in the Subsection which we are now discussing, and in the merits of the appeal which the Government are professing to admit into the Sub-section. Undoubtedly, in the first instance, the Government had no intention of allowing any aggrieved taxpayer any appeal from the assessment under this Clause. The Government was to make that assessment, and once they had made it there remained nothing for the licence holder to do but to pay. Whether the assessment was just or unjust, whether it was made impartially or not, whether it bore any resemblance to the facts of the case or not, it was a pure work of imagination on the part of a Government grasping for money or thirsting for revenge. That was their first intention. They then undertook, as a concession to

    1105
    the criticism that came from this side of the House, to introduce a right of appeal, and they put down an appeal in the words of the Amendment which we are now discussing, and which I frankly admit appeared to me on the Paper to give such an appeal as the parties concerned had a right to ask for, and such an appeal as I for one would have thankfully accepted. Yes, but the Government did not leave the matter there. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Faber) has already pointed out, even before they introduced their appeal they introduced another Amendment which takes away all virtue from the appeal. What is it you may appeal about? The object of an appeal is to give a person who thinks he is over-assessed, and therefore over-taxed, the opportunity of bringing his case before the courts. How is the assessment made? You calculate, first, the compensation value of his licence. If he is aggrieved by that calculation he can take you into court, and obtain a decision as to whether your process is just or not; and he has no further grievance in respect of that. But then, for the purpose of taxation, you are to deduce from his compensation value the annual equivalent. Again, the licence holder may take the Treasury into court upon that matter. But here comes the rub! How is the annual equivalent to be deduced from the compensation value? It is determined in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury. What is the value of the appeal? By introducing these words, as the Government did in the early hours of Friday morning, they have absolutely destroyed the virtue of the appeal which they professed to grant, and have reduced this Amendment, which has been heralded as a great concession and safeguard, a great provision in the interests of justice and law, to a perfect farce and nullity. The hon. And learned Gentleman, speaking of what was allowed by the existing law of valuation in Ireland, described one of the provisions that seemed to indicate the national character—
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The law is English; you passed it.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: But it takes its shape when it gets to Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the appeal in Ireland was from the Commissioner of Valuation to the Commis-
    1106
    sioner of Valuation. Under the provision introduced by the Government in this Sub-section every appeal in the United Kingdom will lie from the Treasury to the Treasury, and the independence, the impartiality and the justice of the courts will be reduced to an absolute nullity by the words which the Government have put in. What is the use of giving me an appeal as to the valuation for compensation of my premises? Suppose you assess me at £10,000, and I claim that is too high. Suppose I am successful in the courts and the compensation value is reduced from £10,000 to £8,000, what is the use of that appeal to me? You get back upon me by your rule in calculating this, which must be done in accordance with the Treasury Regulations. If the court were proposing to reduce the anuual equivalent in proportion to the reduction that they had made in the compensation value the Treasury counsel would step in and say, "You are not proceeding according to the Treasury Regulations, and, therefore, you are acting ultra vires; these are not matters for the court, but for the Treasury." The Treasury is to say what the individual taxpayer is to pay under a statute passed by Act of Parliament. And when I say the Treasury, I do not mean what the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) seemed to think I did, the permanent officials of the Treasury. I have been Chancellor of the Exchequer myself, and I would much sooner trust matters of that kind to the permanent officials, acting in a semi-judicial sense, and to their discretion, than to the Minister of the day, acting under purely Executive functions, which he will be, in spite of this right of appeal which this Amendment professes to give. It will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day and one or two of the Parliamentary Whips acting by the request and instruction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will say what is to be the regulation on which the annual equivalent is calculated, and, therefore, what is to be the tax which any man has got to pay. Under these circumstances, I lose all interest m this right of appeal. It appears to me it is absolutely farcical and nugatory, and it does not matter whether it exits or not in Ireland, or any other place, because the tax will be what the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes it.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): I am sorry that the appeal which we have given in accordance with

    1107
    the pledges made on Friday and in response to requests from the other side, is not regarded as satisfactory, and I am sorry that that appeal does not seem to commend itself as of any value to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He has not told us, however, whether he would be willing to have the right of appeal which we have now given withdrawn altogether.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman cares about my opinion upon that subject, I shall give it to him. I do not care a rap for the Amendment unless the right of appeal extends to the determination of the annual equivalent.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It will extend both to the full compensation value and the annual equivalent which is to be deduced, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman, by Treasury Regulations. I will assume for the moment that the right hon. Gentleman still likes to have this appeal, and I will deal with the matter from that point of view. I am not as familiar with the law in Ireland as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Louth, and he is not quite as familiar with the law in England as I am, or ought to be, although he has the advantage of being a member of both Bars, and I am only a member of the Bar of England. I will ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to follow me now, and see whether I cannot satisfy him. He dealt with this matter for the purposes of this Amendment as dealing only with an appeal in the case of six houses in Ireland. I will deal with it entirely apart from these houses. It will undoubtedly affect immediately the six houses in Ireland, but this Section goes very much further. It proposes that a register should be made according to valuation in the three Kingdoms, so that that valuation may, if Parliament so thinks fit and right, be made the basis of taxation in the future.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: For all public-houses?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Yes, I have never concealed that, and it would be no use for me to try and conceal it, nor has it been concealed by the Prime Minister. I prefer to deal with this in the broadest possible aspect. What is proposed to be done? It is proposed to have a valuation, not of the licenced premises, but of the licence value, and in order that that may not be mis-
    1108
    understood I will explain the matter further. The licence value is what we call here "the annual compensation value." I think the words "annual licence value" makes a better phrase. There was an Amendment put upon the Paper by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Clavell Salter) to substitute for the words "compensation value" the words "licence value." He said he would not move that Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and learned Friend is not here, but I am within the recollection of those who were present on Friday morning when I say that when called upon to move my hon. and learned Friend said he had been perfectly ready to move that term when you were discussing your licence value, but, as the Government refused to make it licence value he would not put that in.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is the substance of the matter, and it will do for the purposes of my statement. So long as we understand what it means it is all right. "Annual licence value" means the difference in the value of the premises on which intoxicating liquors are sold as licensed premises from their value if the licence did not exist. That is the basis of the Act of 1904. Now for the purposes of getting that value we think the best bodies are the Commissioners of Excise. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Louth asked me how this would work in Ireland. This is not an appeal from the valuation of the premises. I do not want any confusion made between the valuation of the premises for parochial purposes or for local government purposes, and for Excise purposes. Now the Commissioners of Excise are the persons who determine this licensing value under the Act of 1904 in England, and the basis upon which the appeal is given, as my hon. and learned Friend will see, is Sub-section (2) of Section 2: "The amount to be so paid shall, if an amount is agreed upon by the persons appearing to Quarter Sessions to be interested in the licensed premises, and is approved by Quarter Sessions, be that amount, and in default of such agreement and approval shall be determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the same manner and subject to the like appeals of the High Court as on the valuation of an estate for the purposes of Estate Duty."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Go on. What about conduct being taken into account?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: "And the amount shall be divided among the persons interested in the licensed premises."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Go on to the next!
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: "Provided that in the case of the licence holder regard shall be had not only to his legal interest in the premises or trade fixtures, but also to his conduct, and to the length of time during which he has been the holder of the licence, and the holder of a licence if a tenant (notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary) in no case receive a less amount than he would be entitled to as a tenant from year to year of the licensed premises."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is a question of importance.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We are now dealing with the process of appeal in Ireland. As I am informed, there is now an appeal from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in cases affecting Estate Duty to the High Court in Ireland, and it is precisely the same kind of appeal that will be given upon the acceptance of this Amendment. It is perfectly true we do not in this particular Section provide for an appeal, and there is no provision making it applicable to Scotland or England, but I said on Friday that immediately we conceded the appeal in this case, if it is applicable to Ireland or Scotland, you must have a provision in the Definition Clause or in Section 38, stating what the Court of Appeal is to be in Ireland. Is not that perfectly clear? There is now in Ireland an appeal from the Commissioners in the case of Estate Duties, and exactly upon the same grounds you will have an appeal from the assessment of the Licence Duty, and all that will be necessary, so far as Ireland is concerned, is to add in this Section or, perhaps better still, to put it into the Definition Clause, that so far as concerns Ireland the High Courts of Justice shall be the High Courts in Ireland. May I say a word or two about the regulations? To discuss this matter would be to go back upon the decision the Committee came to last week. I only want to say a few words about it. The appeal, as I have said, is from the decision of the total compensation value and also as to the decision upon the annual equivalent. The Section says annual equivalent must be annual equivalent; it cannot be anything else. If the Commissioners brought in something else that would not be the annual equivalent which would be understood according to law.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: We put a question on Friday which has not been answered. You find the total compensation value. We want to know how is the annual valuation to be found from the total valuation? I ask would it be by rate of interest which is the value of a sum of money? The annual value of a sum of money is the interest you get from it. We never have been given an answer.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It is the actual converse case of the total compensation value and the annual value, whether the devisor is 10 or 10½ or 11. I think it may be well left to the Commissioners of Excise, according to the regulations made by the Treasury. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman and those who act with him what they did in their Act of 1904, possibly they have forgotten. They made elaborate rules and issued them for various purposes, such as the division of the compensation value between the parties.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he opens up that question it is only fair to allow others to follow in the same footsteps.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Very well, Sir, I will take that warning from you, and I shall stick to the ruling of the Chair, although the matter was raised on the other side. I will wait for a complete argument upon it until we come to some portion of the Bill where the matter might be discussed. This Section deals only with the question of appeal. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester is far beside the mark when he said the appeal is of no value. Hon. Members on the other side have asked for it. We think it is a valuable concession, and I trust that by the observations I have made I have satisfied my hon. and learned Friend for North Louth so far as Ireland is concerned.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOURmoved, after the word "certificate" in the proposed Amendment, to insert the words "including the amount of the annual compensation value determined by regulations as aforesaid."
    The Attorney-General dealt with the case of Ireland, but I do not profess to be acquainted with that branch of the subject. I think, however, I can make my point perfectly clear. I rise to bring to a point and to a direct issue what is really the most important question connected

    1111
    with this Bill. I shall venture to do so if it is in order by way of this Amendment to the Amendment which raises the matter quite clearly. The object and effect of this Amendment will be quite patent to the Committee. We think that the appeal promised by the Government is quite illusory for this reason, that, while there is an appeal on the capital sum, there is no appeal upon the translation of that capital sum into the annual amount to be determined for taxation. So that this House is not determining what shall be the taxation upon a publican's licence, because it is leaving that matter absolutely to the Treasury to determine what is to be the taxation upon a publican's licence, and that wholly irrespective of any appeal which can be made on the capital sum under the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the High Court. The total sum called the compensation value is subject to appeal, but that is not the basis of taxation. What is the basis of taxation is the translation of the capital sum to the annual sum, and under the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that is not open to any appeal at all. The total compensation value of any public-house may be fixed say at £1,000. The annual sum is open to appeal, and it is open to the High Court to say that it is too little or too great. What is not open to appeal is the translation of that sum to the taxable annual value. We think your appeal upon the gross capital sum is quite ineffectual and a mere phrase, giving the idea that there is an appeal while the substantial sum upon which the taxation is to be levied has to be decided at the discretion of a public Department acting under rules of its own construction. Put quite simply that is the object of the Amendment which I venture to move. I think it raises in a perfectly clear and a concrete form the difficulty we feel in admitting that the appeal which has been granted is a substantial one. I do not wish to underrate its value as far as it goes. But no one can pretend that it is a real protection to the licence holder so long as it leaves untouched the actual annual sum upon which the licence holder has to pay his annual taxation to the British Exchequer.
    There was one observation which fell from the learned Solicitor-General before you, Mr. Emmott, intervened, which makes me put this question. He said that the compensation value is arrived at by
    1112
    taking so many years' purchase of the annual value as determined under the Kennedy judgment. Why cannot the Government start with that as the basis? I cannot understand why they first get hold of the annual value, then reduce it to the annual capital value, and then reduce it again to the annual value under rules of their own invention. That seems to me to be a most roundabout process for arriving at the basis upon which the licence holder is to be taxed. There may be reasons for it, but that is not, after all, the main point I am raising. You demand that there ought to be an appeal, and that that appeal must be of a kind which will protect the licence holder from arbitrary exaction on the part of the Treasury. If that contention be granted, then it is perfectly vain to tell us that the interests of the licence holder are adequately safeguarded by giving an appeal upon the capital sum when you will leave absolutely open to the uncontrolled action of the Department the duty of determining how you are to translate that capital sum into the real sum, which is to form the basis of the taxation under this Bill. That is the case put in a nutshell, and, if the Solicitor-General can either accept the Amendment I have suggested, or at any rate tell us why he does not, and what are the grounds of policy which induce him to refuse in this quite unjustifiable manner the right of appeal which he claims to have given—if he will do that, I am sure we shall be grateful. In the meantime, I beg to move my Amendment.
    The CHANCELLOR Of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Both sides are anxious that there should be a really effective appeal from the under-controlled decisions of a Government Department. The question is whether the course suggested by the Leader of the Opposition is the best to effect that object. Let me answer the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry as to why we find it necessary to convert what is the annual sum into a capital sum and then reconvert it into an annual sum again. I made a few remarks on this point the other day, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not present. My explanation was that you have to convert two annual sums into capital sums. You have to take the value of the building and the nominal value of the licence and multiply one by a certain number of years' purchase and the other by a different number. That was clearly pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East

    1113
    Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and it is only in that way that you can get at the value of the building as a whole plus the licence. It is the existence of the building that makes it necessary to adopt this roundabout course. That is the reason why that process has to be gone through. May I point out that the Bill as it stands, with the Amendment accepted on Friday, is to this effect:—
    "That amount and its annual equivalent shall be certified respectively by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue."
    To this it is proposed to add:—
    "And any such certificate shall be subject to the like appeal as that to which the determination of the Inland Revenue Commissioners of the amount to be paid for compensation under Sub-section two of Section two of the Licensing Act, 1904, is for the time being subject."
    If you have an appeal not only on the capital sum, but on the annual equivalent, it must really be the annual equivalent of that capital sum. It is perfectly true that the actual form of the regulations made by the Treasury would not be within the cognisance of the court. I should be very interested to know if the Leader of the Opposition can give me any precedent in all our legislation of regulations made by a Government Department which have been laid upon the Table of the House, and subject to the scrutiny of the House, thereby getting Parliamentary sanction, being taken into the Law Court and made a subject of litigation? That is what I understand is now proposed. I understand what is suggested is that regulations that have been made by the Treasury and placed upon the Table of this House for the necessary number of days, and liable to rejection upon an Address, should be open to challenge in the courts.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What is the object of the regulations? Why cannot the courts determine what is the equivalent value of a total compensation value which they themselves determine? Why must the courts be bound by Treasury Regulations?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Bill, as it originally stood, contained no reference to Treasury Regulations. [OPPOSITION cheers.] There is no sinister intention on our part in inserting those regulations. The Bill was criticised from many quarters, and it was urged that there was no indication of any kind as to the method by which
    1114
    the annual sum should be converted into the capital sum. Upon this matter circumstances differ. When you are dealing with a hotel or with the custom of Scotland, Ireland, or England, circumstances must necessarily differ, and if you put all these different conditions into the Bill you will have to have a very elaborate code, full of detail. Consequently it was thought that it would meet the objection to the Clause if we provided that Treasury Regulations should be provided for this purpose which would be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. I still think that course is the best. If, however, the Leader of the Opposition and his Friends, really hold the view that this appeal is in fact, worthless, because the Treasury will, have to make regulations for converting the capital sum to an annual sum, and for the translation of the capital sum into the annual sum, between now and the Report stage, the Government will consider whether it is desirable to go back to the ordinary position in the Bill, leaving out the Treasury Regulations and leaving the matter to the Commissioners, thereby giving unfettered control to the courts. I confess, from the point of view of those who are specially interested in the liquor trade, and from the point of view of Parliament and good legislation, it would be better to permit the Treasury to lay down general rules which would be published and laid upon the Table of the House and open to scrutiny, than to enable them to adopt rules of their own to convert the capital sum into the annual sum and allow that to be made the subject of litigation. If the right hon. Gentleman really attaches importance to that matter I will undertake that this point, shall be carefully considered, and perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) will consult us in order that we may arrive at what is the common desire of both sides, namely, that there should be a really workable, fair and equitable arrangement, and that there should be adequate control over the Government Departments in this matter.
    Mr. BALFOUR: We are all obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. He has put a question to me as to what we desire. I have had no opportunity of consulting with my hon. Friends, and I cannot make up my mind until I have formed some opinion as to what these Treasury Regulations are likely to be, what is the shape they are going to take, and what is the kind of arrangement contemplated. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that circumstances differ as between

    1115
    England, Ireland and Scotland, and as between hotels and public-houses in different localities. I should be very glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman could give us, not the details of these regulations, but an idea of what sort of regulations they are to be and what they are to effect. What kind of things are they to say, and what is it to which the assent of Parliament is to be asked? The right hon. Gentleman says they are to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and that they would have a say in the matter. On what are the Houses to be asked to decide? I am extremely puzzled to know what would be the blank form of such regulations, leaving out the particular complications. What kind of questions will be dealt with, and how will they be dealt with?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman has probably read the Kennedy judgment, and is aware of some of the elaborate calculations with which that judgment deals. There would have to be somewhat similar rules applicable to different classes of houses in the Treasury Regulations. There is surely no objection to rules made under an Act of Parliament being elaborate. The Home Secretary, for example, had power to make rules under the Act of 1904. Those rules cover 50 or 60 pages, and deal with the most elaborate procedure. The difference between them and the rules we propose to make is simply that those rules were subject to no control whatever, and were not laid upon the Table of the House, while Ave propose that the rules to be made under this Bill should be laid upon the Table of the House. It is impossible, in the course of Debate, to give even a sketch of the series of mathematical forms which I dare say would be necessary.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I quite agree that they would be elaborate, though these are not regulations of the same kind as those under the Act of 1904. I never complained of their being elaborate, but what are they going to do? The right hon. Gentleman says the treatment of England is to be different from the treatment of Scotland. How is that kind of difference to be embodied in a rule? I am utterly puzzled to know how in these regulations we shall see, on the face of them, that Ireland is to be treated differently from England and Scotland differently from England. How is it to be done? Has the right hon. Gentleman formed the vaguest idea?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The object of the rule is simply to convert the capital sum into the annual sum, and it depends upon the number of years' purchase.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are you going to lay down the number of years' purchase by these regulations?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The regulations must have regard to the number of years' purchase.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: Anybody who knows anything about these cases knows that the number of years' purchase which is applicable depends upon the actual circumstances of the individual trade and the house in which it is carried on. If it is a house with a good reputation, it will have a larger number of years' purchase; but, if it is a bad house with a bad reputation, it will have a much less number of years' purchase. It would be monstrously unjust to say, for instance, that all classes of beer-houses should have eight or ten years' purchase applied to them, because some ought to have much more and some less. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to discuss the matter in private with us afterwards, we had better start with the proposition that it is absolutely impossible to say of a class that they shall have a certain number of years' purchase.
    Mr. G. CAVE: We shall save a good deal of discussion and be able to respond to the important statement made by the right hon. Gentleman if he would respond to the invitation I addressed to him on Friday to lay these regulations on the Table of the House before the Report stage. I repeated that request at Question time, and asked if it could be done, and was told it could not. I do not understand why. There must be ample time to draft these regulations before the Report stage. The Government, of course, have considered them fully in principle, so that they will be able to give instructions at once for them to be drafted. May I point out the real distinction between these rules and the rules under the Act of 1904? Those rules were pure procedure rules, and, if the rules under this Section were confined to procedure, I do not suppose any objection would be taken, but the proposal is that they should be rules of substance and should really lay down principles under which the capital value is to be translated into terms of annual value. They must, in fact, lay down what number of years'

    1117
    purchase or what percentage of capital value shall be the annual value in different cases. Instead of being mere procedure rules, they are taxing rules. Rules and not a Statute will determine what a man is to pay. That is not the right way to tax people. If these are to be really taxing rules, they ought to be in the Schedule of the Bill, or, failing that, they ought to be in some way before the House, so that we may legislate with full knowledge as to what we are doing. Unless you do that there is no effective appeal. You give in terms an appeal, but you will be bound by these rules; and, that being so, the court will have no power to decide the appeal on its merits. It is an important subject, and, I fancy, the right hon. Gentleman must really think we are right. I suggest that he should meet us and accept the Amendment, or that he should lay the draft of the rules upon the Table of the House.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: It is to be very much regretted that there is no one on the Government Bench with complete authority to deal with the very important question raised by my hon. and right hon. Friends. We are left without any answer to the extremely reasonable suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) that the regulations be laid upon the Table of the House before the Report stage, so that at least we should know precisely what the proposals of the Government are. We are not told whether any modification of the uncompromising reply given at Question time to the request that they should be scheduled is possible. All the right hon. Gentleman has been able to say is that between now and the Report stage the question shall be considered whether or not the Amendment which the Government inserted in the Clause last Friday should be preserved. I have never suggested, and do not now suggest, that it is not the intention of the Government to supply an adequate and effective right of appeal. It would hardly lie in my mouth to say so, because the Amendment by which the Government have attempted to safeguard this appeal is almost precisely similar to an early Amendment I placed on the Paper. Two suggestions have been made to the right hon. Gentleman: First, that it should be left entirely to the courts, and, secondly, that the rules should be inserted in the Bill, or, if not inserted in the Bill, that we should have full leisure to consider them before the Report stage. He says they cannot put them in the Bill,
    1118
    because circumstances differ so greatly. I presume circumstances do not differ so much that it is impossible to reduce them to the form of a code, because, after all, that is what they are going to do. Either they can be reduced to the form of a code or they cannot. If they cannot, then the matter ought to be left to the courts; and, if they can, it is unarguable that the House should be allowed to know what they are before they pass them.
    Supposing an appellant appeals to the Law Courts from the Commissioners and protests against the method by which the annual value in his case is arrived at, what would be said by the Attorney-General arguing the matter on behalf of the Crown? He would say, "You are not at liberty to argue on the merits whether that is the right way of arriving at the annual value. You are precluded from doing that by the Act, which says that the function of the court shall be that of deciding whether the regulations made by the Treasury have been rightly construed. The one and only duty of the court will be to decide if the officials have rightly construed the regulations made by the Treasury. It is idle in that case to pretend that an effective appeal has been secured. I would suggest that the Government, before they come down to the House of Commons, give a little more consideration to the effect of an Amendment they have already drafted and of Amendments they are about to draft. The whole of this confusion and repetition is caused by the fact that the Government have not in the least appreciated the effect of the Amendment they introduced on Friday, as compared with the Amendment they have put down to day, and it only illustrates the slovenliness which has marked their conduct of the Bill. The Government has actually come down with an appellant clause and appellant machinery, which applies to Ireland and Scotland, when there is no such judicial arrangements in either country; and, until the attention of the Solicitor General is called to it by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), they have not even considered it.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: You are quite wrong.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: If the hon. Gentleman has considered it, it is quite inexcusable that his Amendment should not be on the Paper. The Government knew when they put down this appeal that it was quite inadequate to deal with the case of Scotland or Ireland, and not a single

    1119
    Irish or Scotch Member has had an opportunity of discussing the adequacy of these arrangements. It is because of this slovenliness that our progress is so slow.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: With regard to the suggestion as to the appeals in Ireland and Scotland, all that is necessary is that in Clause 38 words should be added to the effect that in the case of Ireland the appeal shall be to the High Court of Justice in Ireland, and, in the case of Scotland, it shall be to the Court of Session.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: That would not do. In England it is done by rule, and in Ireland there is no power to make a rule.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I will deal with them when we come to the Clause. But, having regard to the statement made by my right hon. Friend that we are prepared to consider this matter before the Report stage, with a view to ensuring an effective appeal, I do think the Committee should be satisfied. It surely cannot be suggested that we are offering an appeal which is not intended to be effective. At the same time, I agree it is a reasonable request that, if possible, the form of regulation shall be laid on the Table of the House. I will convey to the proper quarter the desire that an indication shall be given of the kind of regulation that will have to be made, so that the Opposition may be in the position to argue whether they prefer there shall be any regulations laid down or that the appeal shall be left entirely with the Commissioners.
    Sir E. CARSON: The objection I have is to the whole method in which this appeal is raised. We have challenged the Government to give us one solitary concrete instance, in any way they like, in order to show how they are going to work out this annual compensation value. We only ask for one instance; let it be in England, Ireland, or Scotland, or anywhere you like—even in London. But no Minister has yet told us, and I doubt if anyone can tell us, how this compensation value, under the Act of 1904, is to be resolved into its constituent parts, so that one may ascertain the annual value. Cannot you give us one instance? We have been asking for this since Friday last. When you take the total sum of the compensation value, the annual value of that is what the sum will produce. Anything else must be altogether artificial, and it
    1120
    is the artificial part you want to leave to the Treasury in framing the regulations. To that I entirely object. I say it is the function of this House. It is absurd to tell us you cannot have a process of valuation prescribed in a section or a series of sections in an Act of Parliament, but that you can put it in rules and regulations. The Solicitor-General has told us it will be difficult, but may I remind him of the cases where the annual value of premises is left to the rating authority to decide. There you have the market value regulating it, and what is the market value but the annual value calculated on the total compensation value under the Licensing Act. I think we ought to insist on having this information before we arrive at the Report Stage. I do not suppose that anybody, whatever may have been the case heretofore, who is being taxed, can have much confidence in the Treasury. When you go round calling the people you propose to tax swindlers and blackmailers, I do not think you are likely to create much confidence in the Treasury officials who are going to make these regulations. Of course, I know that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer instructs his subordinates at the Treasury to frame these regulations he will say that it must be done perfectly fairly, and he will add: "Do not let it operate on your mind that I have been calling them blackmailers and swindlers. Be careful that that does not operate on your mind." But, after all, this kind of talk in the country cannot be indulged in by great men without creating a little want of confidence in the persons who are going to be taxed, and I submit that now is the moment when we are entitled to get from the Treasury Bench a concrete instance with regard to England, Ireland, and Scotland, or any one of those countries, of the process by which compensation value is to be reduced to annual value.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I would like to ask have the Government considered what they are doing at the present time in Dublin, and on what principle they are acting? In Belfast they have added the whole of the licence value to the ordinary valuation. I want to know under this system of appeal which is now to be granted if it is to be an appeal on the decision of the Commissioners between the value of the house as a shell and its value as a licensed house? At this moment your Commissioners in Belfast have put the knapsack on to the Belfast publican, and

    1121
    have added the whole of the licence value to the value of the house as a shell. That is introducing a new principle. It is another element which has not yet been taken into account. The law of England was altered in 1904, but the law of Ireland was not altered. The law of England ante to 1904 was applied to Ireland—in Belfast—and is now being applied to Dublin. The hon. and learned Member for Trinity College has asked for a concrete instance. All I ask for is that we should have a copy of the instructions given to the Treasury officials with regard to these valuations which are now being carried out in Dublin in the case of public-houses. What has been done in the case of Belfast? Before the Griffith's valuation, when the public -house was valued it was valued in the same way as the baker's shop; but, as a result of the changes which have been introduced in the last four or five years, where formerly a house in Belfast was only valued at £50, it is now being valued at £200 or £250, and this increased value is due to the fact that the English principle is being applied to Belfast. That same principle is at the present moment being applied to Dublin. Having regard to the very important statement made by the Solicitor-General, whose fairness I desire to acknowledge, I wish to ask is this the proposition of the Government, that every public-house in Ireland is now to be placed in this position. There is to be added to Griffith's valuation another valuation, namely, the value of the licensed premises upon the English basis of compensation.
    5.0. P.M.
    The Leader of the Opposition has been, to some extent, twitting us as if we were getting from the Government something in the nature of a favour; I tell him we are getting instead something in the nature of a scourge owing to the extraordinary application of this Section. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to this House with this offer knowing that it did not give us an appeal. Now, he says, I will give an appeal for the purposes of the Estate Duty. The Estate Duty appeal, of course, includes the valuation of public-houses already made in Belfast; and at the present moment being made in Dublin. The whole question we are thrashing out at this moment could be settled if the Government would read out the instructions they have given to their valuers in Dublin with regard to the valuation of public-houses. Let it be remembered it is not a mere valuation for the purpose of the Licence Duty. It is also a valuation
    1122
    for the purpose of Income Tax, for the 1s. or 1s. 2d. tax paid as House Duty in Ireland. It is a double valuation. While I admit the hon. and learned Gentleman has treated the Committee most fairly, and while I also admit it is a most difficult question to deal with, I do appeal to him to cut down the operations of this Clause, which, I had supposed, was to be confined to six public-houses and all the hotels, whereas it is to apply to every public-house throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, I suggest to him that it would be a sensible thing to drop Ireland out of the section altogether. What have we to do in Ireland with your system of compensation and appeal? We have our own system already; it is a most comfortable system. You have only to go into the county court in case you have a quarrel with the Commissioners of Valuation, and the county court judge will fix a value at quarter sessions. But now, under this provision, an appellant will have to go to Dublin and wrestle with the Government there, in the High Courts, after having done so in the county court in regard to Griffith's Valuation. I appeal to the Government to confine the operation of this Clause to England only, and not to ask us in Ireland to embark on an unknown sea. At any rate, in the two great cities from which you get revenue in Ireland, Dublin and Belfast, this is unnecessary. You have extracted the last farthing out of Belfast and in Dublin you will get every shilling. under your existing system of valuation. I venture to think that the Government have not considered this question sufficiently, and I hope they will do so.
    Mr. J. S. ARKWRIGHT: I really do wish the Government would take some steps which would enable the ordinary private Members of this House to follow with some possibility of understanding the proceedings upon this Finance Bill. As I understand the position it is this, and I think we are entitled to complain at the present impasse at which we have arrived upon still wider grounds than grounds which have already arisen. As I understand it, it is this. The first chapter of these great Treasury Regulations was that they did not exist, that they were not contemplated. Then affairs and circumstances which arose brought these Treasury Regulations into existence. Then, as I understand it, an appeal was asked for, and we extracted from the Government the right

    1123
    of appeal. It was asked for by those hon. Members who sit on this side of the House, and that was the result of it. This afternoon the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tells us that everybody on both sides of the House earnestly desires that appeal, but he then says the Bill will be sufficiently safeguarded under these Treasury Regulations, which eventually in the ordinary course will be laid upon the Table of this House. He then admits that that appeal is not, in his opinion, sufficient by giving a pledge that he will consider whether or not the whole business shall be gone back upon, and the Treasury Regulations and everything cut and dried before the Report stage. I believe I am perfectly right in that I understand that to be his pledge; that is, in every sense of the word, except that the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to pledge himself, and he qualifies his position in that way by saying that he does promise us that, but we must not regard it as a pledge. I do complain of this. It is almost impossible for the ordinary man to understand where we are and what we are talking about. I do not suggest for a moment that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible, but it is the whole condition of things in which we are attempting to legislate which places him in a position in which I, for one, am sorry to see him this afternoon.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The hon. and learned Solicitor-General has been so conciliatory, affable, kind and considerate this afternoon that it is a shame to keep on worrying him; but I must put to him that what he suggested about draft regulations being submitted is absolutely out of the case. He would not say even that the draft regulations would be submitted, but a draft of a draft. He said it would be impossible to draft the regulations, but some indication would be laid before the House. That surely is not an offer with which we can be satisfied. And even if he did put the draft regulations before the House, I submit it would not be enough, because these in future can be altered at will, and it will simply be necessary for the Treasury, finding that their original draft is not operating in their interests and bringing in the necessary amount of revenue, to change it. Again, if the courts, under this appeal, give some decision hostile to the Treasury, they can again change the draft, so as to get round the decision of the courts, and I think it is absolutely essential that the Government
    1124
    should do one of two things, either obtain the whole of these regulations together, or leave the matter to the interpretation of the court, and put in another schedule in the Bill. There are so many schedules in the Bill that I do not think one fresh little one can make any difference, and if they are going to adopt this procedure, I think it ought to be set forth in black and white. I do submit that one of these alternatives, and only one of them, can be satisfactory. There is one other point in regard to this Bill that I should like to call attention to. I believe a case may arise when these words do not cover the desired case. The Sub-section says, the register shall be calculated on the amount which would be payable as compensation in respect of the premises under the Licensing Act of 1904. Supposing that is ascertained and taxation is levied upon it, and in the course of a few years one of these houses actually does come into compensation under the Act of 1904, and the compensation award is a good deal lower than the amount of the capital sum upon that register?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I would ask whether he is dealing with the Amendment before the Committee?
    The CHAIRMAN: He certainly has said very little about the Amendment in his previous observations, but I hoped he was coming to the Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: If that is so I will not go on.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am very unwilling to prolong the Debate which arises, after all, out of an attempt of the Government to meet the wishes of the critics of the Bill, and, I think, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, by far the best course would be for me to withdraw my Amendment. As I understand the matter, the case now stands thus. The Government have brought in a clause which they think gives an appeal We point out that it does not give the appeal we want upon the one thing necessary to the appellant, namely, an appeal as to the amount on which he has to pay his tax. That is our view. Whether that would be absolutely secured by my Amendment is no doubt arguable, but the Government have promised to consider whether they cannot give an appeal in the full sense that we desire. I quite realise that it may be difficult for them to draft regulations and make concessions substantially in the course of the Committee discussion; and

    1125
    it may also be rather difficult to deal with the matter, as the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is not present. For these reasons, I am glad, to recognise the difficulty in which the Government are, and to consent to postpone the discussion till a later period, but that is not all that they want. I understand that they have not given a pledge, but have given a clear expression of a wish to lay upon the Table of the House some kind of dummy regulations, or something to show the sort of thing contemplated by the regulations. I understood that that was not a promise but an indication of a wish.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I did not say to lay anything on the Table of the House, but to give an indication.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps that would be the more convenient course. But I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us time for us to consider the matter before we come to the actual discussion on the Report stage of the final views of the Government. Then, there was one other appeal which was made to him by my right hon. Friend near me which I hope he will consider. It was for a single concrete example of this proposal, whatever it is—the case of the Pack Horse Inn, or some particular inn taken at random to represent—a representative case to show how this system of taxation would actually work out in that case. That, so far as I remember, is the question which we have ventured to lay before the Government, and as the Government have shown themselves to be in a conciliatory spirit, I am anxious that this Debate shall not be prolonged, and, by the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I rise to speak again upon the general subject of the appeal. In view of the assurances which the hon. and learned Solicitor-General has given us, that he means this appeal to be an effective appeal, I will take the liberty of submitting to him that, as this matter stands, this appeal cannot in the vast majority of cases, be in Ireland anything like an effective appeal. I would even say that it cannot be an effective appeal in England, but that I recognise in England the matter is complicated by the Act of 1904, and, of course, in any case, my concern is with Ireland and not England. Why do I think that this cannot be an effective
    1126
    appeal in Ireland? I say, because an appeal to the High Court, when you are dealing with premises valued at £5, £10, or even £20, is an appeal, the existence of which is perfectly illusory. We have heard in the course of these Debates that there are something like 7,500 public-houses in the United Kingdom which are paying the minimum duty, and about 7,000 of them exist in Ireland. There are, therefore, in Ireland at least 7,000 public-houses which are valued, roughly, at under £10, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say how can he think that the offer to the Irish publican, whose valuation is under £10, of an appeal to the High Court is an effective appeal?
    There was a reason for the procedure established by the English Act of 1904. As I understand, the procedure under that Act is this. You have, in the first place, not litigation but a kind of conference at quarter sessions, where the parties say they are agreed amongst themselves, and where they can agree to a sum which quarter sessions agree to, the matter goes forward, but if there is failure in that agreement then you go to the Commissioners, and from the Commissioners you go to the High Court. That is a most admirable and proper proceeding in England, because you are litigating about large capital sums. It is most proper that when you are dealing with large sums of money that you should have the right, and perhaps even the obligation and necessity, of going even ultimately, or even directly, to the High Court of Justice, but under this process, which this Bill sets up, you are not dealing with large capital sums at all. The right hon. Gentleman says that the register that this Clause sets up is something different in kind from the ordinary rate book. I say, however, it is nothing but an Imperial rate book in regard to public-houses. The register, or so-called register, is an Imperial rate book for public-houses, or for assessing the publican's duty, which is the same thing. In no case that I am aware of, either in England or in Ireland, unless you appeal against the rate, is the appeal to the High Court. If you are making your rate-hook for any purpose, either in England or in Ireland, it is first paid by some local body, and your appeal is always to quarter sessions, and necessarily so, because you are dealing with small sums and comparatively small interests. The annual cost, of course, is very substantial when you consider the country as a whole. But in some individual cases the annual cost is not a large

    1127
    amount, and consequently when you are making the rate-book for any purpose your appeal is always to quarter sessions. It may be somewhat of a paradox to say that even in England the proper appeal in this case would be to quarter sessions. That may be a paradox, because under the Act of 1904 you have a kind of appeal from quarter sessions to the Commissioners, and you may say it would be an absurdity to reverse the process in this Bill and give your appeal from the Commissioners to quarter sessions. But even in England I think that would be a wise and a sensible proceeding, and I know of no reason why it should not be adopted. But whatever you do in England, why in Ireland should you not give us an appeal to quarter sessions?
    Let me come to the Finance Act, which is the basis of the proposed appeal in this case. When you make your appeal under the Finance Act, if you are dealing with an estate under £15,000, you may go to the county court. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to Section 10 of the Finance Act, which provides that—
    "Where the value as alleged by the Commissioners of the property in respect of which a dispute arises does not exceed £10,000, the appeal under this Section may be to the county court for the county or place where the applicant resides."
    If the appeal under the Finance Act was taken by the Government as their model for the appeal which this Clause gives us, why do they not reproduce some analogous provision to the Sub-section of the Finance Act which I have read? Will they give us in Ireland, at any rate in small cases, some limit of valuation? If the county court is a good enough tribunal for the purpose of Estate Duty, when you are dealing with a £10,000 estate, can anyone say that the same tribunal is not a perfectly good tribunal when you are dealing with the annual valuation of a public-house which may not exceed £5, £10, £15, or £20 per annum? I further call attention to the fact that the Government are deliberately changing the law. In Ireland at present we have this quarter sessions appeal. Why cannot it be preserved to us? What is the necessity of bringing in the High Court? Assuming that there are some high reasons of State for departing from the existing system of valuing public-houses for the purpose of this duty, and that it is necessary to enter into this recondite question of compensation value which can
    1128
    have no bearing on the general interests of publicans in Ireland, what is the necessity of driving us to the High Court? I, therefore, confidently appeal to right hon. Gentlemen, as they have deliberately chosen the Finance Act as their model, that they will at any rate give us the benefit of the Finance Act. The Finance Act gives an appeal to the county court when you are dealing with as large an estate as £10,000, and when you are dealing with the 7,000 small public-houses in Ireland, which are at present paying £4 10s. a year, you should not make it necessary for those publicans to go to the High Court to question the value of the Commissioners.
    Mr. E. A. GOULDING: I think it is most important that we should get from the Government how they estimate this annual equivalent. Only last week a direct question was put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Arkwright) to this effect. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—
    "Whether, with a view to elucidating the operation of the new valuation proposals in Clause 30, Sub-section (2) of the Finance Bill, he would ascertain from the Commissioners referred to in that Clause what sum would be treated by them as the annual equivalent of the sum of £1,497 15s. adjudged by Mr. Justice Kennedy to be the sum payable as compensation under Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Licensing Act, 1904?"
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:—
    "As the whole question of the annual compensation value will come up shortly for discussion, I scarcely think it is necessary for me to enter into it beforehand in the manner suggested by the hon. Member."
    Here the Government had ample notice of what the Opposition would require in this case. They have got all the figures and all the facts, and all they have to do is to tell us on that sum of £1,400 odd what is their annual equivalent. Certainly we are entitled to it, and as the Solicitor-General says he himself wants to clear up the position, the easiest way in which he can clear it up is, with all these figures at his hand, to get it from the Treasury and state the simple case, and the difficulty will be solved, and those who are interested in the question will know how the facts lie.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved, after the words last inserted, to insert the words "with the substitution, as respects Scotland, of the judges of the Court of Session named for the purpose of hearing appeals under the Valuation of Land

    1129
    (Scotland) Acts, and, as respects Ireland, of the High Court of Justice of Ireland, for the High Court."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Of course, this appeal is better than nothing, but I am entirely dissatisfied, and I think the appeal should be, at least in the case of the smaller public-houses, to the county court.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGHmoved, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert: "Any regulations made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than 30 days during the Session of Parliament, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty against such regulations or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft regulation."
    These words were on the Paper on Friday, when, owing to the abrupt termination of our proceedings, the Amendment was not proceeded with. There was some understanding that the Chancellor of the Duchy would introduce a clause dealing with the same subject. I should not have moved this Amendment if I had found this Clause upon the Paper, but in the usual slovenly manner in which the Government conduct their business the Clause was not put down, and I do not know when it is proposed to be put down. But I think the words I suggest will come in far more opportunely, and it is all-important that they should be inserted. It is obvious that there is a certain amount of uncertainty and vagueness as to what these Treasury Regulations are going to be, and it is possible that the appeal, which has been extracted out of the Government by the same process as a dentist extracts teeth, may be rendered absolutely null and void by the regulations which the Treasury are going to impose. The words are not in a novel form; they are in various Statutes. I do not doubt the word of the Government when they say they will put down a clause, but the hon. Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) said the Irish party had been misled and deceived by the Government on Friday. If it is possible for the Government to mislead and deceive so astute a party as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway it is possible that they will mislead and deceive the guileless and unsuspecting party to which I belong.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As the Committee is now aware, this is a somewhat-lengthy Bill, and in parts of it there are requirements for regulations to be made. When the matter was discussed upon the Land Clauses it was understood that there should be one general clause inserted in the later part of the Bill which would cover all cases of regulations to be made under its authority. That was the Clause to which I referred the other day. The Noble Lord used the word "slovenly," but nothing could be more slovenly than to insert here a sub-section applying to the regulations to be made under this Clause and to have in another part of the Bill a general clause applying to all the other regulations. The Government cannot, of course, accept the Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I agree that as we are to have a new clause it would be undesirable to press this particular Amendment at this point—all the more undesirable because of what has taken place to-day. Of course, if there are to be no regulations provided for here, when we come to the Report Stage, and if the Treasury Regulations are to be taken out of this Clause, then we do not want the appeal under the Treasury Regulations in this place. My Noble Friend put down his Amendment before this discussion took place, and for the moment the regulations stand. The review of these regulations by Parliament is important, and that question is germane to the Clause. I think it really would assist the Committee if the Government would tell us a little more fully as to the new Clause. It is a misfortune that the promised Clause does not appear on the Paper. I had hoped that it might be before the Committee to-day. I will not say that it is still up the sleeve of the Government. I do not think it is even in their mind. They have not attended to the matter at all. At any rate they have not brought the Clause before the Committee. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy tell us whether the general Clause which the Government propose to put down as a new clause at the end of a Bill will cover the ground of my Noble Friend's Amendment? If he is able to tell us that it will give for all the regulations under the Bill what my Noble Friend asks in respect of these particular regulations, then I am satisfied. In that case I would urge my Noble Friend not to press this Amendment further.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid I am not in a position to state the precise

    1131
    terms of the Clause which is not yet on the Paper, but its adequacy or inadequacy does not affect this Clause. The new Clause will affect all the regulations to be made on matters throughout the Bill, many of which are of far greater importance than this. As the regulations contemplated in this Clause may never see the light, I should say that this is a peculiarly unsuitable occasion on which to state the terms of the proposal.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The two right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench seem to have no authority to say anything whatever on the Bill. I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy a plain question, namely, if he could give some indication whether the Clause to be moved on behalf of the Government later on will be based on the same lines as the Amendment I have proposed. I certainly think I am entitled to an answer on that point. In view of the unsatisfactory answer given by the right hon. Gentleman I must press the Amendment.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: It was probably through inadvertence that the Chancellor of the Duchy did not reply to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire. It was whether these regulations will be laid before both Houses of Parliament? I wish to know whether, when the new Clause which has been foreshadowed dealing with all the regulations under the Bill is incorporated in the Bill the regulations will be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, or only on the Table of this House?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I understand that the Government do not really object to the words of the Amendment, but that they oppose the Amendment on two grounds. One is that the Amendment may be unnecessary, and the other is that it might not suit the regulations to be made under the new Clause to be proposed at the end of the Bill. At present we are entirely in the dark as to what the regulations are to be, and therefore I think the simplest thing would be to pass the regulations as applying to this Clause. If the regulations were dropped then the provision about their lying on the Table of both Houses of Parliament would also be dropped. If
    they are found to be inconsistent with the general regulations under the new Clause they can be dropped out. I think in the circumstances my Noble Friend has no option but to go to a Division on the Amendment. No objection has been taken to the Amendment by the Government, and I hope he will persevere in it.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: If the Government would give us an assurance not as to what the regulations will contain, but as to some points they shall not contain, I think that would go far to satisfy hon. Members on this side of the House. The regulations ought not to specify the number of years' purchase—
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Does that arise on this question?
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think it does. If we could be assured that the regulations would not specify the number of years' purchase and certain other matters I think that would go a long way towards meeting our difficulty in regard to the regulations. If we could be assured also that the regulations would be laid before both Houses of Parliament, I think that would satisfy us in point of form. I wish to ask a question on a point of Order arising out of the difference between the regulations as adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman and the terms of the Kennedy judgment. The Kennedy judgment laid down the principle which ought to be applied in certain denned cases as to the number of years' purchase, and so on. If these regulations are going to lay down principles which would take away from the Commissioners and the Court of Appeal the power of adjudicating on questions of valuation, that would mean relegating to the Treasury the right of taxation which is a right inherent in this House. I wish to know whether it would be in order to make regulations which would have that effect?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's point of order does not arise now at all. The first question he addressed to the Government is not in order. The second is.
    Question put: "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 185.

    Division No. 604.]

    AYES.

    [5.40 p.m.

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

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

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Beckett Hon. Gervase

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Renton, Leslie

    Bull, Sir William James

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Renwick, George

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cave, George

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Clive, Percy Archer

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

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

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

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

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Moore, William

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Winterton, Earl

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Young, Samuel

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Younger, George

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Percy, Earl

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

    Gretton, John

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Castlereagh and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

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

    Pretyman, E. G.

    NOES.

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

    Falconer, J.

    Massie, J.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Findlay, Alexander

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Alden, Percy

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Glover, Thomas

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Morrell, Philip

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Gulland, John W.

    Morse, L. L.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Barker, Sir John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Myer, Horatio

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nichells, George

    Beale, W. P.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Malley, William

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hogan, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

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

    Partington, Oswald

    Branch, James

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Bright, J. A.

    Hudson, Walter

    Perks, Sir Robert William

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

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Pointer, J.

    Bums, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Radford, G. H.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Joyce, Michael

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Byles, William Pollard

    Keating, M.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Clough, William

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rees, J. D.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

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

    Lamont, Norman

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Robinson, S.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Crean, Eugene

    Lupton, Arnold

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Crossley, William J.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, J.

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

    Lynch, A.

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

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

    Elibank, Master of

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Seely, Colonel

    Erskine, David C.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Maddison, Frederick

    Snowden, P.

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    1134

    1135

    Scares, Ernest J.

    Verney, F. W.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Walsh, Stephen

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

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Waring, Walter

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

    Summerbell, T.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Winfrey, R.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Tomkinson, James

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Toulmin, George

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Mr. CAVEhad put down an Amendment to leave out the second paragraph of Subsection (2).
    I put down this Amendment in order to get your ruling on a point of Order. In the next Clause I intend to move to exempt from the new duties hotels and other premises in the same position as those to which this paragraph refers. What I wish to know is whether if this paragraph is passed I shall be too late on the following Clause to move to exempt hotels altogether, or can it be done better on Clause 31?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes. It is better to have it on Clause 31.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALYmoved, "in paragraph 2 of Sub-section (2), to omit the words 'to which the holding of a licence is merely auxiliary,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'other than the sale of intoxicating liquor.'"
    In moving this Amendment, I wish to extract a statement as to the effect of this Clause, and as to the position of hotels and restaurants. The Government have thought lit necessary to enact that in the case of hotels when you estimate the value as licensed premises, you are not to take into consideration the profits derived otherwise than by the sale of intoxicating liquor, and they make the same enactment in the case of any other kind of premises used for purposes to which the holding of a licence is merely auxiliary. These words do not at all make the Clause applicable to the case of what are called "mixed business houses." Take what is a very common case in Ireland, a shop and a public-house carried on in the same premises. For the purpose of the licence the whole of the premises are all included. If it is necessary in the case of hotels to enact that when you are finding the licence value of the hotel you are not to take into consideration the profits not made by the sale of intoxicating liquor, why is it not equally necessary in the case of premises on which a licensed business and another business are carried on, but in which the licence is
    1136
    not in any sense auxiliary to the said business? In Ireland when you arrive at the annual compensation value of the "mixed premises" only the value as licensed premises is to be taken into consideration; but it appears to me that under this Clause, as it stands at the present moment, the Government will be unable to carry out that pledge, because in carrying this Clause into effect they will be bound to confine it to the case of hotels and cases in which the licence is in some way auxiliary to the other business carried on.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that the insertion of the words proposed, by the hon. Gentleman would really make any difference in the effect of the Clause, because you can only, as I understand the law, take into account, for the purpose of ascertaining either the monopoly value or the compensation value under the Act of 1904, the profits derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor. I doubt very much whether this paragraph is needed at all. Speaking personally, I think it would be better to omit the paragraph, but I think if we retain the paragraph the hon. Gentleman is right. That is, inasmuch as you specifically mention the case of hotels and the case of premises in which the sale of intoxicating liquor is merely auxiliary, if you have one of these mixed businesses which stand on precisely the same footing you would in some way or another take into account the profits derived from other sources, and therefore I should be disposed to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I do not think that it makes any difference one way or another, and I do not think if the paragraph were omitted from the Clause it would make any difference.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand a part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILLmoved to leave out Sub-section (3).
    I consider this Sub-section is far too inquisitorial in its terms and

    1137
    its requirements. A return has got to be made by the licensee. We are not told what sort of a return has got to be made. I venture to think if that return has to be made there should be some plan in the Bill in the form of a schedule or some other way to show what that return ought to be, because it is asking a great deal of the publican to order him to make a return in the manner in which I believe it is required by this Sub-section. It is one thing if a return had to be made under the Act of 1904, when the licence had been extinguished, but it is quite another thing to ask for a return to be made from a going concern. If you extend it from the licensed trade and apply it to other trades of the country, see what will happen. A trader would at once say he did not see why in common fairness to himself he should make any returns by which the details of his business would be made known to other persons. Looking down this Sub-section at the penalties, I find we once more meet with our old friend that we have met before in the Land Clauses—the 30 days has once more made its appearance. But it is not so much the question of the period of 30 days that I complain of, but it is that here in this Sub-section, in the case of publicans you are going to use summary conviction as the means of punishing them, whereas, under Clause 16 of the land portion of the Finance Bill these matters were placed under the control of the High Court. Why, if a publican does not make this return which it would be very difficult to make within the specified time, is he to be taken before the magistrates and treated almost as a criminal? Why should not he be treated in exactly the same way as under Clause 16 of the land portion of the Bill you treat failure to make a return there? Another point to which I would draw attention in this Sub-section is the word "return" again in line 40. That would seem to me to be a word put in by mistake. Something has been left out, "requisition" or "requirement," perhaps. I object to this Sub-section on the grounds which I have named, namely, that I think it is inquisitorial and unrequired, and unfair to the publican, who would be punished by the imposition of a penalty which is undoubtedly harsh. If a return is to be made I hope the Government will in some way specify in what form it is to be made, so that those who have to make it will have some idea of what they are to do.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment to a Sub-section dealing with machinery, which is not only in the interests of the officials of the Revenue, but is also in the interests of the licence holder whose premises have to be valued. We are not now dealing with the details of the requirements which may be made by the Commissioners. The question is whether there should be in the Clause a provision of this sort, so that the Commissioners shall be able properly to perform the functions imposed upon them. Therefore, some provision of this kind is necessary.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I do not think that the Solicitor-General has dealt adequately with the gravamen of my hon. Friend's objection. The point shortly is this. Under Sub-section (3) you are giving the Commissioners power, absolutely unlimited by any restrictive words of any kind at all, to go-to any licensed victualler for this return. They may specify any form which they choose, and they may demand any particulars, without any limitation of any description. If a man refuses to give those particulars, he is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20. Is there a single trade or industry in respect of which the Government would dare to make such a proposal except that of the licensed victuallers? Every Member of the Committee knows that except for the purpose of carrying out the Lord Advocate's suggestion of imposing swingeing duties, no such proposal would ever be tolerated in respect of any trade save that of the licensed victuallers. If it is submitted that there must be some form of return, then, if the Government put in the Schedule the form of that return required, it would do something to secure some reasonable protection for the person who has to make the return. If the Government really do mean, as I hope they do, that they do not wish to make the operation of this Sub-section oppressive in practice, nothing can be simpler than for them to prepare a form of the particulars to be given to the Commissioners, and if the Government give such an assurance I am quite sure it will make the discussion of this particular Amendment very much shorter than it is likely otherwise to be. What is the position of the licensed victualler on whom the Commissioners descend for a return? Apparently we are rapidly passing to the day in which every man's business is to

    1139
    be taken away from the law courts and to be given to various Commissioners. Under this Section the Commissioners, having gone to an unfortunate man to ask him for a return, he will have to disclose most of the private details of his business. Of course, the Solicitor-General makes no reply at all to the very just observation made by my hon. Friend that there was no objection to admitting this, or a similar return, in the case of any licence which was actually being taken away or where compensation was actually being paid. But here the Government are not taking the licence away, and there is no compensation, and, therefore, they are making a vexatious and oppressive demand. In other words, they are compelling the man to give the Commissioners information of a most serious kind, which must become public. To ask for a return of that kind without any explanation, without any limitation, appears to me to be making a draft on the confidence of the Committee greater than any we have been asked to meet. As my hon. Friend pointed out, when a similar case arose in reference to the Land Clauses of this Bill, the view was reached after discussion that it was not necessary to treat failure to make a return of this kind as an offence which would subject a man to be called before the criminal courts. I am not familiar with all the taxing Statutes, or with the powers which may be given to impose a penalty in case of a failure to make a return of this kind. I think I am right in saying that the proposals which are made here are infinitely more drastic than any rules in force in case of the Income Tax.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I speak under correction on that point. I say that as far as the Land Clauses were concerned the point which my hon. Friend has raised was conceded. To the Sub-section in its present form I entertain the strongest objection, and if no reasonable explanation is forthcoming I certainly hope that my hon. Friend will divide the Committee.
    Sir E. CARSON: The Committee will not forget that this is a Clause which is not to have any taxing force whatsoever as regards the vast bulk of licence holders of this country. It has already been stated by the Prime Minister that, as regards the vast bulk of licence-holders—that is, all except hotels, and, I believe, valuations over £500—this Section is not
    1140
    to have any force whatsoever until some new Act is passed. That seems to me to have a very material bearing on the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Let the Committee consider the position in which the publican is being placed. I am not speaking of the case of hotels or of licences over £500; I take all the other publicans in the country, and look at the position in which you place them. The Revenue officers may at any time go down and see the publican and say: "We want you to make a return in the form which we now dictate, although we admit there is no necessity for it, or no immediate use to which it can be put." Not only that, but if the publican asks what they want the return for, they may say: "That is nothing to you; it is in the Act of Parliament; you must give it to us; it is not going to affect you in any way, but you must make the return, and, if you do not, you will be fined £20." The Revenue officers are to keep this return as a correct register. Shortly after, something or other is heard about the man's business. The Revenue officer finds that the neighbourhood, or, to use the doctrine of the party opposite, finds that the community has made the man's premises more valuable, and he says to himself: "I must correct this register." Down he goes again to the publican, without limitation and without objection. That seems to me an almost impossible position in which to put a man who is carrying on a business. For my own part, although the Solicitor-General says that machinery of this kind is necessary, I do not see why it should be necessary at all. It seems to me that a register of this kind will have no legal effect. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, unless we are promised that this Clause will be confined, as it ought to be confined, to hotels and valuations over £500. If it is to be used, not as a taxing Clause, as, admittedly, it will not be used as regards the bulk of holders of licences, and if it is to be used merely as an inquisitorial Clause, without any fiscal result whatever, then I think it ought to be divided against in order that we may make some feeble protest against including in a so-called Finance Bill Clauses which have no result financially.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Supposing, under this demand for a return, the capital matter involves the answer "Yes" or "No." Then you have to consider Clause 73, which says: "If any person for the purpose of obtaining any allowance, rebate

    1141
    or repayment in respect of any duty under this Act, either for himself or for any other person, knowingly makes any false statement or false representation, he shall be liable under summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months with hard labour." So that there is an absolute power of imprisonment given in respect of making a false statement in this return. It might consist in the simple answer "Yes" or "No." Therefore this Sub-section with which we are dealing must be considered as read with Section 73, showing the very important consequences involved. It really seems to me that the persons this Bill affects will be called upon to spend most of the remainder of their lives in making returns. It seems to be one of the unfortunate consequences of this kind of legislation. It is stated that it will require a new Act to carry out many of the purposes of this Bill. Why, then, can we not leave these penal clauses and auxiliary provisions over until the new Act comes into force? You are to get from these persons this particular form of return, and yet we are told that Irish publicans are absolutely free under this Section. It is stated that this Section does not apply to them at all; but the Bill will no sooner be passed than every publican in Ireland will have to make a return showing the entire contents of his till, showing how much beer he has sold or how much porter or how much whisky, or, perhaps, even the number of his family, or whether he has ever been vaccinated—I do not know, because there is not any limitation. The rules under the English Act are very carefully prepared, and here I find at the back of them a number of forms which are made applicable. Surely the least we might have in the case of a return, for the making of a false statement in which a man might get six months' imprisonment, is to have some form. Let us take this case. A man may be asked when were you licensed, and also the date of the transfer. He may say, "I got my licence by transfer on 1st July," but it turned out, in fact, that be got his licence on 1st March. That is a false statement under the letter of a section for which the man might get six months' imprisonment. [The SOLICITOR-GENERAL expressed dissent.] The hon. and learned Gentleman says no, but let me put this to him. You may say he would have paid the whole of his Licence Duty, but there are many cases in which the full Licence Duty is not payable, because the house is vacant. In the
    1142
    case of a house that is taken in October and that has been vacant for three months before, only nine months' licence is required by the Excise people. I would respectfully ask that the Government should put a schedule into this Bill showing what these publicans are to return, and I would ask why apply it to publicans who will not be taxed? We have had great value out of the learned Solicitor-General to-day, so to speak. The other day when we asked for information he treated us almost as severely as if we were Welsh Members looking for disestablishment. He is most conciliatory to-day, and I am sure nobody enjoys it more than I do. He has stated very frankly that this Section will not apply to publicans in England, Ireland or Scotland. But, although the taxes are not to be extracted from them, they are to make this return. But let us know what they are to make a return of, and what kind of particulars you are going to get from them. The filling up of Income Tax returns is sufficiently onerous, but it is a little hard in the case of these small, humble men carrying on various kinds of business that they should be asked to make these returns with the tremendous consequences of six months' imprisonment which might ensue.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: With reference to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I would suggest that sometimes speeches from the other side become ferocious, and there is a tendency, if not to become as ferocious as that, to become as ferocious as one can. If he purrs gently then I purr gently too. The false return described in Clause 73 is a very different thing from an inaccurate return, and therefore the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to Clause 73 have no foundation. What hardship is there in asking people for the purpose of making this register to give certain information, which the Commissioners require to have in order to keep the register? It may be that it is to the interest of the people themselves. If such a register is to be kept it should be made on accurate information. Those people have information which may be got elsewhere, but when they have got it why should they not give it? An observation is made with regard to the inquisitorial character of the return, but that observation might be made with a good deal more strength as to the Income Tax return.
    Sir E. CARSON: I agree, but two inquisitions are worse than one.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: If you are going to have that register I think it is not an unreasonable or unfair request, and that it is not a harsh proceeding.
    Mr. REMNANT: You recognised it to be a case of hardship in the land valuation, and why should you not recognise it to be so here?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am now arguing against the proposal to omit the Subsection altogether. I have said if you are to bring any cogent arguments to bear on the Clause this is not the time to do it, and my answer is that you must, in the interests of the publican, have some machinery of this kind. Therefore I ask to have this Clause or something like it.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: Would the Solicitor-General shorten the discussion by agreeing that the forms of these requisitions should be stated in the Schedule? We should then know exactly where we are, and those men would know that they were not going to be exposed to any other general inquisitions which are detestable in any trade. If such an assurance was given I am sure, as far as my hon. Friends are concerned, that the whole discussion would drop.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I would suggest to make it appear in the Section that the person is only to be liable to a penalty if he knowingly or wilfully fails to make this return. The words, as drawn, are: "If any person fails to make such return he is to be liable." Surely that is too severe.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is a different thing from leaving out the Clause.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I put that as an additional reason to the suggestion that we ought to have a form in the Schedule. In the Land Clauses part of the Bill it was agreed that the penalty should only be recoverable in the High Court, while in this ease the penalty is to be recoverable on summary conviction and the licence holder is to be liable.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to ask for some information as to what occurs to the returns which the publicans or licence holders will be required to make. They go into a register, and who will have an access to that register? Will anybody have access to the register? This is really a very material matter to the particular point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University
    1144
    (Sir E. Carson), even assuming it would be necessary for the purpose of your tax to have this inquisition, where the results of the inquisition are the basis for your tax. Of course, the great bulk of the licence holders will be wholly unaffected by this particular Clause. To ask them to make detailed statements as to their business, their profits, the character of their business, by their advancing or declining, and so forth, and to have the results of those inquiries consigned to a register, and to have that register open to their competitors, their landlords, and the people they are tied to in such a case as that, it might add very much to the hardship. I see the Solicitor-General shaking his head, and I would be glad if he would answer.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: They will not be open.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: They are to be private and confidential.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Yes.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The man makes a return, and thereupon the Commissioners draw a deduction. Are the Commissioners bound to communicate to him the result at which they arrive? Can he know what it is? Of course, if they are trying to collect a tax they are bound to communicate to him that the tax is so much, that they have assessed it so much. The great bulk of the people are not going to be taxed under this Clause, and where is the obligation on the Commissioners to impart to the person who is not a taxpayer for the purpose of this section, the use which they make of the register. It is not in the Bill. Those returns the Commissioners receive, and from which they make a register, will be useless both to the Commissioner and to everybody else until another Act is passed, unless for the purpose of making another Bill. But meanwhile where is the provision in this Bill which will give the people the knowledge of what they have been assessed at?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is no such provision, and it will be totally unnecessary. The moment anybody tries to tax them they can appeal, and it is an essential foundation of that appeal that they should be informed what is the value on which they are going to be taxed in the meantime.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I speak subject to correction on a point of law but supposing the assessments are made of

    1145
    their compensation value, and of their annual equivalent, and that they know nothing about it for a couple of years, does the right of appeal still exist?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No matter how many years have elapsed.
    The PRIME MINISTER: As long as you put it in force for the purpose of taxation the right of appeal at once arises.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The main reason why some of us object to this Clause is not that it is not in itself a taxing clause, but that it would have the effect of making people connected with 90,000 houses responsible for sending returns of the widest possible description. There is not a word in the whole Sub-section limiting the number of times the returns may be required. The Commissioners, if they took it into their heads to do so, could ask for several returns during the year. Moreover, the Sub-section applies not only to the licence holder, but to any person interested in the licensed premises. Those are the widest possible words, and would include individuals such as mortgagees and lessors, who are not concerned at all in the conduct of the business. Further, the returns are to include such particulars as the Commissioners may require. They may possibly include weekly or monthly purchases or sales of 20 or 30 different articles of consumption, and, in the case of a man who brews his own beer, be may have to state the quantity of beer be brewed himself and how much he bought from somebody else. Not only is the wording of the Sub-section so wide, but it is entirely unnecessary, because Subsection (1) states distinctly how the annual value is to be arrived at, and there is no reason why such a Sub-section as this should be inserted. It is obviously put in with the object of leading up to some subsequent taxation. It is because the Subsection is so wide, so inquisitorial, and so drastic that we object to it as it stands.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Under Sub-section (3) a return is to be made by the parties interested in the licensed premises for the purpose of the ascertainment not of the gross compensation value, but only of the annual compensation value. I should have thought, if the Government intended to make the matter complete, that they ought to have had information from the licence holder or from the person interested in the
    1146
    licensed premises not only in regard to the annual compensation value, but in regard to the gross value as well. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell me why there is that apparent hiatus. I should also like to emphasise what has been said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Watson Rutherford). It is clear that under the Sub-section it is not to be one return once for all of the annual compensation value, but it may be demanded as often as the Commissioners think fit. Both the gross compensation value and the annual compensation value vary with the varying conditions of the licensed house, and it will be an almost intolerable burden if, whenever it suits the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, a return of this drastic character may be required.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Under the Licensing Act of 1904 there is a sum added to the compensation value for what is called "conversion" and for fixtures. Would these items have to be taken into account in the present case?
    The CHAIRMAN: This Sub-section applies only to the return made by the licence holder.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The return is to be made of the particulars required for the purpose of ascertaining the annual compensation value of the premises. Therefore I suggest that the question of the hon. Member opposite as to the ingredients of the annual value is relevant.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Aberdeen had been asking about what the hon. and learned Gentleman calls the ingredients of the annual value I should not have said he was out of order. This is not a question of the certificate and the register, but of the return that will have to be made by the licence holder.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Does he require to make any return with regard to conversion or fixtures?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right of appeal which the Government have put into this Clause is the same appeal as under the Licensing Act of 1904, which, again, is the appeal of the Finance Act, 1894. It is, therefore, to the Finance Act of 1894 that we have to go. Clause 10 there says:—
    "Any person aggrieved … by the amount of the duty claimed by the Commissioners, whether on the ground of the value of any property or the rate charged,

    1147
    or otherwise, may, on payment of, or giving security … for the duty … appeal to the High Court within the time and in the manner and on the conditions directed by rules of Court …"
    That is the right of appeal we have got here. Do not these rules of court say that an appeal against valuation or assessment must be made within a certain time after that valuation or assessment is made? I am led to believe that they do. In this case the difficulty arises because in regard to the great bulk of the people affected by this statute the valuations will be made long before they are taxed. Will they not, therefore, when they are referred back to the Act of 1894 and to the rules of Court made under that Act, be debarred from appealing against the assessment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: What is the appeal section of the Act of 1894? "Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners with respect to the repayment of any excess of duty paid, or by the amount of duty claimed by the Commissioners, whether on the ground of the value of any property, or the rate charged, or otherwise, may … appeal …"Therefore the right of appeal does not arise except when duty is claimed. When the duty is claimed an appeal can be entered either on the ground that the valuation is excessive or that the amount charged is inappropriate. Therefore, under this Sub-section, following the Act of 1894 exactly, the right of appeal will only arise when the duty is claimed. There is no such thing under the Act of 1894 as an appeal from a valuation except and until duty is payable on the basis of that valuation.
    Mr. REMNANT: When I interrupted the Solicitor-General just now I had not the precise form before me. In Clause 16, dealing with returns of the value of land, when attention was called to the very words introduced in this Sub-section, namely, "returns in such form, and containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require," the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that to give such a roving inquiry might lead to abuses, and the Government deleted the whole of the words. If this Act is to be run on business lines there ought to be no difficulty in drawing up a proper form giving the necessary particulars to enable the Commissioners to arrive at a proper conclusion. If it was considered
    1148
    wrong in the case of land, it will be equally wrong to give these officials power to make inquisitorial demands upon licence holders, and it will be imposing an irksome burden, which, I am sure, the Prime Minister, would wish to avoid. I hope, therefore, the Government will see their way to introduce into the Schedule a definite form which we can discuss; if they do that, a considerable grievance will be removed. In Clause 16, dealing with land, some words were deleted on representations made from this side, and it is only necessary, I think, that this should be brought to the Prime Minister's notice, to show that what was applicable then is applicable in this case. He will doubtless agree on the need for a more definite form.
    Mr. JOHN GRETTON: It is quite clear that some sort of care will have to be taken by the Government with reference to this matter, in order that they may lay down a form of rules and the sort of in formation which they require. It must be remembered that this Sub-section was intended not only to apply to premises such as fully-licensed houses, but to certain classes of beer-houses and hotels, to which the Compensation Act of 1904 really applies. It has also to apply to that very large class of licences known as grocers' licences, which do not come under that Act. There is no means of knowing on what principle it is proposed to proceed to assess the annual compensation value of that class of premises. There is another matter. In reply to the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), the Prime Minister said that this information which is to be obtained is not to be imparted to the per sons concerned. The man proposed to be taxed is not to be told at all till the tax collector goes to his door what the tax is. It necessarily follows that the only possible way, if the Prime Minister really meant that—
    The PRIME MINISTER: I did not make that statement.
    Mr. J. GRETTON: This Sub-section is a most objectionable sub-section—an inquisitorial and fishing sub-section. From the Government's own point of view, it is a mistake to have the information collected before they want to use it. Before they levy the tax a very great proportion of it will be out of date.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The words in Subsection (3), "any person interested in licensed premises," seem extraordinarily

    1149
    wide. Strictly and literally, every shareholder in a brewery company will come under that definition. It may be said that it will not be interpreted in that way, but I can conceive instances in which I suppose it really would be. Suppose a man had a mortgage on licensed premises. He would be required, I take it, to state the amount of that mortgage, what the valuation was, and so on. Again, I can imagine it would be likely that some houses have different ties; that every person supplying the different articles tied may be accounted a person interested in the premises. If that is not what is meant, there ought to be some better definition, so that people might not be afraid of inquisitorial requests which may damage their business, position, and credit. I would like to ask the Solicitor-General to say who is in the mind of the Government in these words.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: This is a most offensive Sub-section, for you must ask a man if he ever has been convicted, or if his licence has ever been endorsed. It is perfectly plain, from any consideration of the Act of 1894—which has provided in the case of the licence holder that "regard shall be had not only to his legal interests in the premises …. but also to his conduct …."—that the value of the licence must depend upon whether a man's conduct in the premises is good or bad. Let us take a case of a man whose licence has been twice endorsed. Will anyone contend that the value of the licence, hanging, as it were, on a thread, is of the same value as that of a licence where there has been no endorsement at all? I respectfully suggest that this Sub-section must necessarily involve some inquisition as to character if it is left in the wide way in which it now stands. Inquiry must also be made into the character of the convictions. It is novel, and also very curious, to watch the tenderness with which the landowner is treated and the tenderness with which the publican is treated! The penalty for the landowner can only be recovered in the High Court of Justice, and it is a penalty prescribed by the Income Tax Act. But the publican is to be at once haled before the magistrate if he fails to make this return, and he is to be
    liable to a £20 penalty. It appears to me to be plain that the punishment that is to be enforced for the offence should be stamped upon the face of the Subjection, and those concerned would see for what—for refusing to do, or for doing what they ought not—they would be punished. It seems to me to enable these Commissioners to go about and say, "I will make every one of you publicans make a return in any shape or form I please, and I will fine you £20 if you do not," is to practically hand over legislative powers to gentlemen of whom, at any rate in Ireland, we have had no jurisdiction. The case of the Income Tax is wholly different. If you do not make a full return the State loses a sum of money. Here you are dealing with a hypothetical thing. The publican is to be asked a number of questions as to his conduct, his length of tenure, etc.; and the worst of it is that I cannot see any provision by which, when this matter comes up on appeal, the Government would not throw down the return that the man has already made. It is inevitable that it should be so. Supposing a Commissioner rates a man at, say, £1,000 on the man's own return. The Commissioners will perhaps be asked on appeal by the judges, "How was this made?" The solicitor for the Inland Revenue will produce out of his bag the return, and the return will be trotted out in the face of the public, and perhaps the fact that the man has been convicted and his licence endorsed—which have been forgotten. The market value of his place in the open market will be thereby enormously decreased. It is one thing to extract revenue from subjects; it is another thing to torture them. Why not lay upon every publican a given sum, as you do on motorists? Let a man know what he is going to pay. It is this uncertainty in these returns which seems to me to be inflicting a needless indignity.
    The PRIME MINISTERrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 105.

    Division No. 605.]

    AYES.

    [6.55 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Beale, W. P.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Alden, Percy

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Barker, Sir John

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

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Barnard, E. B.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hudson, Walter

    Rees, J. D.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Branch, James

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Bright, J. A.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Robinson, S.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jowett, F. W.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Roc, Sir Thomas

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Byles, William Pollard

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Rowlands, J.

    Charming, Sir Francis Allston

    Lambert, George

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

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lamont, Norman

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Clough, William

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Lehman R. C.

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Seely, Colonel

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Snowden, P.

    Crossley, William J.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Stanger, H. Y.

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Summerbell, T.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Massie, J.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Elibank, Master of

    Molteno, Percy Alport

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

    Erskine, David C.

    Mond, A.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Tomkinson, James

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Toulmin, George

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morrell, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Findlay, Alexander

    Morse, L. L.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Verney, F. W.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

    Walsh, Stephen

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Waring, Walter

    Glover, Thomas

    Myer, Horatio

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Nicholls, George

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Gulland, John W.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Watt, Henry A.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nuttall, Harry

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Partington, Oswald

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Harwood, George

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Perks, Sir Robert William

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

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Pointer, J.

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

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

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Radford, G. H.

    Winfrey, R.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rainy, A. Holland

    Wood, T. McKinnon

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Raphael, Herbert H.

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Mealy, Maurice (Cork)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Helmsley, Viscount

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

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Hunt, Rowland

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Keswick, William

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Doughty, Sir George

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Gretton, John

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Cave, George

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Moore, William

    1152

    1153

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Renwick, George

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Oddy, John James

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Percy, Earl

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Winterton, Earl

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Young, Samuel

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Starkey, John R.

    Younger, George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

    Renton, Leslie

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

    Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the "Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 109

    Division No. 606.]

    AYES.

    [7.5 p.m.

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

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Myer, Horatio

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Glover, Thomas

    Nicholls, George

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

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Alden, Percy

    Gulland, John W.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hart-Davies, T.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Harwood, George

    O'Malley, William

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Partington, Oswald

    Barker, Sir John

    Hazleton, Richard

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Beale, W. P.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pointer, J.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Hogan, Michael

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

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

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Radford, G. H.

    Berridge, T. H.D.

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

    Rainy, A. Rolland

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hudson, Walter

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Rees, J. D.

    Branch, James

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Bright, J. A.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jowett, F. W.

    Robinson, S.

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Joyce, Michael

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Byles, William Pollard

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lambert, George

    Rowlands, J.

    Clough, William

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Seely, Colonel

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Crossley, William J.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Snowden, P.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Soares, Ernest J.

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Stanger, H. Y.

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

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Massie, J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Elibank, Master of

    Mond, A.

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

    Erskine, David C.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Tomkinson, James

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morrell, Philip

    Toulmin, George

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morse, L. L.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Findlay, Alexander

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Fullerton, Hugh

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

    Verney, F. W.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Waring, Walter

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Winfrey, R.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Waterlow, D. S.

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

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    NOES.

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

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Oddy, John James

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Fell, Arthur

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Percy, Ear

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Guinness, Hon. B. (Haggerston)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    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.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Starkey, John R.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Keswick, William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cave, George

    Kimber, Sir Henry

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Thornton, Percy M.

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

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

    Clyde, J. Avon

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Winterton, Earl

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Young, Samuel

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Moore, William

    Younger, George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Doughty, Sir George

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Staveley-Hill and Mr. Arkwright.

    Mr. F. E. SMITHmoved to omit from Sub-section (3) the words "in such form and containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require for," and to insert instead thereof the words "the form prescribed in the—Schedule to this Act, and giving the particulars therein named, or such of them as the Commissioners may require." I would ask the Solicitor-General, who has shown himself not. unconciliatory this afternoon, to carefully consider this point. Great apprehension is entertained in the licensed trade as to what this Sub-section means. The Solicitor-General, in reply to some observations I made on the last Amendment, thought it was absolutely necessary that there should be a return of some kind. The apprehension felt is that by asking for a return there will be a considerable trespass upon the reasonable and legitimate privacy of the publican's business. All the Government want is a return giving them certain information with regard to that business, and I am quite sure the Solicitor-General will say he does not wish
    1156
    to push this inquisition beyond the point, of supplying the Commissioners with all that is necessary. If that is the view of the Government they might avoid discussion by saying they will put into a schedule the specific information required. I deprecate as much as the Solicitor-General the charges against the Commissioners that they will enter upon their functions with any desire to usurp duties which the Government did not intend them to discharge. I do not make myself a party to any charge that as a body of men the Commissioners are likely to be oppressive towards the people with whom they will have to deal. Nobody who has had experience of public officials and especially of public officials of the subordinate ranks, will be unaware that there is a very great danger in committing to them functions which are indefinite in their character. What is the real difficulty in the Government accepting this Amendment and ordering that the information shall be conveyed in the form of a schedule? I think it is quite practicable

    1157
    to specify with sufficient clearness in the form of a schedule the information required. Information infinitely more detailed is asked of every one of us in connection with taxation purposes, and no difficulty has been experienced in drafting forms for that purpose, and there is none of that feeling that a man does not know what he is going to be asked. Let me indicate for the Solicitor-General's approval the kind of information which I conceive he might reasonably ask for for the purposes of this return. He might ask whether the trade was an on or an off trade, whether it was a tied house, what were the expenses, what is the amount of trade done, the barrellage of beer, the quality of the beer, whether Burton or local, or what is the specific gravity? In the case of whisky you might ask what the trade in barrellage was, and other relevant questions for the purposes of the return dealing with such questions as the assessment of the house under the poor rate, and other matters. The Government might also require to know whether there was any mortgage on the premises, whether any fine had been paid at the time the licensee entered into possession of the premises, and what was the rent paid by him? I do not pretend that the inquiries I have suggested exhaust the list which might legitimately be asked, but I claim that I have at any rate shown that there is no difficulty at all in the matter if the Government only desire to obtain such information as will make it possible to prepare a reliable return. All that I wish to secure is that in framing the return those who have to furnish the Commissioners with this information shall be satisfied that they are not going to be made the victims of a roving commission. There is no desire to protract the discussion of this Clause, but we do desire to alleviate the anxieties of the people concerned, and we think there is a wider roving commission being given in this case than in any other instance. There is no difficulty in drafting such a Schedule as I have suggested, which might be made more complete, and would no doubt carry out the Government's intention with a minimum of friction and with complete success. I beg to move.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: In substance I am entirely in agreement with the hon.
    1158
    and learned Member in reference to the inquiries which he says are necessary for the proper ascertainment of the annual value of any licensed premises. The only question is whether it is more convenient to leave the matter at large, and allow the Commissioners to make any inquiries they please when they have to ascertain the compensation value; or whether it is better to put into the Bill a statutory form of Schedule. I think if such a form is required at all it should not be a statutory form, but should be made under a rule similar to the forms which are many in number and diverse in character provided for under Section 6 of the Act of 1904. Speaking for myself, I do not think there will be any other matters which the Commissioners will require to know than those which have already been referred to by the hon. and learned Member. I do not think they will need to inquire with regard to the mortgage. We never intended to ask such questions as what the particulars were between the mortgagor and the mortgagee. Those questions will not be necessary at all in my opinion in order to ascertain the actual value. I want to make a suggestion which I think will meet the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We have already got quite enough schedules in the Bill, and if there is to be another form provided for, it should be done under rule. The suggestion I make is that in order to make it perfectly clear that no unnecessary or immaterial question should be asked, we should put in after the words "may require," the words "such particulars as the Commissioners may require, and as may be material for the purpose of ascertaining the value." I make that suggestion, and I think it will meet the case.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I fully recognise the spirit in which the Solicitor-General has made this offer. I wish to point out, however, that the insertion of the words "as the Commissioners may require, and as may be material," would not add anything to the direction at present given to the Commissioners. We should be putting in words which would not enable the licensed victualler to resist in any way irrelevant questions. Two courses have been suggested. One is that the form of the requisition should be inserted in the Schedule, and the other is that it should be done by rule. I think that it should be in the Schedule, though I should prefer it done by rule rather than that it should not be done at all. Of course if the

    1159
    Solicitor-General sees an insuperable objection to adding another Schedule to the Bill, then I must accept the other alternative.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It is not that I object to adding another Schedule. My reason is that if this proposal takes the shape of a statutory form you cannot alter it, whereas you can make qualifications if it is done by rule.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I was able myself in a few moments to indicate all the points which the Solicitor-General very reasonably thought might be necessary, and I cannot doubt that if he were to consult his expert advisers they would be able at very short notice to draft a list so exhaustive that it would be impossible almost to suggest additional subjects. I should be prepared, as far as I am concerned, if the Solicitor-General thought it convenient, to leave this point over until the Report stage, and this would allow the Government to decide whether it should take the form of a Schedule or be provided for by rule. If the Solicitor-General will undertake to do that I will withdraw my Amendment.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I thought I had clearly indicated that I could not accept the statutory form of the Schedule. I will, however, undertake to consider the suggestion which he has made, although I think the offer I have just made is a better one. What I suggested is not merely a guide to the Commissioners, but it is also a protection to the publican against being prosecuted for not making a return of any kind. I am quite prepared, however, to consider whether it would be advisable, as this form is of an inquisitorial character, to put it in the form of a schedule. I may point out, however, that at present, in order to ascertain the compensation value, the Commissioners are able to ask any question they like in any way. I recognise, however, that there is a distinction between the two cases.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: After the Solicitor-General's statement and the spirit in which it has been made, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ARKWRIGHTmoved, in Sub-section (3), after the word "the" ["specified in the return"] to insert the words, "notice requiring the."
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We accept that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir HENRY KIMBERmoved, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words, "(4) The licence holder shall be informed of the factors and method of calculation by which such compensation value and annual compensation value, respectively, are arrived at, and he shall be entitled to show cause against the same and against the amount proposed to be registered and certified."
    This is an Amendment which I hope the Government will be able to accept for three reasons. In the first place, it does not attempt to defeat any of the objects of the Bill; secondly, its object is clear; and, thirdly, it is necessary in order to enable the taxpayer to exercise those options which are placed before him. We have already passed a section which enables the Government to demand any particulars they like from the taxpayer. On principle I claim that when you demand anything from a man he is entitled to know the reason why and the grounds on which the claim is made out. That is essential on the grounds of fairness. The object of this Amendment is to secure for the licence holder the same right that the Government are enabled by force to exact from the taxpayer under the machinery afforded by this Bill. The first information a licence holder receives that a claim is going to be made upon him is that he is informed that he has to pay so much money which has been certified by the Commissioners to be due. He does not know how the demand upon him is made out. One set of Commissioners have to prepare the register, and they have to keep that register; and another set of Commissioners have to certify what is contained in that register. Here I may incidentally point out that the appeal which has been moved and inserted in the Bill by the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not cover several points. I do not want to discuss the merits of that Clause now, because, I am afraid, it would be out of order. I did not raise this point when the Clause I referred to was under discussion, because of the promise made by the Solicitor-General that an approved form of appeal clause would be considered on Report in order to meet those points. There are two points in particular which that does not cover, and which makes it all the more necessary that the licence holder should know how he has been dealt with by these two sets of Commissioners. It is quite possible under the form of appeal

    1161
    given that the only question put before the Court of Appeal would be whether the certificate made by the second set of Commissioners need do more than certify that the other Commissioners have prepared a register in which so much money was set against a particular licence holder. After the place in which the Government inserted the power of appeal we have inserted a paragraph which introduces a new ingredient in the case between the licence holder, the taxpayer, and the Government, and that is that the value of the premises other than those parts of it which are used for liquor purposes shall not be taken into consideration in the making of that certificate or in ascertaining the amount to be taxed. That paragraph relates to the question of what is the value of the other part of the premises of the licence holder, which is a very material consideration regarding all hotels in which the major part of the premises are used for purposes other than the sale of liquor.
    I may just inform the Committee of a remarkable circumstance which shows how important that is to the licence holder. In Committee on the Budget Resolution I brought before the attention of the Committee and the Chancellor of the Exchequer some figures, the accuracy of which could not be challenged, regarding nine or ten of the principal hotels in the country, some in London and others in the provinces. I pointed out that there was nothing to guide the taxpayer as to the principles and materials on which he is going to be taxed. I showed that in some cases he would be taxed half the rateable value. The Chancellor of the Exchequer met that by saying that if the liquor trade did not exceed one-third it should be reduced by one-half, and that they would give the licence holder the option of being taxed on the compensation value. There is no monopoly value in the case of hotels. A great hotel gets its licence on some terms or other. It does not get any monopoly, and compensation has to bear upon monopoly.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask if the hon. Member is in order in discussing the next clause?
    Sir H. KIMBER: I am not discussing the next clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is in order in discussing the question of compensation value, but not in discussing the whole question of hotels.
    Sir H. KIMBER: I am endeavouring to show why it is reasonable the taxpayer should have this information. My Amendment does not attack any of the principles of the Bill. It merely says the Government shall be bound to give to the taxpayer information as to what they are doing. Why should they not? The Exchequer comes down and says, "We claim £1,000 from you for this Licence Duty." I say, "How do you make it out?" There is a complicated procedure, and you have to go through two processes. First of all, you have to ascertain what is the value of the trade, and show what the compensation ought to be in that case, and then you have to reduce that again to an annual compensation value. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it could not be so much as the figures the hon. Member for York (Mr. G. D. Faber) and myself gave him, and to prove it he said he would place at our disposal one of the experts of the Treasury to meet a valuer of our own. I am connected in a fiduciary relation with an institution, and I accepted that offer. The Treasury expert came and certified that the value of the trade done in liquor was so much, but he did not say what the compensation value would be, either the capital or the annual compensation value. He merely gave a figure. I asked him how it was arrived at. He replied, "Oh, we are not permitted to tell." I was, however, able by an arithmetical deduction from the figures I did know, to ascertain how this gentleman had arrived at his figures, and, will the House believe me when I say that in estimating the value of the liquor trade, he had omitted to charge that trade with any proportion, even 1 per cent., of the general expenses of the whole of the premises. It is an establishment which has 750 beds. The gross receipts of the institution were £201,000 in a year, the gross working expenses, salaries, rates, taxes, and repairs amounted to £91,000, and the liquor trade was £36,000. It is a fact that the profit made on the sale of liquor in that institution and in many others of a similar kind is absorbed by the general expenses. These institutions are really an element in the world's civilisation. They are the homes of many people, they are the entertainment houses of our foreign friends, and they are a great commercial unit in our daily life; and the liquor trade, good as it is and with all the amenities with which it is surrounded must be carried on solely for the purposes of the other and larger part of the establishment. The

    1163
    Government have admitted that the in creased value o£ the trade which is attributable to that part of the hotel which is for purposes—
    The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me the hon. Member is now discussing a matter which can come up on the next clause.
    Sir H. KIMBER: I have the infirmity of not being able to sit up all night, and even when I have been here I have been unsuccessful in catching your eye. I do not complain, and I know you are always fair, but I rather despair of getting in opportunity if I wanted to speak on the next clause. I should, therefore, like, if I am not out of order, to persevere now.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member's real object is to deal with the question of hotels and give actual instances, then I think it would be very much better dealt with on the next clause.
    Sir H. KIMBER: The only object I have is to secure that this will be taken into consideration, and I hope I shall get a favourable nod from the Prime Minister. The man who is going to be taxed should be supplied with sufficient information to enable him to exercise the option given him. He has two options, and he cannot exercise either until he has this information.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is still dealing with hotels, and I find he has an Amendment down to the next clause dealing with the matter from the point of view of hotels.
    Sir H. KIMBER: You think it would be in order in that place?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have looked into it, and have no doubt an Amendment dealing with what the hon. Member desires will be in order on the next clause.
    Sir H. KIMBER: If you do not say I am out of order I should like to move this Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member runs some risk if this is negatived of the Amendment on the next Clause being out of order.
    Sir H. KIMBER: I have considerable hopes from the favourable expression en the Prime Minister's countenance.
    The CHAIRMAN: Then I will put the question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir H. KIMBER: But I moved my Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have pointed out that possibly, if it is negatived now, it will not be in order on the next clause, when the hon. Member ought to move it.
    Mr. J. GRETTON: May I point out that this Amendment is not confined entirely to hotels. There are on-licences, beer licences, off-licences, and any licence affected by the Bill.
    Sir H. KIMBER: Certainly.
    Mr. GRETTON: Would it be in order ho discuss these other classes of licences in connection with a clause dealing with hotels only?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We shall not try to force the hon. Member to a Division, so as to preclude him from moving his Amendment and making his speech on the next clause if he wishes.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment, of course, is in order in this place.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I hope, after what I have said, we shall not have a long discussion on this Amendment, and I am pretty certain the hon. Gentleman, without sitting up to a late hour, will have an opportunity of making the rest of his speech, and of repeating what he has already said if he wishes on the next clause. We shall not endeavour to force the Committee to a decision on this so as to compel him to run any risk of his being unable to move his Amendment on the next clause. This Amendment is divided into two parts. The hon. Member, in the first place, asks that the licence holder shall be informed of the factors and methods of calculation. So far as I am aware, there is no precedent at all for requiring factors and methods of calculation to be given. I might say that, by reason of the questions asked by the Commissioners, and by general experience, those interested in the trade will have, a pretty shrewd notion of how the valuers set about the valuation of the property. It is quite a new thing that the methods of calculation shall be given. As to the second part of the Amendment, the hon. Member wants a licence holder to have an opportunity of showing cause against the valuation or calculation, or the amount proposed to be registered. I think the promise given by the Prime Minister earlier in the evening is sufficient. We have no objection

    1165
    at all to the Information being given before the date it is proposed to place it on the register. I hope that under these circumstances the Amendment will be withdrawn.
    Mr. YOUNGER: We are now proposing an entirely new principle in valuation for the purposes of licensing. It has already been decided by the Committee that there shall be Treasury Regulations to deal with this important and complicated matter. One of those regulations I should imagine would need to be the fixing of some kind of standard. Each case will be dealt with according to the number of years' purchase, and the figure will go up or down according to that standard of value. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the man should be informed whether he is to be charged 12, 15, or 20 years' purchase? This I repeat is an entirely new principle, and, therefore, I urge that we are entitled to the information we are asking for.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has rather forgotten what the scope of the Treasury Regulations may be. They are for a specific purpose, for the purpose of translating the compensation value gross sum into an annual value. I would point out there is no precedent in any statute requiring any rating or technical authority to give information as to the process of reasoning by which it arrives at a particular result.
    Mr. YOUNGER: And there is no precedent for this proposal.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Since 1904 we have gone on the lines of the Kennedy judgment, which must be assumed to be the guiding authority until it is upset by some other decision. But I shall be quite prepared to consider this question before the Report stage with a view to seeing if it is possible to give the information asked for.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have here a copy of the rules under which these appeals are made at the present moment under the Finance Act of 1894, and it is perfectly clear that, for the purposes of the present Bill, these rules will have to be modified, because the very first thing laid down is that the appellant shall state specifically the several grounds on which he claims that the decision of the Commissioners is erroneous, and how can he do that if you do not give him the data upon which the Commissioners have founded their decision?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We will consider that point.
    Sir HENRY KIMBER: In deference to what you have said, and in view of the benevolent assurances of the Government, I withdraw this Amendment, hoping that I shall have an opportunity on the next Clause of raising my point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think we can part with this Clause without one word. It appears to me to be the very microcosm of the charms and beauties of the Government's proposal. It really contains in an exaggerated form almost every one of the uncertainties and injustices which characterise the general method of legislation in this Finance Bill. Could anything in the world be more absurd than applying to England, Scotland, and Ireland a power of appeal which is applicable to England alone, remembering that the machinery of that power of appeal cannot be extended to Scotland or Ireland in any rational form whatever so as to produce the results the Government desire. Could anything be more absurd than their method of arriving at what they call the annual compensation value by starting with the annual value, capitalising that annual value, and then undoing the process which they have laboriously gone through, and turning the capital value again into a different annual value. I do not believe that in any legislation there could be a more absurd method of taxing any section of His Majesty's subjects than this journey into the wider-ness for the purpose of journeying back again nominally over the same course, but probably over some different course, so as ultimately to arrive at an annual value based upon another annual value which is altogether different. In the whole history of fiscal legislation there never was so grotesque a method adopted. Will anybody pretend—have the Government itself pretended in the course of these Debates?—that this Clause provides a just method of arriving at the sums on which licence holders in this country are to be taxed? They have not even pretended that is so. They are, in regard to the vast majority of the licences in England and Scotland, starting a plan based on the annual rateable value. They have distinctly told us that it is unjust; they have admitted it is unjust. They have told us that in London

    1167
    the assessment is up to the level of the true rateable values. They have told us it is the same in Scotland. They have added it is not the same in the great part of provincial England. Therefore you are going to bring in a Bill which taxes the great mass of licence holders in London and in Scotland on the one hand, but in other parts of England you are going to proceed nominally on the same plan, although really on a different one. I do not care which plan you say is just. They cannot both be just. By the admission of the Government themselves, the system on which the licences in May are going to be taxed—a system which they acknowledge to be unjust—will not right itself. It will require new legislation to right it. It is going to put all licences on a system which they think is a better system—a system based on the annual compensation value. But that is admittedly unjust and indefensible. Yet, although it is so, under their scheme the Government mean to get nine-tenths of the money which they are going to squeeze out of this particular interest until some new Bill is brought in by some subsequent Government—possibly it may be the same Government, possibly it may be another. The scheme is indefensible, yet by it you are going to squeeze out of existence a considerable proportion of those who are taxed. I do not see how this is to be justified. But let us take the alternative. When this new legislation comes in, when either this Government or some subsequent Government extends the proposal of this Bill and places all licences upon the basis of what they call the annual compensation value, arrived at in the absurd manner I have referred to, is that going to be just? I do not know whether the Prime Minister was here when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Herbert Samuel) made a speech the other day, in reply to an hon. Member, who pointed out that, under this plan, people were being taxed who ought not to be taxed. The Government themselves admitted that they ought not to be taxed on the goodwill, on something which is not taxed under rateable value—something which is beyond and outside that—something which is of the nature of goodwill, although it may not include everything in goodwill. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster admitted that that was unjust, and said that though it might be unjust in itself, it might not be unfair as
    1168
    between different members of the trade. He said if the growth of the tax was found to be too high, it would be too high for everybody, but the tax would be properly and equally distributed between the different members of the trade. That was the defence of the Government for a new and more perfect scheme, which is substituted for an imperfect and unjust scheme, which is the one on which the taxation is to be levied until the new legislation comes into force. I think that is most erroneous and most unfair, because it is all very well to say that it is equal as between the various members of the trade, but you must bear in mind that if you say a man's taxable property is worth so much, and it really is less, it is no defence to say that, after all, other people's property is also rated at too high a value for taxing purposes. It is an unjust position and it puts a man who is in this trade into a wrong position with, regard to other members of the community. It puts him in an invidious and unjust position, which I think is wholly indefensible.
    But let us turn from that to the last commentary that I shall trouble the Committee with upon this Clause. It has been pointed out by my Friends, in the course of this Debate, that you are turning all the machinery of this Bill into the machinery of Commissioners and valuations, to which every citizen is to be subjected in a measure never dreamed of by previous Administrations. You are going to turn all this machinery on to the members of this trade in particular, not for the purpose of raising taxation at all—you are going to have a valuation, which may not be costly, but which will be inconvenient, and a valuation carried on under penalties—you are going to apply that to a great body of the taxable community, whom you are not going to tax under this Bill, and in whose case you need no valuation at all. You are going to put into this Budget a Valuation Bill which you admit is for another Budget. Was ever such a thing perpetrated? Is this another way of carrying out that Finance Bill, which should deal with finance alone? The greater number of the provisions are provisions tacked on to this Bill without having anything whatever to do with recent finance, or with the finance of this year, or the finance of any year. There are provisions in this Budget Bill which can have no effect and no operation until this or some other Chancellor brings

    1169
    in a new Bill, and extending the provisions as to valuation to the classes whom it is not proposed to tax is an absolutely novel proceeding. It is indefensible and has not been contained in any other scheme I have ever heard of.
    If you confined your valuation to the hotels and to the licensed premises over £500 in value, your plan would, indeed, have been subject to criticism, but it would be relevant to the finance of the year—it would be relevant to the money which you are going to raise under this Bill. The proposals which the Government are making have no reference to that, and it is contended by their authors that they have no relevancy to the money to be raised, either in this year or any other year, and by their own admissions they require another Bill to make them operative. That is by the admission of the Government, and that will be as much "tacking" as any Bill I ever heard of and upon which that particular criticism has ever been passed. I think this Clause is almost a masterpiece in its absurdity, in its injustice, and in its indefensible character. In the opinion of the framers of the Clause it has an effect that is irrelevant to the whole of the other clauses of the Bill, and this makes it almost unique in our financial legislation. We have had many speeches, not, indeed, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been taking a little needful repose, but from the Chancellor of the Duchy, who has been left in charge of this unfortunate measure. That right hon. Gentleman has never attempted in one of the speeches he has made to meet the particular criticism to the particular difficulties which I ventured to press in some of the few words which I addressed to the Committee. I shall certainly divide against the Clause, which, I think, reaches the high-water mark of ineptitude and injustice in this matter.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall follow the right hon. Gentleman's example in one respect, that is, I shall be very brief, because I think after the very long discussion which this Clause has received it is time we came to a decision upon it. I should be the last person to fail in admiration of the dialectical resources of the right hon. Gentleman, or to accuse him of repetition; but I do not think it is the first time that we have had a description to the effect that a clause of this Bill has reached the height of injustice and absurdity. The right hon. Gentleman told us
    1170
    just now, I think, that this Clause was a masterpiece, that it is unique in the history of our legislation, and I tremble as to what epithets still remain in his copious vocabulary when there are 30 clauses of the Bill which are open to the same argument. Now we have reached only Clause 30 we are told that it is the masterpiece. [An HON. MEMBER: "Up to now."] Perhaps that is the explanation. Very well, we will wait and see, but in the meantime let me very briefly say what I can in answer to the specific charges of the right hon. Gentleman. His charge of absurdity against this Clause is based, first of all, on the fact that it applied to Scotland and Ireland, and then on the method of dealing with the problem of decentralising the annual value of the public-house. I should have thought that the first of these objections would not have bulked very largely in the right hon. Gentleman's, mind, but, after all, we have simply taken the machinery and the definition of which he is the author, and that he himself is responsible for, and which he himself applied to our licensing system, in so far as-the circumstances are analagous. We apply it for a particular purpose, we apply it in so far, and only in so far, as the circumstances are analagous, to the solution of a similar problem in the sister Kingdom. As to the decentralisation and the proceeding which the Clause contemplates in that respect, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is necessary under the law, as at present authoritatively interpreted, to take a liberal number of years' purchase to the different factors in the licensed premises as compared with the same premises without the licence. Any-body who has read the Kennedy judgment knows that you do take a certain number of years' purchase, and it is simply a problem of multiplying the factor—which may be in dispute, but when you have arrived at that factor—of multiplying it by a generally ascertained and universally admitted multiple.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is it not the fact that it is the annual factor which you have to come to, and therefore why you have to go back is what we do not understand?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, there are two factors, the rent and the trade, and one multiplies that in order to arrive at the compensation value of the premises licensed. That is quite a minor point, which is really only a point of the machinery of the Clause. You multiply it by different multiples to arrive, at the com-

    1171
    pensation value of the premises licensed, as compared with them unlicensed. But when the right hon. Gentleman comes to the more serious part of his charge, that this Clause is a unique monument of injustice, let us see on what basis that accusation rests. In the first place, he says, that as regards the current year you perpetuate, you continue the tax upon a valuation, which you yourselves admit that you know to be inaccurate and unjust. In a sense that is no doubt perfectly true. We do think that the annual rateable value is not a satisfactory basis on which to found your Licensing Duties, but it is a basis which has existed in this country for something like 120 years. It has never excited any serious criticism before, certainly it never led to any attempt at reform during the time that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were in office, and when they brought in their Licensing Bill, and really to say because we are continuing for one year longer a system which has been in existence for over 100 years that we are the authors of some new injustice is, in the right hon. Gentleman's own language, a monstrous absurdity. Not only is it not true, but we are merely continuing in this respect what exists already, and we very much mitigate in the present year the injustice of the existing system. Under the existing system, as I pointed out, and there has been no attempt to answer, you are taxing the lower class of the public-houses on this very footing. It may be a little more, or a little less, but it is something like 50 per cent. of their annual rateable value, and nobody has attempted to defend that system on the ground of justice. It is a system on which you take a very large proportion of the rateable value from the lower class of house, and those over £50 in an ascending scale of injustice, escape their fair share of the burden.
    Justice, I know, is a relative thing, and cannot be obtained in a complicated matter of this kind in the course of one year. Admitting that justice is relative, yet, so far as we can, we are trying to bring our system into greater conformity with justice, and I claim that under the provisions of this Clause that is exactly what we have done. Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to attack our alternative. I agree it cannot come into force from the nature of the case, save under exceptional circumstances, in the course of twelve months, but is it not a fair system? I do not understand his criticism
    1172
    upon it. Let me say exactly what it is. We cannot bring it into force at once, but the object of the institution of this register is to ascertain the compensation value of the premises—what is the annual compensation value, of the different licensed premises to which this machinery should be set to work. With regard to the subject value of the licensed premises, we say it should be neither more nor less, and should not differ in dimension or quantity, from the same subject value, for which under the right hon. Gentleman's Act, when the licence is determined the person who owns the licence obtains compensation. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that it is unjust? Where does the injustice come in? If that is the sum a man would receive if his licence came to an end through no fault of his own—a sum which he would receive because in the opinion of an impartial tribunal it represents the difference between the value of the premises licensed and unlicensed—why should not that same sum, translated from a capital to an annual figure, represent the basis on which he should contribute? That is a simple proposition. Where does the injustice come in? The right hon. Gentleman said something about goodwill. The goodwill in the only sense in which it is relevant to an argument of this kind does not enter into the matter at all. In other words, when you are ascertaining the difference between the value of the premises licensed and the same premises unlicensed you would be introducing an immaterial and irrelevant consideration if you took into account the personal efforts, the personal skill, and the personal labour of the licence-holder.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Might I ask this simple question: One of the elements in valuing that sum is the element of profit. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest for a moment that personal goodwill does not enter into profit?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, Mr. Justice Kennedy says so. He says you must not have regard to the personality of the particular licence-holder with whom you are dealing.
    Mr. YOUNGER: You cannot help it, because the turnover depends upon that personality.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am telling the hon. Gentleman what is the law as laid down by the courts. There is no practical difficulty in its application, and, the

    1173
    law being so laid down, anyone who introduces this element of personal goodwill into a valuation of this kind would be violating the law, and he would beet right on appeal. I think I have dealt with all the right hon. Gentleman's points except the last, which seems to me a reminiscence of what we heard some weeks ago under the discussion of the Land Clauses, that we are introducing here machinery which would not be immediately productive, and, therefore, which did not form a proper part of a Finance Bill for the fiscal arrangements for the year. I have dealt with the argument before in relation to other clauses, and I will only repeat now that it is an argument which, pressed to its logical conclusion, is absolutely fatal to the effective control of the House of Commons over the finances of the nation. You cannot through the very nature of things, if you take more than a hand to mouth view of your responsibilities and duties, enter upon the task of effective fiscal legislation without looking forward into the future and considering something more than the prospects of the immediate 12 months which lie before you. The machinery here will be immediately useful, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, for two very important purposes, and the licence holders of public-houses of more than £500 in value will agree with me in welcoming this alteration which is given them now at once. They ought to if they do not. But at any rate that is not the question. The point is that it is capable of being immediately utilised, and it is a concession on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which involves the sacrifice of some hundreds of thousands of pounds of revenue.
    Mr. YOUNGER: That is certainly not the opinion of the traders.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I never knew the traders agree with regard to the numerous indulgences and generosities in our legislation in the last two years, sometimes in our original proposals, but more often perhaps in the form of concessions largely intended to disarm hostility. We have in the hon. Gentleman the mildest man who ever represented a great interest of this kind, and he is always perfectly fair, and, so far, I am sure, as his natural inclinations are not manacled and fettered by other associations, he will agree with me that this is a very generous, and I might almost say, a magnanimous, concession. At any rate, that is the point of view of the relevance and congruity of this
    1174
    machinery to the financial arrangements of the year. It is enough to say, first, that it is immediately utilisable for this purpose, and next that it is an essential preliminary which could not be gone through in a shorter time, laying a more equitable foundation for the whole of your Licence Duties in the future.
    Sir E. CARSON: I am sure the Prime Minister was in his best form in treating the subject as a joke and in speaking of the great benefits he had conferred and was going to confer on the licensing trade. It will be an interesting thing for the licensing trade to-morrow morning, when they hear the views of the Prime Minister, to go back through the legislation attempted by the right hon. Gentleman last year and the legislation he is attempting now, and try to find out what it is that he has so jocularly referred to as being the beneficial concession he proposed to make. As regards this so-called concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we discussed it on Friday and during a portion of this afternoon, and we asked the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give one concrete case illustrate what the concesion was, but we have never got an answer. We asked them, taking for instance the figures in the Kennedy judgment compared with the valuation of the premises, "Do, in Heaven's name, tell us what will be the difference, upon the assumption of those figures, which were real figures, between the valuation as it at present stands and the valuation as it would stand when you have worked out this miraculous sum in which you are to ascertain what is the annual value of the compensation fixed under the Act of 1904?"
    We have defied the Government over and over again to tell us in pounds, shillings and pence what is the difference. We are now discussing, and, no doubt, going to pass the Clause by the majority which the right hon. Gentleman possesses, and down to the present moment we have been unable to ascertain what ought to be the simple figures, and still the Prime Minister, with that good humour which characterises him in all these discussions when he is conscious that he is carrying out a vindictive policy, goes on and says, "This is a great concession"; but, he says, "Really, Gentlemen, while it is a great concession neither I nor any of my colleagues nor any of our subordinates at the Treasury have really been able to work out in figures what the concession is and what will be the result of it to the trade." It is idle to talk, under these circumstances, of whether

    1175
    it is a concession or not. I do not myself know whether it is a concession. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always sure about everything. When he says the proportion of the drink to the other matter consumed in the hotel is a third, or a half, or more or less it is all equally fair, and he is equally sure to be right. This is a matter that I am trying to work out, and I have not been able to work it out, and I do not know how you are going to work out the particular sum, which you have to work out before you can get at the figure that is necessary to make any comparison between the valuation and the method that you are going to adopt under the so-called concession, contained in the second Sub-section. The matter of valuation which was referred to by my right hon. Friend was disposed of by the Prime Minister in the same airy fashion, if I may say so. I have lost count since this Budget has been under discussion of the number of valuations that are going to take place. I really do not know how many there are, but I think the number will be enormous. It is admitted that the incidence of taxation on the present method of taxing on valuation is unfair in many cases. The Prime Minister says, "That is a matter that has been going on for 150 years, and why complain of if now? It makes a great difference if you are to pay 10 per cent. on the valuation of 150 per cent. The Prime Minister seems to think that the grievance is the same no matter what the magnitude of the amount you have to pay. It is the amount that constitutes the grievance, and the right hon. Gentleman leaves out of consideration the burden that is to be put on the taxpayer. You sure making a new valuation under the first Sub-section. How are you to ascertain the valuation required under that Section? This necessitates in the ease of every licensed house in the Kingdom a revaluation, because you will have to go into the figures and ascertain what has been allowed as a reduction for rating purposes, and what money has been expended on House licences. I do not see how that is to be ascertained, and I do not suppose that anybody knows. It seems to me that if you have to go through forms of that kind you will have a very difficult matter to inquire into as regards every public-house in the Kingdom. That is a process which must involve a certain amount of expense to every licence holder, and that is to be over in a year. While that matter is going on—and here another
    1176
    hardship comes in—the licence holder is at the same time confronted with the second valuation. The Revenue authorities will come down and make inquiries, about his trade, and they will go through all the procedure as if the licence was to be taken away. That will necessitate the employment of professional men. All that is to be done, although nothing is to be based upon it; nothing is to come to the-revenue. We have never got the slightest information as to what this system of valuation and registration is to cost the country, or what it is going to cost the trade which you are taxing. The truth of the matter is that the Government approached this. Bill originally, as they approach it in the-country in their speeches, by pretending that everybody concerned in it is a duke.
    It does not matter, it is only dukes who are concerned, and they go on piling up these expenses as if they were dealing solely with millionaires. When they go down to the country they always pretend that it is a matter affecting dukes and brewers, and all the vast sham and pretence goes on in the country. But another sham and pretence goes on in this House. You are dealing here with a large number of people who in the first place hold small interests, and when you talk about brewers you leave out of account the fact that there are thousands of shareholders in breweries, and you treat them all as if they were millionaires. No justification has or can be shown by the Government for this Clause. If you are determined to put on these duties, you have not in the slightest degree improved the position by anything you mean to enact by this Clause. You are putting people to expense in relation to a matter which cannot affect the revenue this year. Looked at from the constitutional point of view, or in any other way, you are inflicting gross hardship on the parties who come within the purview of this Section. It is certainly a Section we are bound to protest against as well as we can, even though our numbers are small in the House. When the proposal comes to be understood in the country, it will be resented by all those on whom these burdens will fall.
    Mr. H. BELLOC: I think it will not be-without advantage in this Debate if I present to the Committee a concrete case-which comes in perfectly good faith from a man who has always supported Liberal principles. I think when I put the case it will not be without effect. It will, of course, be entirely without effect on the

    1177
    voting on either side. The argument of the Government is that when anything in the nature of monopoly is created by the State, the State has the right to have the value of that monopoly restored to it. That is a very sound democratic principle as old as human society. I could wish that in this English society it were generally applied. I wonder why this particular monopoly should have been chosen when so many have been left untouched. But there is a principle universal also in all human society, which is this. When you recover for the community the value of a monopoly you will recover it by such degrees that it shall not have the effect of confiscation, against the particular individual. Monopolies, even the most unjust monopolies, when they pass over a certain period of time, acquire in the ordinary morals and in the ordinary conventions of citizens of the State the force of property. If, indeed, the argument is you are to confiscate, I could say to you that there are many things which you had better begin to confiscate before you begin to confiscate property of this sort, property so divided, which has been regarded as absolute property by so many thousands of people. There is the one formula, which is a simple one, by which monopoly can be recovered. It should be recovered by the difference of credit obtainable by the community as compared with the individual. It is that which governs the purchase of Irish land, and it is that which always governs in any just state of society the recovery of a monopoly from the individual for the State. The State can borrow money more cheaply than a private individual, and on the difference between this credit and the credit of the private individual depends your power of repurchasing private monopoly for the public use. That is the formula which always obtains if justice prevails. The Prime Minister, in his reply to the Leader of the Opposition, pointed out that we were not committing an injustice if we passed this series of laws, and this Clause in particular, with the principles underlying it, because we were obtaining what the Leader of the Opposition himself had on previous occasions claimed for the State, the monopoly value.
    And now I will give the concrete case of which I have spoken in my Constituency. It is a case of one of those men whose cases, I confess, to me, with my political principles, and I should imagine to any man of—I use the fatal word "democratic"—sympathy, must appeal. He is
    1178
    a man with a small inherited capital, which he minded well, which he inherited from his father, and which he hopes to leave to his successors. This man has pursued with great decency and success a particular trade, the management of what, I believe, under the peculiar provisions of the Finance Bill cannot be called a hotel. I daresay he sells a decimal too much of liquor as against food; but, at any rate, it is called a hotel; it is used as a hotel, and in every way it is properly conducted. What are you doing with this man? I have the figures. This man is paying £50 compensation duty, a new levy which he had not to pay before the trade was attacked by his friends. He is paying—you will understand why I do not give his name and address—in Income Tax about £30; he is paying in general rates of the premises, and all added together, £137. To those general imposts you are by this Bill in this particular case adding a tax of £237 10s. a year. From that I cannot get away. How can I leave that man, whose father, and his father before him, were Liberals, said who has always constantly supported—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cald-well): These remarks would apply to Clause 29, which has been passed. We have already passed the Clause which raises the tax, and are now dealing only with the method of valuation.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: Is not the hon. Gentleman in order, having regard to the direct object of the valuation, as explained by the Prime Minister and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is to remodel the taxation of these houses?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We have added to the duties under Clause 29, and we are now at Clause 30, which deals with the valuation and the mode of the valuation. Therefore the hon. Gentleman's remarks must be limited to that. I may also say that the hon. Member must take care not to make a second reading speech.
    Sir E. CARSON: On a point of Order. Is not the amount of the levy of the tax affected by the valuation? Will it not depend entirely on what the mode of valuation is?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The speech had reference to the amount of the duties and the effect of the duty. The only question here is the mode of ascertaining the valuation, and that mode of ascertaining the valuation does not raise the question of the amount of the duties.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: With great respect, you again misunderstood what I meant. I quite agree that the rate of the tax was settled by Clause 29, but I submit that while the rate of the tax was settled by Clause 29, the amount of the tax will be, and must naturally be, affected by what you put on the valuation.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: To a certain extent that is so; but you are dealing here with the mode of valuation as affecting the amount, and the remarks should be limited to that.
    Mr. BELLOC: May I ask if two right hon. Gentlemen—one the Leader of the House and the other the Leader of the Opposition—used from the Front bench a particular argument, and if the Prime Minister in particular says, "This is the argument used, and it cannot be replied to," may not I reply to that?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member had been in this House as long as I have been, he would find this, that there is a certain amount of latitude which is generally allowed to the Leader of the House and to the Leader of the Opposition which is not expected in general discussion. That is quite understood.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and possibly some favoured other Members of the House, are permitted to indulge in irrelevance of Debate?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No; but a degree of latitude is allowed them which is not to be followed.
    Mr. BELLOC: I bow to your ruling. I have obtained a very valuable ruling from you. This is not a second reading speech. This is an exposure of the sort of thing of which people complain. As a matter of personal explanation, I say that so far from making a second reading speech, I have spoken as I habitually do, at shorter length than most Members. Since my argument may not be pursued, I will not pursue it. I will not bring forward that concrete case. I will wind up by saying, with regard to this particular Clause 30, that—like so many of its brethren—it is a fatal thing in the Bill so far as democratic sentiment is concerned. I am speaking without party politics entirely. It is one of these things which, to the
    1180
    ordinary voter, will be a stumbling-block. When I see the way in which Debate is treated in these matters, I am not quite certain that this, or those very much more valuable, more drastic, and more just portions of the Budget which we support, can pass into law.
    Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I have no intention of going back, in the matters which have formed a subject of discussion on the Clause; but I do desire to call the attention of the Committee to this fact: That, in my supposition, the Committee is called upon to vote upon this Clause in complete darkness as to the practical effect which it will have. I am dealing with the valuation, which is the subject of this Clause, the sole justification of which has been that it is to be made the basis of fresh taxation. I say nothing about the cost of the valuation either to the taxpayer or to the State, but I should like to-place before the Committee certain figures which have been given to me, and which I have every reason to believe are accurate, as an attempt to show how entirely in the dark we are as to the practical results of the application of this proposal. The figures I have relate to a large concern, an exceptionally powerful and well managed and successful business concern—a brewery company having a large number of houses in the Northern part of England. The annual value of their houses is £86,670. I have also the figures relating to their trade, and I have endeavoured—it must, no doubt, be considerably a matter of estimate, and can only be very approximate—to ascertain how that concern will stand under the new basis to be applied to all licensed houses. Their present duty is something like £17,000 a year. Under the Bill as it stands this concern will have to pay over £43,000 a year. But what will they have to pay under the new basis? I have endeavoured, to ascertain as nearly as I can what they will pay, to get from the gross annual value the approximate annual value. I have deducted one-sixth, which, I think, those familiar with those matters will agree is ample, and which is borne out by the actual facts with regard to these houses. I thus get something over £72,000 a year, and I capitalise that at 18 years, although 20 years is taken to-be the more usual figure. That gives me a total of £1,300,000 as representing the licence value of the premises. I then turn to the trade. The trade is 326,000 barrels a year at 10s. That gives £168,000 a year profit on beer, and I capitalise that

    1181
    at ten years, which gives me £1,680,000. The spirit trade is £10,000 a year, and that capitalised at ten years gives me £100,000. We have got three items. We have the compensation value of £1,300,000 for licensed premises; we have £1,680,000 for the beer trade, and we have £100,000 for the spirit trade, a total of £3,080,000. From that I have to deduct—and this is the most difficult step in the matter—the unlicensed value of the premises. That obviously must be a matter of considerable conjecture; but I think it would be safe if I take one public-house with another, having regard to the fact that the cost of alterations to convert the houses to other purposes would not be more than 50 per cent. of the value which the property bears as licensed property. Any hon. Member can form his own opinion. Estimating that to be about the right amount, I have allowed for the unlicensed value £650,000, and deducting that from the total of over £3,000,000, I get a net total of £2,430,000 a-s the actual lump sum of compensation value. How is that to be dealt with? Here is the process of what the Prime Minister calls decapitalisation. I must confess that to me it is a novel process. We are all very familiar with the converse case of capitalising the annual value; it is the commonest thing in the world. But this process of decapitalisation is one which I do not know whether hon. Members have considered very carefully. I have taken the annual equivalent by the simple process of dividing by 10 and by 20. Divided by 10, and assuming the duty is to be paid on half the annual compensation value—
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Why does the hon. Member make that assumption?
    Mr. SALTER: Quite so. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Why do I make that assumption? What assumption are we to make? One must make some assumption in order to find out what effect this is going to have on a given business concern.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should assume the rate of taxation would be so framed as, in the words of the Government, to impose no substantial increased burden upon the trade.
    Mr. SALTER: It is better to have that stated in the House than nothing. I wish we had it in the Bill, as the hon. and learned Member said. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman rather flinches
    1182
    from these figures. Suppose that it is to be half the annual compensation value, instead of, as at present, half the annual value, that would give, at ten years, art annual duty of £121,500, instead of £17,000, and at twenty years £60,750, instead of what the concern now pays, £17,000. This concern, which is an; exceedingly prosperous and powerful one, is better able to stand the pressure of taxation. In the ordinary course of trade it distributes among its ordinary shareholders 10 per cent., or about £100,000. I confess I should have thought that to a concern which is paying £100, £17 is not unduly light taxation for Licence Duty alone, besides all the other burdens which the trade bears; but upon that basis £17 was altered to £43, and it is to be altered later again to something between £60,000! and £121,000. The first figure would much more than half wipe out the ordinary share payments, and the second figure would obviously obliterate them altogether. The right hon. Gentleman asked why I assume they are going to pay one-half. Why assume anything? That is just my point. We are completely in the dark, the trade is completely in the dark, and whatever may be the ultimate result in practice the system is to be carried out under the guidance of rules which will have the force of statutes, and which will be carried out without appeal to any court.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I greatly regret that we were not favoured with the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister during the whole of the time this Clause has been under discussion. I must certainly pay him this compliment: that every time fair arguments were addressed to him he yielded. I am not decrying his. colleagues on the fact, but they were so-fettered to this Clause that they did not know the intention of the Government, and were not in a position to deal with the Amendments or the arguments brought before the Committee. I greatly regret it, too, because the other Members of the Government thought they were bound, and that they were anchored to the fanatical principles which laid down that this was not a Budget Bill at all, but a Bill for the obliteration of the publicans. I think this is a Bill for raising taxes, and that that is its prime duty. My only anxiety in regard to this matter is this, that the publican should get the same fair play and the same amount of justice as any other member of the community. He is already the-subject-matter of a very large taxation,

    1183
    which this Bill enormously increases, thus decreasing his profits and trade. There are now laid upon him under this Bill, and especially in these Clauses, burdens which no man can exaggerate or can see the length and breadth of. There is a maxim which says, "it is better that the law should be certain than that it should be just," and I think nowhere is that maxim so applicable as to a taxing statute, and this is especially the case in regard to taxation affecting a trade which necessarily, and, perhaps, indeed justly, arouses so many prejudices, because we all know that for generations a body of virtuous men, a body of public-spirited and disinterested men, have in the public interest and in the general interest made this trade the object of constant attack, and this Bill is the spearhead of that attack, and these Clauses represent all that Liberal principles can do in the nature of giving effect to those ideas.
    9.0 P.M.
    Therefore I examined these Clauses, and I tried to find out what is the revenge and what is the vindication of public principle that you are going to exact from the vendor of this particular form of stimulant, and again and again and again we have applied the probe to the principles of this Clause to see if we could discover them. Concrete cases have been given by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter) and the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Belloc). I wish to ask, dealing solely with Ireland, what method of valuation will be proposed or pursued, and what will be the result in each case? We do not in Ireland regard the publican with horror in this way as an individual. He has been with us in all our fights, at the head of the Land League, he is generous in his subscriptions, he is a sound Nationalist, and he is a Liberal, and he fought the Liberal battle in Ireland for a century. Very well, that man is not our enemy, he is our friend; and in addition to that I want to take this case: When he is dying he very often leaves his means for public purposes. I take the case of a man who has just endowed the new University with the value of his public-house, which he has left to trustees. That man—or rather the solicitors on his death—paid Estate or Probate Duty, or whatever it is called, and they paid the Government as the value of this house 9,000 sovereigns. He was a Dublin publican, and I looked at Thom's Directory just now to find out the valuation of this house which will go for education. Since this Budget was brought in that place cannot be sold; it
    1184
    cannot be realised. They tried to put it up to auction, but it was no use, and why? Because of the uncertainty of this taxation and of the burden which it will have to bear. What is that man's valuation for the purposes of trade? You may tell me it is small—it is only £92, and it is small; but what are the Government doing in Dublin just now? They are engaged in a system of revaluation under which the whole of the goodwill and the fact that the Government were paid by the executors £9,000 for those premises will be taken into account. What will that valuation turn out to be now? I dare not give the figure. That valuation will be for the purposes of local rating, and then will come along the new Domesday Book, the Commissioners of Excise with a register as provided in this Bill, and the Commissioner of Valuation. The first thing he will do under the new valuation will be to serve a form on the executors asking how much they paid on the death of the man. He will be told £9,000, and the Commissioner will say, "Oh, Lord, what a plum!" Can anyone imagine the result of the charity, and I venture to say instead of being valued at this £92 it will be valued in future upon hundreds and hundreds of pounds. You may tell me that is just, but remember that is to be done under a Bill which has increased the taxation upon the materials of his business and necessarily diminish their consumption, so that with the diminished trade he is called upon to pay increased taxation. We have been endeavouring for two or three nights to get from the Government what it is that this Irish publican will in future have to take into account which he never had to take into account before. We began by showing that Griffith's valuation included rent, included taxes, included insurance, and included all the other elements which go to local rating, and what a hypothetical tenant would pay. We asked what is the new ingredient under this new valuation that has been created by this Section. The answer we got, I venture to think, is the most astonishing answer ever given by a serious Ministry to inquiring men, namely, that this new Licensing Bill should apply, does not exist in Ireland at all, namely, the right of this man to compensation for disturbance. Was there ever such a thing out of "Alice in Wonderland"? Neither in Ireland nor Scotland was it ever pretended that this new Licensing Bill should apply, and you have given the English publican

    1185
    an endowment, which I venture to say the Irish publican will be only too glad to get, and you are valuing, and necessarily valuing the English publican, upon this new system of endowment, namely, his rights under the Act of 1904, and then you offer to the Irish publican the Barmecidal feast of the right to compensation which does not exist. I say we were well-founded when at the beginning of this Debate we maintained that it was never intended that this Section should apply to Ireland. What is more, I believe that if we could examine and cross-examine the draftsman he would avow that he never intended it. ["No."] Of course I must accept the contradiction; but, if that be so, why did you not deal with the Irish case? Why did you not say that this element of value which exists in England shall not be taken into account in Ireland? Why did you not say that the Irish publican shall have a right of appeal? I do not say that propositions which have been put before the Ministry have not been fairly met; but does not that strengthen my argument when I say that in drafting the Clause you never thought there was such a country as Ireland? Why did you give the English publican the right of compensation under the Act of 1904? You gave it for the purposes; of abolition. You said to each of these publicans, "The law provides that you shall be abolished, that you shall be paid off." But with regard to Ireland, it was admitted in every court to which the principle was taken that the Irish publican had an absolute right of renewal, and that he could not be put to death on payment of compensation as the English publican can. The English publican is, so to speak, under Mr. Gladstone's Land Act of 1870; lie can be evicted, but he must be compensated; whereas the Irish publican is, so to speak, under the Gladstone Act of 1881; his licence cannot be put an end to except for misconduct. How will the wizards at, I suppose, Somerset House, who are dealing with England and valuing English public-houses on this basis, be able to say that as regards Ireland such a method of valuation can be fairly applied?
    Let me remind the House that the amount of the Englishman's compensation is arived at only after litigation. The English publican is put an end to or evicted on the basis that he will fight in the open courts to ascertain by valuers and judges how much he is to get. But that is not this case. You substitute for a litigated valuation an imaginary valua-
    1186
    tion; and here is one of the elements that is to enter into it. I could understand its entering into a litigated valuation "provided that in the case of a licence holder regard shall be had not only to his legal interest in the premises or trade fixtures, but also to his conduct and the length of time he has been in occupation." For the first time you introduce conduct as an element of valuation. The worse your conduct the less your valuation. All, the rapscallions will get off cheap. The only way I can understand conduct entering into the case is on the question of endorsement. It is not the house that is endorsed, but the licence. I am dealing only with the Irish law. When a new man comes in he comes in clear of the old endorsement. Now, for the first time, he is to be subjected to a method of valuation which takes his conduct into account. Supposing a Government comes into power which desires to enforce the Coercion Act. Men may perhaps be sent; to gaol under that Act, or they may refuse the police refreshments. For the first time you import the political element. As I have said, these publicans have been, to a large extent, the leaders of popular movements, and if a man's conduct is to be taken into consideration in the amount of his valuation you have hit upon a very pretty method for Imperial purposes of fining a man without bringing him into court.
    The only other observation I propose to make is with reference to Belfast. For the purposes of valuation every publican in; Belfast is already paying every shilling that you can extract from him.
    Mr. EDMUND LAMBrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the. Deputy-Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. It would be a great relief to me if his Motion were accepted. Take the case of a, publican sitting at a low rent—say, £50 a year—under a lease, and, perhaps, valued at no more. The Commissioners of valuation may assess him at £200 or £300. That process has been gone through in Belfast. The matter has been taken up to the High Court. Although that man is paying Imperial taxes and local taxes upon that new valuation, you propose, in addition, to establish an Imperial register for the purpose of clapping upon him fresh Imperial taxation. Your instructions to the valuers in Dublin

    1187
    at present are to take this extra element into account. This Clause is most unjust to the licence holders of Ireland. With regard to the Amendment in the first Sub-section, applying Griffith's valuation, its effect has been entirely misunderstood. The first Sub-section only applies publican's valuations to other valuations in the well within the mark that the Amendment did not affect the Clause as a whole is misconceived. It is inapplicable to the circumstances of the country; and
    at a time when you are imposing enormous taxation upon the commodities which these men in Ireland are selling you could not have hit upon a less expedient or a less expedient or a less just moment in which to impose this additional taxation.
    The PRIME MINISTERclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put.
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 83.

    Division No. 607.]

    AYES.

    [9.18 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Gulland, John W.

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

    Agnew, George William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Radford, G. H.

    Alden, Percy

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Allen, Charles P (Stroud)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Harwood, George

    Rees, J. D.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Barnard, E. B.

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Robinson, S.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Beale, W. P.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Beauchamp, E.

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

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rowlands, J.

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

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Hutton, Afred Eddison

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Bethell, T. H. (Essex, Maldon)

    Jardine, Sir J.

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

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Seely, Colonel

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Branch, James

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Bright, J. A.

    Jowett, Michael

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Lambert, George

    Snowden, P.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Lamont, Norman

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Byles, William Pollard

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Summerbell, T.

    Clough, William

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth).

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

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

    Lynch, H. B.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Tomkinson, James

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Toulmin, George

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

    M'Callum, John M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Verney, F. W.

    Crossley, William J.

    Massie, J.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Waring, Walter

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Mond, A.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Waterlow, D. S.

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

    Morse, L. L.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Duckworth, Sir James

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

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Elibank, Master of

    Myer, Horatio

    Wiles, Thomas

    Erskine, David C.

    Nicholls, George

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Findlay, Alexander

    Partington, Oswald

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Winfrey, R.

    Fullerton, Hugh

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

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Glover, Thomas

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Pointer, J.

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Grayson, Albert Victor

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gretton, John

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

    Guinness, Hon, R. (Haggerston)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

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

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Renwick, George

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hills, J. W.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Starkey, John R.

    Cave, George

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, John Browniee

    Winterton, Earl

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Young, Samuel

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Younger, George

    Doughty, Sir George

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Moore, William

    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 84.

    Division No. 608.]

    AYES.

    [9.25 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Agnew, George William

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Alden, Percy

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

    Lambert, George

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

    Lamont, Norman

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dobsen, Thomas W.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Elibank, Master of

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Erskine, David C.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Barker, Sir John

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lupton, Arnold

    Barnard, E. B.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Barnes, G. N.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lynch, H. B.

    Beale, W. P.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

    Glover, Thomas

    M'Callum, John M.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Maddison, Frederick

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

    Gulland, John W.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Massie, J.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Mond, A.

    Branch, James

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Bright, J. A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

    Harwood, George

    Morse, L. L.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Haworth, Arthur A.

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

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Myer, Horatio

    Byles, William Pollard

    Henry, Charles S.

    Nicholls, George

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hogan, Michael

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cleland, J. W.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Clough, William

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Partington, Oswald

    Corbett A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Crossley, William J.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Pointer, J.

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

    Seely, Colonel

    Verney, F. W.

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Radford, G. H.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Waring, Walter

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Rees, J. D.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Watt, Henry A.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Snowden, P.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Robinson, S.

    Summerbell, T.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Winfrey, R.

    Rowlands, J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

    Toulmin, George

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Grayson, Albert Victor

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

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

    Renwick, George

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hills, J. W.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Starkey, John R.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cave, George

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Winterton, Earl

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Young, Samuel

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Younger, George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Doughty, Sir George

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A, Akers-

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Moore, William

    Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Fell, Arthur

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    CLAUSE 31.—(Reduction of Duty in Case of Hotels or Restaurants.)
    (1) Where in the case of any licensed premises which are fully licensed premises structurally adapted to be used for the purpose of the reception of guests and travellers desirous to sleep in the premises, or which are licensed premises structurally adapted for use as a restaurant, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor were in the preceding year less than one-third of the total receipts in that year from the business of all descriptions carried on in the premises, the duty payable under this Act in respect of the licence shall, subject to the minimum provided by this Section, be a reduced duty of an amount double that which bears the
    1192
    same proportion to the full duty payable as the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor bear to the total receipts.
    (2) For the purpose of the calculation of receipts under this Section, the year shall be the year ending the thirty-first day of March or such other day as the Commissioners may fix, either generally or for any area.
    (3) The reduced duty payable under this Section may, at the option of the person by whom the duty is payable (but subject to the minimum provided by this Section), be a duty of thirty-three per cent. on such amount as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue certify to be the annual compensation value of the premises, and those Commissioners shall on the application of any person by whom the duty is payable

    1193
    certify that amount in any case where that amount has not been determined for the purpose of the register to be prepared under this Act.
    (4) The reduced duty payable under this Section shall not be less than one-tenth of the full duty.
    (5) The Commissioners may make regulations for adapting the provisions of this Section to cases where a licence is granted in respect of premises for which such a licence has not previously been in force or where the annual compensation value of the premises has not been certified, and may by those regulations provide for the grant of a licence in cases where they are satisfied that it is probable that the premises for which the licence is granted are premises to which this Section will apply, on a provisional payment of one-third of the full duty, and for adjustment of the duty after the licence has been in force for six months in accordance with the receipts for those six months, or after the annual compensation value has been certified, either by the repayment of any duty which is found to have been paid in excess, or by the recovery as a debt due to His Majesty of any sum by which the amount paid as duty falls short of the amount which is found to be payable.
    (6) The power to obtain a licence on payment of a reduced amount of duty in the case of a six-day licence under the provisions of Section forty-nine of the Licensing Act, 1872, and in the case of an early closing licence under the provisions of Section seven of the Licensing Act, 1874, shall not apply where a reduced duty is payable under this Section; but in cases to which this Section applies, effect shall be given to those provisions by calculating the full duty payable as the amount of that duty reduced in the case of a six-day or early closing licence by one-seventh, and in the case of a licence which is both a six-day and an early closing licence by two-sevenths.
    Mr. CAVEmoved to omit the word "Where" at the beginning of the Clause.
    I want that Amendment to be taken in conjunction with a further Amendment of mine lower down on the Paper, which is intended to leave out from the word "restaurant" the following: "it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor were in the preceding year less than one-third of the total receipts in that year from the business of all descriptions carried on in the premises."
    1194
    The effect of the two Amendments together would be this, that the relief offered to hotels and restaurants by this Clause would apply, not only to those hotels where the drink trade is less than one-third of the whole trade, but to all establishments coming within the meaning of hotels and restaurants. This raises a new question entirely. I do not want to discuss on this Amendment whether the relief offered by the Clause to hotels coming within its scope is sufficient. On that point, of course, there will be differences of opinion. Some of us think that bonâ fide hotels and restaurants ought to be entirely exempt from the increased Licence Duty; others think no doubt that the partial relief offered to them by the Clause as it stands is sufficient, but the point I want to press is you ought to treat all hotels and restaurants on the same principle. If you exempt or relieve only houses just below the line you will do a great deal of injustice. It is far better, instead of taking a purely arbitrary line, to define exactly what you mean by hotels and restaurants, and then exempt all houses coming within that category. Let me put to the Committee how the hardship may arise. Take the case of season hotels. They may have the proper number of rooms, and they may be full of visitors during a part of the year, but during the remainder of the year they may have little more than their small trade in drink, and probably they will come just above the line, that is, their drink trade will come to a little more than the one-third provided for under the Clause. They are bonâ fide establishments, but, for some reason which we cannot check, the amount of their receipts from the sale of liquor is more than one-third. That happens especially with seaside hotels and places where there are seasons and the receipts for lodging and ordinary boarding accommodation continue only during a part of the year. Take the case of the restaurant. I am not an expert, and I do not know exactly what proportion the drink sales bear to the sales as a whole, but I am not surprised to hear that in many of them they are more than one-third, and yet there are places which are bonâ fide restaurants where there is nothing like a bar, where drinking without eating is going on. I am suggesting that these places are entitled to exemption or relief. I suggest that the proper thing is to do what was proposed many years ago, that is, make a special clause for hotels and restaurants. I do not wish to convey that I am of opinion that by

    1195
    the Bill itself hotels are treated more unfairly than the ordinary public-house. I think the injustice proposed to be inflicted upon the ordinary public-house is even more glaring than the harm that may be done to hotels, but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that hotels and restaurants have a special case. Their main business is either to lodge people who are travelling on business, feed people who are engaged in business all day, or to lodge visitors and travellers. They are in no sense establishments for the purpose of supplying drink. They are places where the expenses naturally are very much higher in proportion to the receipts than in the ordinary public-house. Hotel expenses are much higher in proportion, although the net profits on drink are, as a rule, somewhat lower in proportion than in other licensed places. You also have this material consideration: that hotel licences and restaurant licences have no real monopoly. As a rule, in the case of hotels, large sums of money are spent on the equipment in the first instance, and their licences are obtained with far greater ease than is the case with the ordinary public-house. Consequently, there is not really a monopoly in the case of hotel licences in the ordinary sense of the term. I do not think I need argue further the special position of hotels and restaurants, because it is admitted by the Clause itself. I would remind the Committee, however, of the passage which occurs in the Report of the Royal Commission as follows:—
    "We recommend that a separate licence should be issued for hotels having a certain quota of bedrooms for the reception of visitors and no bar accommodation."
    In that case hotels without bare are put upon a separate footing. That, however, is not the distinction drawn by this Clause, and it is not the distinction which I would draw myself. I see in the Clause itself an attempt is made at a definition, and an hotel is said to be "a place structurally adapted to be used, and bonâ fide used, for the purpose of the reception of guests and travellers desirous to sleep upon the premises, or structurally adapted for use, and bonâ fide use, as a restaurant." I think that definition may probably be held to be sufficient, and if anything more is needed something more must be added to the definition. The only point I am certain is that the line drawn by the Clause does not indicate a just distinction, and as the line is purely arbitrary it must cause in
    1196
    justice. I will not go into special cases. I think we all get letters from persons who give figures in support of their case. I have received some extraordinary letters, especially from small hotel proprietors, where it certainly does appear that the Clause as proposed to be amended by the Government will have the effect that the Licence Duty will take a large proportion of the profits made by the hotels. That is not only true in relation to this Clause, but it is much more generally true of the clauses relating to the ordinary licensed house. In this case the effect will be to make it impossible to get a living out of some of these hotels where a reasonable living is now being made. I do not want to argue now the case of exemption. The point I wish to put is that the relief given ought to be given not only where the drink sale is under One-third of the whole, but it ought to be given on houses which come within the definition of bonâ fide hotels or restaurants.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. And learned Member who has moved this Amendment has limited it very closely to the question of the classes of premises which should be regarded as hotels and restaurants. He has deliberately not raised the question whether the relief given to hotels and restaurants in this Clause is sufficient or not, and in the observations I shall offer I shall follow his example, and I trust this discussion may be limited to this point, and the other point taken separately. We agree, compared with the ordinary public-house, relief should be given to the bonâ fide hotels and restaurants. The only question at issue is whether under this Clause we have included all premises which ought properly to be considered bonâ fide hotels and restaurants. That is the point to which the Committee is now devoting itself. The hon. and learned Member said the right course to pursue is not to draw any hard and fast lines as to the proportion of liquor receipts to the total receipts of an hotel, but to state clearly, not in figures, but in words, what you mean by an hotel. He says his Amendment would affect that, and would be adequate for the purpose. I think the Committee, if it examines the matter closely, will at once see that a definition of that character would introduce a large number of premises which are nothing else but public-houses which have only one or two bedrooms which may occasionally be used for travellers, and which are, in fact, indis-

    1197
    tinguishable from the public-house in the town or village in which they are situated. We all know that the word "hotel" is not a term of art. It may be applied almost to any kind of public-house or any place for the accommodation of travellers. We all know—I hope we have not stayed in one—the railway hotel, which may be found in any village or town built in close proximity to the railway station, but which, in fact, merely does ordinary public-house business, although occasionally, perhaps one or twice in the year, it has as its guest an unfortunate traveller who may have missed his last train. The Amendment would bring in all these premises. I think, therefore, it must necessarily be ruled out.
    The present definition of an hotel found in the Act of 1880 is universally regarded as unsatisfactory, because it includes as hotels only those premises which have public-house bars of less value than £25 per annum. That errs in the other direction. There are premises which are bonâ fide hotels which have bars of more than £25 annual value. Consequently, the Government have been obliged for the purposes of this part of the Bill to arrive at a new basis of distinction between what may be fairly regarded as hotels and restaurants and the ordinary public-house, and we have drawn the line in the case of premises where the annual receipts from alcoholic liquors are less than 33 per cent. of the total receipts. That undoubtedly brings in all the great London hotels, even the Savoy Hotel, which has, of course, a very large restaurant business, and has an exceedingly large sale of highly-priced wines. Even it has a far lower proportion of liquor receipts than 33 per cent., and I think it is about the highest hotel in London. I am not in a position to give the figures, because they have been given the Government in confidence, but the House may accept that statement from me with confidence.
    Then it is said you have omitted the case of seasonal hotels. There are, for example, hotels in the Highlands or at seaside resorts which are unquestionably hotels, properly understood, which would not answer the strictest definition of the term, but which correspond to any colloquial use of the word "hotel." They are outside your definition because, as a matter of fact, their liquor receipts go on all through the year, while their hotel receipts are limited to a few months in the summer, and in the case of seaside hotels perhaps also to a few months in the winter.
    1198
    The case was presented to the Government by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason) and by the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir John Dewar), and other Scotch Members, with special reference to Highland hotels. The case there is undoubtedly a strong one, and ought to be met; but let me point this out. Hotels and public-houses of above £500 annual value are able to claim to be assessed on their compensation value. Therefore, all these hotels which are above £500 annual value—and a very large proportion of them are—would be able to claim to be assessed on their compensation value. They would, nevertheless, be hardly hit by the minimum of £250 in the Schedule. We admit the case should be met, and I would suggest for the consideration of the Committee that Amendments might be inserted in the Schedule to the effect that where premises are structurally adapted for use as hotels and are bonâ fide so used, whatever their annual value may be, if it is shown that they have a higher percentage of liquor receipts than 33 per cent. merely because visitors resort to the place where the premises are situated only during certain seasons of the year, and consequently the hotel business cannot be wholly carried on during the whole year, then they shall be entitled to be assessed on their compensation value, and the minimum, instead of being £250, should be £50. That, of course, would be a very large relief in the case of these seasonal hotels, and, I think, if that suggestion is considered by hon. Members especially interested in those hotels between now and the Report stage—I will put the Amendment, if it is generally approved, upon the Paper—they will agree that the undoubtedly hard case of these establishments would be fully met.
    With reference to the restaurants, I understand the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cave) to say there are a large number of restaurants also which have above 33 per cent. liquor receipts. Our information was to the contrary. It was that restaurants which were really bonâ fide restaurants and were not at the same time doing a public-house business on a considerable scale did, as a matter of fact, have less than 33 per cent. liquor business. But only within the last few days one of the leading representatives of the restaurant trade in London has brought me a list of several restaurants which, in our view, are of the character which ought to come within the benefit of this Clause, and which it is

    1199
    stated have more than 33 per cent. liquor receipts. I have endeavoured to check those figures, but the proprietors are mostly holiday-making, and, whilst I have no doubt they would be ready and very glad to give the Government any information in their power, the information is not at the moment available. Consequently, I cannot really say the Government have ascertained that their first view is incorrect, and that there is any considerable proportion or more than one or two restaurants which do a trade of more than 33 per cent. in liquor. But I would say, if and when it is shown there are restaurants which are generally regarded as bonâ fide restaurants that have a proportion of more than 33 per cent., undoubtedly that percentage must be altered in the Bill, for we have no desire to charge an establishment of the character of the Holborn Restaurant a Licence Duty which the hon. Member for the Holborn Division (Mr. J. F. Remnant) estimated would be £5,000 per annum. If it can be shown the Bill would have that effect, then necessarily the percentage in the Bill must be altered in order to take that restaurant out of the category of public-house business and bring it within the benefit of this Clause. I think I have met most of the points raised by the hon. and learned Member without going into the question whether the relief is adequate or not. I think it will be seen the Government are really desirous of giving the benefits, which it will be shown are very real benefits, to all hotels which are genuine hotels and all restaurants which are genuine restaurants.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I quite recognise the courteous tone of the speech just made, and I feel that the Government have addressed themselves to mitigating some of the hardships which would undoubtedly be involved in the Clause as it stands. But still I hold that the test of the ratio of liquor profits to the rest of the profits of the hotel is not the best test. I think the really best test is to be found in the words of the Clause moved by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave). The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Samuel) took first the case of the small railway hotels, which virtually are public-houses, and which perhaps, once or twice a year, give shelter to some benighted traveller, and he suggested that these would not come within the definition put forward by my ton, and learned Friend. I think that is
    1200
    quite unfounded. They would be licensed premises, it is true, structurally adapted to be used for the purpose of receiving guests and travellers, but they would not be bonâ fide used for that purpose. The real test whether a house is an hotel or a public-house is in the bonâ fide use of it for the reception of guests and travellers, and if its percentage of profits from liquor is more than one-third, it is not really relevant, and it becomes clearly an arbitrary matter. I think one might put in favour of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment the temperance point of view that supposing the proprietor of one of these houses sells his food cheaply, he is in that way supporting temperance purposes, and it is advisable that in that case he should have his premises regarded as intended for the reception of guests and travellers. If the food is made cheaper and the liquor is made dearer, then the ratio of the food towards the liquor decreases, and I submit, therefore, that this arbitrary test is not advisable in such a case; otherwise it would be exemption in the one case and non-exemption in the other. Then mention has been made of the meritorious case of seasonal hotels. I think there is no better or more true representative of the old-fashioned inn than that which is to be found in Scotland. It would be monstrous if in these cases the liquor profits which, by reason of the fact that they are open all the year round, are larger than the seasonal hotel profits, should make them subject to a greater burden under this Act. Some alleviations have been proposed by the-right hon. Gentleman, but without trespassing on the further ground I submit that there is a case for the total exemption of these houses. The scheme of the Clause as regards these is bad, and really would not be in favour of temperance. But really the true way of dealing with this subject would be, I should suggest, to accept the ratio of liquor profit to other profits as the basis of the tax. Your ideal should be that every keeper of licensed premises should endeavour to use his house for the purposes or. refreshment as a place where the working man may go and enjoy himself, and take his wife and children to enjoy themselves. It would be far better if you had that ideal, which I am sure is a true one. You would encourage it by making proportionate reductions in every case which show that the receipts of the house were mainly from the other purposes than-the sale of alcohol. I am certain that

    1201
    would be the best social measure to propose for reform—you would encourage it by your method of taxation, and put a premium on houses which are used really as houses for guests.
    10.0 P.M.
    Earl WINTERTON: It is obvious that the arguments used in Debates on other portions of this Bill by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the ordinary public-house cannot be used against this Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave), because, if it does not have reference to the public-house that is mainly a drinking house, it has reference to those houses in which decent rest and accommodation is provided for visitors staying on the premises over the night. Therefore, the arguments which have been used against defining them as public-houses in this part of the Bill cannot be used against this particular Amendment. I do not say the arguments are bad, but in order to justify the opposition to the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend you must bring forward fresh arguments. I venture to press upon the Government that if this Amendment is not accepted there will be a real discouragement to those innkeepers in the country districts and villages who wish to provide proper accommodation for guests who desire to stay in the village. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover-square (Mr. Lyttelton), has just said should be heeded by the Committee. Surely in these days, when everyone desires to see accommodation in country districts improved, and to see American and foreign tourists come in increasing numbers to this country, it is a very serious thing that anything should be done to discourage innkeepers from providing proper accommodation. If you put small hotels under the same conditions as you put ordinary drinking-houses it will be undesirable. I admit fully that there are some bad public-houses, and you are, it seems to me, putting a premium upon them and a direct discouragement upon the man who desires to provide decent accommodation in his house for visitors. The right hon. Gentleman, in his singularly unconvincing speech, said the case of the hotel was already safeguarded, but I would say that the case stands in exactly the opposite way, and that the interests of the decent inn is not safeguarded. The difficulty foreseen by the right hon. Gentleman, that houses which are mainly drinking bars would
    1202
    come under the definition of this Clause if a change was made, was really an absolutely absurd one. I do not see the slightest advantage which the so-called, drinking bar would get under the operation of the Clause, and I really was unable to understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by his reference to these railway hotels, which he says are only used for an occasional couple of guests in the course of the year. He seemed to be quite unaware of the fact that the small railway hotel, especially in these days of universal cycling and motoring, does a considerable amount of trade in the summer, and, indeed, at all times of the year, and the suggestion that there is anywhere in the country a railway hotel which only twice a year puts up commercial travellers is absurd. I think the manager or the occupier of any hotel in any country towns would be very indignant if he heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I know the hotel belonging to the railway company. I was referring to the public-house.
    Earl WINTERTON: The interruption is-quite unnecessary. I fully realised that the right hon. Gentleman was referring not to the hotel owned by the railway company but to the hotel which is called a railway hotel, and which I say in nine cases out of ten is used for the reception of guests, both commercial persons and tourists, during the greater part of the year. Nothing is more absurd than the suggestion that these hotels are merely drinking shops, and under the Clause as it stands hardship will be done to this small class of hotel. I therefore hope that the Committee will pause before passing the Clause as it stands, because you cannot use the same argument against small and bonâ fide hotels as you can use against the public-houses. I should like to hear some further argument from the supporters of the Government on this point, as I am convinced that great injury will be done to the bonâ fide small hotels.
    Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: I am sure there is no one on this side who wishes to harass the bonâ fide country hotel. We do not wish to shut them up, but would like to encourage them in making good provision for man and beast. I quite agree with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and may I give my own experience in one of these little country hotels. I went to one near the railway station to-get some refreshment, and saw the land-

    1203
    lady with a mug of beer in her hands, and she said, "I think you will do very well if you go across the road to the confectioner's." This little bonâ fide public hotel did not look very inviting, and I took her advice, and went across the way. I think that is one of the hotels which the right hon. Gentleman objects to, and which came under his condemnation just now. There are a number of these hotels where a gentleman may come once now and again to sleep, and as in my case for refreshment. He may get it of an inferior character, or he may be refused as was my experience.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot help thinking that when the hon. Gentleman went into the hotel he has mistaken the attitude of the landlady, who said, "This is really a gentleman; he is not accustomed to my class of business, and so I will refer him to where he will get well served," and she did so out of the kindness of her heart. Without going beyond the terms of this Amendment, I want to say one word about the class of hotel which would be caught by the provisions of this Clause as it stands, and which have not been referred to, but which, I think, ought not to be caught. I mean the second or third-class hotel in our large cities and towns. I wish to deal with a few hotels I am aware of in the city of Manchester. Practically all the hotels are collected in the Central Division. I have had very careful details prepared. The whole of the facts relating to them and the whole of their accounts have been placed at my disposal, and I want to call attention to three bonâ fide hotels, which I will call D, F, and G. They are not in any sense drinking houses. D pays a yearly rent of £450, and has accommodation for 14 sleeping visitors. F pays £550 a year, and has accommodation for 40 guests; and G pays £600 a year and has accommodation for 60 guests, and in each case more than 33 per cent. of their total takings are for drink. D takes 50 per cent., G takes 60 per cent., and F takes 50 per cent. It is accounted for in this way. The larger hotels in London are inhabited by husband, wife and family, and there you necessarily find the proportion of the receipts from liquor is not so great as in the case of purely commercial hotels, inhabited principally by commercial travellers alone. These three hotels in Manchester are what may be called entirely commercial hotels, and they are, to
    1204
    a certain extent, season hotels also. They are full on Tuesday, and partially full on. Wednesday and Thursday, and these are the only days of the week when there is any real business done. Commercial travellers do not bring wife and family with them. A man may be expected to drink a larger portion of his hotel expenditure than a wife or family does. Therefore, I suggest that is the real reason why the takings of this particular class of hotels show a larger proportion of receipts for liquor than 33 per cent.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Have they bars?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not been into them. I am not sure they have not, but I will make inquiries. The proprietors have assured me they are bonâ fide hotels, and there must be hundreds of thousands of similar hotels in the commercial centres in many of which a proportion of 33 per cent. will not be fair and will create a hardship in addition to the other hardships inflicted under the Bill. I shall, therefore, support the Amendment.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The case of the ordinary inn, say in a market town, seems to me to be a much more cogent case than the so-called railway hotel. During a certain part of the year its receipts would probably be mainly due to the tourist traffic, but during the rest of the year a larger proportion than 33 per cent. of the receipts would come from the sale of intoxicating drink, and it is very hard that that hotel should not be subject to the reduction which is proposed by the Clause. I think the right hon. Gentleman was referring to hotels and restaurants in the large cities when he said it was difficult to get figures at present because so many were away on holidays; but this does not apply to these hotels of which I am speaking, and theirs is a very genuine case. There is no doubt that this particular form of inn I am referring to is a very great advantage in the neighbouhood, and especially in market towns. It is mostly in these inns where farmers' dinners take place on market days, and they are really of such importance to the neighbourhood that they should not be subject to this valuation. They very often cater for various functions which take place in the neighbourhood. A very usual practice is not to make much profit out of the sale of victuals, but to make it entirely from the sale of drink. I hope in considering this Clause the right hon. Gentleman will have regard not only

    1205
    to those hotels and restaurants to which the attention of the Committee has been chiefly directed, but also to those places for which, although there may be a bar, there is general need, and which cater for quite a different class of customers.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has promised an Amendment in regard to the country hotels. I wish he had done it some time ago, for some of my Constituents have been suffering a considerable deal of misery during the last three months. Apropos of the question I raised the other day, I may state that I have received a letter from a gentleman whose case has been rankling in my mind. He had a lease for 15 years, and there were five years still to run. He has been trying to see how he could get rid of the lease. That shows that the original terms proposed in the Bill would have been destructive to him. Under the 1904 Act licence holders have to pay a heavier sum than formerly; in some cases 10 or 20 times more. I think that is another question we will have to deal with when we come to it. Whether the change now proposed will satisfy the country hotel-keepers or not I do not know, but it will go a long way in that direction. I will communicate with some of them, and I may be able to tell my right hon. Friend before long whether it will meet their views. In any case, the Highland hotels should not be subjected to this valuation. The case I have referred to is that of a most beautiful hotel, where people go to enjoy themselves. How are they to do that if you destroy the hotel? There will be no place for them to go at all. In regard to the figure which is going to be charged, that will be dealt with later on, and I reserve my opinion as regards hotels generally. I have only to thank my right hon. Friend for his promised Amendment, and I hope it will be satisfactory.
    Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: I can heartily endorse what has been said as to the importance of encouraging hotels in parts of Scotland which are perhaps not so frequented by our own countrymen as they should be. I am sure that if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench really considered this matter, so far from putting any obstacle or extra taxation in the way of hotels in their own country every facility would be given for hotels to be planted in every one of the Interesting and beautiful spots in this land. It would be far better certainly from the economic point of view that people should
    1206
    spend their spare cash in visiting the beautiful health resorts of their own country than in taking their extra shillings and pounds, and spending at Ostend, Deauville, and other Continental resorts where there are other attractions which perhaps a more enlightened Government allows than are allowed at home. However that may be, I have received several communications from my own constituency on the question of hotels, not in the Highlands of Scotland, but on the shores of our beautiful ocean. There are in my constituency large numbers of seaside resorts which are much frequented, not by the millionaires and the rich people of this country, but by artisans and wage earners, and they look forward very much to their holiday. No doubt they receive very great benefits from their visit with their families to the seaside. In order to provide accommodation for these people a considerable number of enterprising men have added to the inns, and built accommodation for these people, and they do not charge high prices for the short season of the year. I maintain that those men have built those additions and those inns, and provided accommodation for our artisans by these seaside resorts always under the idea that they are going to pay the £20 licence for hotels. On those grounds they have made large additions, and provided most useful accommodation which I am certain are appreciated by many of our hard working artisans who visit the seaside. Under the Clause as it stands I feel perfectly certain that many of those hotels will suffer a very grievous loss. I have here a letter from one of these gentlemen who has erected one of these excellent cheap hotels and, as he says, considering the fact that the season at the seaside places is very short indeed, probably owing to the lamentably wet summer we have experienced, it would only amount to four or five weeks altogether, it is perfectly impossible for those hotels to come within this limit of 30 per cent., and it simply means that many of those places will have to close. It is perfectly certain that it will be a most serious thing to the man who has invested his money on the understanding that the Government of the country would act in good faith, and, what is still more serious, it will mean that that seaside place will suffer, and also at the same time that the accommodation which is now provided at cheap rates for our artisans and our families at seaside resorts must in future be reduced to much smaller proportions.

    1207
    I, therefore, think that it is a most disastrous thing that this Bill should aim a blow of this description at hotels, and I do most sincerely hope that, even at the eleventh hour, the Government will see fit to pursue a more enlightened policy and encourage the building of hotels which afford accommodation to the poorer classes rather than throw obstacles in the way of our artisan population leaving the cities and enjoying the beauty spots and health resorts of the United Kingdom. I am perfectly certain that the Government will make a great mistake if they do not pursue a more enlightened policy instead of inflicting hardship on these establishments and depriving many people of this country of the means of health and reasonable recreation.
    Mr. BELLOC: I wish to ask a question on the Amendment, the answer to which from the Treasury Bench will no doubt influence my vote. It seems to me that the hotel, if properly conducted, is a place where a person can easily put up. It seems to me that ancient character of the hotel is a very important matter to consider. The question to which I want an answer is why this limit of 33.3 is chosen in the case of hotels.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The figure was chosen after examining the accounts of a considerable number of places of this kind, and it was found to be the most reasonable and well below the limit.
    Mr. BELLOC: On whose judgment?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not a question of judgment, but of arithmetic.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not doubt the arithmetic of the right hon. Gentleman or of his advisers, but I would like to know what are the specimens of hotels whose accounts have been examined. The right hon. Gentleman evidently has his whole interest attached to restaurants and important hotels. We are not now discussing, as I understand it, restaurants and hotels, or, at all events, the main subject of our discussion is not the great London question, or the great London hotels. That is a very important point, which will come on later. The real interest of this Debate turns, not on restaurants, where you get costly cooking and costly liquor. The interest of this Debate turns on the
    1208
    small public-house and the small inn, of which you can say that on certain occasions, or at certain times of the year, it may be on certain days of the week, this, hotel or inn, these licensed premises, are chiefly served in the interests, no doubt, of those who want refreshment. On other days of the week, or at other times of the year, the very same licensed premises give honest hotel accommodation to travellers passing through the village. That is a difficult and critical case, and I cannot imagine a worse way of dealing with it than the way the Government have chosen. They have chosen a fraction which was put roughly by the right hon. Gentleman, and with greater refinement by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Belloc). The essence of it is that you take arbitrarily a third, and you say that on one side of that third the place is a common drinking shop, and on the other side it is a place where travellers receive hospitality and refreshment. That is a perfectly preposterous way of dealing with the question. You cannot lay down these fine divisions in cases of this sort.
    To begin with, I should think that a mere manipulation, not a fraudulent manipulation, of the accounts would have transferred any inn on the edge from one category to the other. I do not know much about these things, and I do not speak as an expert, but I understand that in the London clubs and great London hotels they can alter their charges on a certain number of articles. They can charge more for lodgings and less for liquor, or more for the liquor and less for the lodgings. It is a mere question of the way they keep their accounts. Does not that alone, if it is true, and I believe it to be true, condemn these refined fractions of 33.3? It makes the whole thing really absurd to introduce this. I imagine that the interest of everybody here would be that in the relatively small village or small town where there were two licensed premises, that they would like to give a certain advantage always to the licensed premises which not only sold liquor but occasionally afforded such accommodation as was required by the passing traveller. Under this clan you really discourage the one in favour of the other. That is a disadvantage from many points of view. It is a disadvantage from the point of view that the licensed premises which are providing for what custom there may be in the way of passing travellers, be they

    1209
    Cyclists of motorists or walking tourists, that such public-houses are sure to be well conducted. They have got everything to gain by good character. They have got to make themselves attractive to the people who would not be attracted to any thing in the shape of the lower type of public-house. You are not going to give any help to them; you are going to make it difficult for them. They have got to have larger premises, with a larger rateable value, with a larger service in their premises, to see that they are properly equipped to serve such travellers as pass, as against those other licensed premises which have none of those exceptional expenses.
    I think, under those circumstances, you ought to give the benefit of the, doubt to the house bonâ fide deserving to be ranked among those which give accommodation. You cannot do it under the plan you have adopted. It is arbitrary, it is absurd, it can be evaded by all those houses which are really on the edge or margin, on one side or the other. I venture to suggest the proposal of my hon. Friend, which simply lays it down to apply to houses bonâ fide used for that purpose. I admit the question cannot be defined in an Act of Parliament, but which has characteristics which a plain man can understand, and which the courts of law are perfectly capable of dealing with. That is far more likely to lead to a satisfactory result, which, I am convinced, both sides of the House and all Members of the Committee equally desire, than if you attempt these arbitrary mathematical divisions, which can, only lead to abuse on one side of the line and to a feeling of bitter hardship on the part of those licensed premises which are on the other. For those reasons I do ask the Government to reconsider their policy in this if they are to carry out their own view, or what I believe to be their own view, and to deal with practical difficulty in a statesmanlike fashion, and not in that didatic manner which they have endeavoured to introduce into the framework of their Clause.
    Mr. F. W. VERNEY: I desire to add a word in defence of the properly conducted small inn, which has been described as being of real use, and is, I think, a decided encouragement to temperance in many parts of the country, and I know such places. I have in my hand a letter written by the owner of an inn not near a station, but on the market place of a small
    1210
    town. He points out, I think perfectly truly, that if the onus of proof is upon the landlord of the inn, he will have a very difficult job indeed, if he is honest, in sending in his return. He says:—
    "Unless I can show that my takings for alcohol are not one-third of my gross takings, it will go very hard with me indeed. It is impossible for me to keep an extra clerk or person to put down every drink that is sold, because for many periods of the day there is no trade in drink, and then what little comes is altogether over in a few minutes. Mine is a very mixed business, neither part of which is enough to keep the whole place going. I am assessed at £100 gross per annum; I have a hotel licence, £20, and pay £6 13s. 4d. towards compensation. Trade has gradually been declining for the last 10 or 15 years in this market town, and I shall have ruin staring me in the face unless my case is fairly considered."
    I believe that Members on this side of the House are quite as anxious as Gentlemen on the other to deal fairly with hotel-keepers who conduct their business on orderly lines. Having that belief, I am not the least afraid to read this letter. There is every reason for Members on this side as well as Members on the other to bring these oases to the knowledge of the authorities in order that every fair-minded man in the House may give them his consideration. I will read further:—
    "My house has been mortgaged for several years past, and, if I was called upon to pay up the mortgage at once, I am afraid I should have very little chance of getting the same money on the house again, although there has never been a complaint made against it for three generations—grandfather, father and son. I cannot think that it is the intention of any Government to smash up and ruin the proprietors of any respectable country hotel"
    I have mentioned that inn, which I know personally, and have often visited myself, so that I can quote it with absolute confidence, not in the least caring from which side of the House cheers are raised. I think that fairness towards everybody is, after all, the best policy. I look upon these small country hotels, which are constantly encouraging passengers either by motor car or bicycle, or those who are walking through the country knapsack on back, as absolutely favourable to the cause of temperance. On that account I join with those who have made an appeal for fair treatment.
    Mr. G. A. GIBBS: I would like to say one word on behalf of the country inns and hotels mentioned by the last speaker. A great majority of these have been built for a great many years, have accommodation for visitors, and are constantly putting up commercial travellers. There is considerable competition amongst them to get a living, and if you are going to increase

    1211
    the duties, these and others will disappear. Some of these places are put up often by the landowner to attract people to their particular part of the country. These inns are only inhabited during a small portion of the year; their returns are extremely small, and must largely come from the sale of alcoholic liquors.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 111.

    Division No. 609.]

    AYES.

    [10.50 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Radford, G. H.

    Agnew, George William

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Alden, Percy

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rees, J. D.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Barker, Sir John

    Henry, Charles S.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Robinson, S.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Beale, W. P.

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

    Rcch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Balfour Robert (Lanark)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hudson, Walter

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rowlands, J.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Branch, James

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swancea)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Bright, J. A.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Seely, Colonel

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jowett, F. W.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Lambert, George

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Byles, William Pollard

    Lamont, Norman

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Clough, William

    Lupton, Arnold

    Summerbell, T.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Lynch, H. B.

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

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Toulmin, George

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

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Verney, F. W.

    Crossley, William J.

    Massie, J.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Waring, Walter

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Mond, A.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Waterlow, D. S.

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Watt, Henry A.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Morse, L. L.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Elibank, Master of

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Erskine, David C.

    Myer, Horatio

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Nicholls, George

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Nussey, Sir Willans

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

    Findlay, Alexander

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Partington, Oswald

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

    Winfrey, R.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Glover, Thomas

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Gulland, John W.

    Pointer, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fell, Arthur

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Oddy, John James

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

    Gretton, John

    Percy, Earl

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Baring, Capt. Hon. (Winchester)

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Renton, Leslie

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Renwick, George

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall).

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hills, J. W.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kerry, Earl of

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Keswick, William

    Starkey, John R.

    Cave, George

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Clive, Percy Archer

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

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Winterton, Earl

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, George

    Doughty, Sir George

    Moore, William

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morpeth, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Newdegate, F. A.

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

    Question put, "That the word 'Where' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 114.

    Division No. 610.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Clough, William

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Agnew, George William

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Alden, Percy

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

    Henry, Charles S.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Cotton, Sir H. S.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Crossley, William J.

    Hogan, Michael

    Barker, Sir John

    Daiziel, Sir James Henry

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Barnard, E. B.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

    Barnes, G. N.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

    Hudson, Walter

    Beale, W. P.

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

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Beauchamp, E.

    Dobson, Thos. W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Elibank, Master of

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Erskine, David C.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Branch, James

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Bright, J. A.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Jowett, F. W.

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Falconer, James

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Findlay, Alexander

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Lambert, George

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lamont, Norman

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Byles, William Pollard

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Glover, Thomas

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Gulland, John W.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Lloyd-George; Rt. Hon. David

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Cleland, J. W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Radford, G. H.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Lynch, H. B.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Summerbell, T.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Rees, J. D.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Tomkinson, James

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Toulmin, George

    Massie, J.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Robinson, S.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Mond, A.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Waring, Walter

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Morrell, Philip

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Morse, L. L.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Watt, Henry A.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Rowlands, J.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

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

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Myer, Horatio

    Schwann, Sir C. E, (Manchester)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Nicholls, George

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

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Seely, Colonel

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Nussey, Sir Wallans

    Shaw. Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

    Nuttall, Harry

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

    Partington, Oswald

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

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

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Philips, Col. Sir Ivor (Southampton)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Winfrey, R.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Pointer, J

    Soares, Ernest J.

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

    Stanger, H. Y.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

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

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

    Oddy, John James

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fell, Arthur

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Percy, Earl

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Renton, Leslie

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Renwick, George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Belloc, Hilare Joseph Peter R.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hills, J. W.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Salter, Arthur Claveil

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Campbell Rt. Hon. T. H. M.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kerry, Earl of

    Starkey, John R.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Keswick, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Clive, Percy Archer

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clyde J. Avon

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Verney, F. W.

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Craig Captain James (Down, E.)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Winterton, Earl

    Dickson, (Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

    Moore, William

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Doughty, Sir George

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Younger, George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Newdegate, F. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Cave and Mr. Lane-Fox.

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

    Mr. G. A. GIBBSmoved, in Sub-section (1), in the first line of the Clause after "any" ["licensed premises"], to insert the word "on."
    At the present moment the Clause refers only to houses which are fully licensed,
    1216
    and later on I have an Amendment down to leave out the succeeding words to this Amendment "fully licensed premises." I do not see why the Clause should only apply to these houses and not to houses and hotels which have merely beer and wine

    1217
    licences. For these, at present, there is a fixed charge, and the abatements are certainly necessary. In the County of London, according to a County Council return, there are 11 bonâ fide hotels and 75 bonâ fide restaurants which have only beer or beer and wine licences. In the City of London there are 33 restaurants and one hotel in the same position. We have some in Bristol of the same kind, and I am sure that in other big provincial towns there are like cases. I think the right hon. Gentleman will wish to accept my Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Let me explain that, as far as restaurants are concerned, they may have a beer or wine licence only to enable them to come in under the Clause, because the words "fully licensed" do not appear in connection with restaurants. We were not aware that any bonâ fide hotels had only restaurant licences. No hotels within our knowledge come within the limits of this Clause which are not fully licensed, but if the right hon. Member can give me any specific instance of an hotel which has only a wine or beer licence I can promise him the matter will receive sympathetic consideration.
    Earl WINTERTON: There are, as I understand, in London alone, eleven hotels which have only a beer or wine licence and not a full licence, and one in the City of London. I believe there are also cases of smaller houses in different parts of the country, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put down an Amendment, because otherwise I think great injustice would be done.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: In Ireland we have a large number of licences of hotels, which have been granted on the distinct understanding that they shall not have a bar, but they have ten bedrooms for the accommodation of travellers. I do not think that anyone can say that an hotel which cannot have a bar, though it is fully licensed, stands in point of equipment with fully licensed premises. I will not ask the right hon. Gentleman to decide the point finally, but I would ask him to draw a distinction between hotels licensed under the Act of 1902 in Ireland, and which are prohibited from having a bar, and other houses. They are fully licensed for the sale of drink on the premises, but they cannot sell drink in a bar, and the tendency in some of the Irish reports is for some of the judges, though not all, not to regard them as fully licensed houses. It seems to
    1218
    me to treat an hotel which cannot have a bar, and one which can, on the same basis, is not quite fair. The Act of 1880 speaks of the bar as structurally separated from the house, but under the Irish system that is impossible as the house is an entity. I know that some of the hotels which are deprived of this accommodation do take out a publican's licence, and the Excise authorities have laid it down that there is no such thing as an hotel licence, and they say there is only the publican's licence and you cannot distinguish between them. I respectfully submit to the Government that the case of these hotels deserves some consideration. I know the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that he does not intend to interfere with hotels, and let me say that in Ireland the question of hotel keeping is a very important one, because we want good hotels, especially in tourist districts, and they should be encouraged instead of weighing them down with taxes. They ought to be encouraged to start in these backward places. The provision I spoke of is contained in the II. Edward the VII., chapter 18, Section 2, and it provides that an hotel should be a house containing at least ten rooms, set apart and used exclusively for the sleeping accommodation of travellers and having no public bar for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The right hon. Gentleman, in answering the argument of the hon. and learned Member above the Gangway, said that we all know these railway hotels where you have the unfortunate commercial traveller, who has been benighted and who is given a shakedown for the night. I agree with him; that is not an hotel in the true sense of the word, but we ought to have some consideration for the class of hotel to which I have referred. I only ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the Question.
    Mr. GIBBS: If the right hon. Gentleman will say he will consider the matter, I will withdraw.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly I will consider.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. YOUNGERmoved in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "which are fully licensed premises" ["Where in the case of licensed premises which are fully licensed premises"].
    There is no such thing known to the law as a fully licensed house, and if one looks at Clause 38, one finds that "The expression 'fully licensed premises' means

    1219
    premises to which a publican's licence is attached." I cannot for the life of me see why the words should be in at all, and I do not think they are necessary. Surely it does not matter whether an hotel has a beer licence or an ordinary spirit licence. It ought to receive this privilege just as much in the one case as in the other. The words are not applicable to Scotland, and under these circumstances I think they ought to be taken out.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know that the hon. Member has given any very strong reasons for objecting to these particular words. They are very carefully defined in the definition Clause, and, as defined, are certainly applicable to Scotland for a publican's licence, meaning an on-licence to be taken out by a retailer of spirits will be perfectly well understood in Scotland. It is a common thing for one part of a Clause to contain language which is applicable to South Britain and needing another Clause to apply it to North Britain.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman is quite justified when he answers part of the case by saying the expression "value of the licensed premises" is defined in the definition Clause. That is so, but that is the formal point only of my hon. Friend's observation. Whether the premises are fully licensed within the meaning of the definition Clause, or whether they are not fully licensed, the substantial point remains, do they or do they not comply with the grounds, which are the operative part of this Clause, that you have put forward as sufficient to entitle the house to claim the privileges which are given. The policy of the Clause, of course, is to give to houses which are not merely public-houses, but which attain to a certain standard in entertainment, as distinguished from mere drinking, an advantage in the matter of duties which is not possessed by houses which do not enjoy the same amenities. What in the name of common sense does it matter if the house answers the description of a hotel and the standard which you yourselves have proposed in order to arrive at the definition of a hotel if it has got its bedrooms and its restaurant and its accommodation, whether it is fully licensed or not? The whole principle of the Clause is equally satisfied whether it is fully licensed or not, and unless the Committee is going to lose itself in a side issue they must accept the Amendment.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I must appeal to the Government. The case set forward seems to be absolutely unanswerable, and no attempt has been made to answer it. The test of whether a hotel should receive the exemptions which the Government have admitted it should receive is whether it is bonâ fide used as a hotel. What on earth has it to do with that question whether the house is fully licensed or has only a wine or a beer licence?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the right hon. Gentleman attaches importance to it, it is purely a drafting Amendment, I have no objection to leaving out the words "fully licensed premises." The words "which are" must remain.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: To leave out the words "fully licensed premises."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, after the word "use" ["licensed premises structurally adapted for use as a restaurant"], to insert the words "and bonâ fide used."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I must protest against the introduction of sensationalism into drafting. You have "to be used" and "bonâ fide used." It is a three-volume novel of a Budget Bill. Why not say "to be used bonâ fide," and not "to be used" and "bonâ fide used"?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The words are "structurally adapted for use and bonâ fide used."
    Mr. G. A. GIBBSmoved to leave out the words "one-third" ['less than one-third'], and to insert instead thereof the words "one-half."
    Having settled that there should be a fraction we now start to settle what the fraction should be. There is a very great number of licences which are for hotels that give accommodation throughout the year to a number of people who could not afford to go to big hotels and also to a number of people like commercial travellers who have to be continually travelling. I believe that if the Government pass this Clause as it stands they will rope into their net 90 per cent. of this sort of hotels and restaurants to which

    1221
    I refer. So I think that the Government would be very well advised to accept this Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words pro-
    posed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 107.

    Division No. 611.]

    AYES.

    [11.30 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Radford, G. H.

    Agnew, George William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighshire)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Barker, Sir John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Robinson, S.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hogan, Michael

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Barnes, G. N.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Beale, W. P.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rowlands, J.

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

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Branch, James.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

    Bright, J. A.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Seely, Colonel

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Lambert, George

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Byles, William Pollard

    Lamont, Norman

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Summerbell, T.

    Clough, William

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Cobbold, Folix Thornley

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, L.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lynch, H. B. (Yorks, W. R., Ripon)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Tomkinson, James

    Cooper, G. J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Toulmin, George

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Verney, F. W.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Walsh, Stephen

    Crossley, William J.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Waring, Walter

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Massie, J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Mond, A.

    Waterlow, D. S.

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

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Worrell, Philip

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Morse, L. L.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

    Wiles, Thomas

    Elibank, Master of

    Myer, Horatio

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Erskine, David C.

    Nicholls, George

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Falconer, James

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

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

    Findlay, Alexander

    Parker, James, (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Partington, Oswald

    Winfrey, R.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Glover, Thomas

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Gulland, John W.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

    NOES.

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

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

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Banner John S. Harmood-

    Bull, Sir William James

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Baring, Capt Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Reuton, Leslie

    Cave, George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Renwick, George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Keswick, William

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Clyde, James Avon

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Starkey, John R.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Moore, William

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Fell, Arthur

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Whitbread, Howard

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Newdegate, F. A. N.

    Wilioughby de Eresby, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Oddy, John James

    Winterton, Earl

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Younger, George

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Percy, Earl

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    George Gibbs and Mr. Goulding.

    Healy, T. M. (Louth, North)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Mr. LANE-FOXmoved, in Sub-section (1), to omit the words "premises, the duty payable under this Act in respect of the licence shall, subject to the minimum provided by this Section, be a reduced duty of an amount double that which bears the same proportion to the full duty payable as the receipts for the sale of intoxicating liquor bear to the total receipts," and to insert instead thereof the words "such premises shall be exempt from the duties specified in the First Schedule, and shall be charged according to the rates of duty heretofore applicable to licensed premises."
    The object of this Amendment is to exempt genuine hotels. I cannot see that there is any fairness in charging on the rateable value of such hotels. It is obviously a wrong principle to rate that class of institution upon its sale of liquor, because it is only incidental and not part of the complete business of the running of the hotel. I contend that in those cases there is no real monopoly value. Such hotels which are "structurally adapted to be used" and restaurants so adapted are on a totally different basis to the ordinary public-house. The reason that is constantly given for taxing licensed premises in this way, and putting these heavy taxes and duties upon them, is that they are undesirable in the neighbourhood and do not improve their surroundings. As regards the large London hotels, hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot possibly say that.
    When the National Liberal Club wanted a secluded spot of undoubted respectability
    1224
    where it could lay its innocent head, at went under the shadow of the great hotels of Northumberland Avenue, and there it has lived a life of—shall I say—borrowed respectability for a very considerable time. So that hon. Members opposite cannot say that the neighbourhood of hotels detracts from the respectability of the place. When the City of Leeds was being improved, two public-houses in the neighbourhood of the Queen's Hotel, which were doing a considerable trade, were put an end to, but the sale of liquor in the Queen's Hotel was not increased at all. That proved that these large commercial railway hotels, common all over the country, are not fulfilling the same purpose as the ordinary public-house. The object of the Government is said to be to tax the monopoly value. In this case there is not the same monopoly value to be taxed in at all the same way. It has been stated over and over again that the monopoly value has been willingly paid by these large new hotels since the last Licensing Act. I have a letter from the promoter of the Waldorf Hotel, in which he declares that it was not until building operations had been carried to such a length that they could not be gone back upon that the County Council insisted upon a value of £1,000 a year from them, and it was paid under those circumstances. I do not know whether that is an accurate statement of the facts, but that is the statement handed to me, and I am told that the same sort of thing has occurred in connection with other hotels. Under this Clause these hotels are to be taxed on at

    1225
    least one-third of their annual value. One needs to be a very accomplished mathematician to work out the scales which the Government propose, and the task is increased by the difficulty of obtaining correct figures from those who will pay the tax. Naturally those engaged in the business do not wish all the details to be made public unless they know exactly how they are to be affected. If one knows the annual value of an hotel, he can easily work out the minimum; and comparing that with the actual figures where hotels have allowed them to be looked into, one can see what an enormous duty is to be imposed. I will give two or three instances which I am allowed to quote. The Midland Grand Hotel, Manchester, under this Bill, will have to pay a minimum of £500; but under the two alternative schemes suggested by the Government, it will have to pay either £1,920 or £1,250, or, on the more favourable basis, two-and-a-half times the minimum.
    The minimum in the case of the Savoy Hotel is £840, and in the case of the Piccadilly Hotel would have been £800; of the Westminster Palace Hotel, £206; Morley's small hotel, in Trafalgar Square—certainly not to be considered a drinking shop in any sense—£90; and upon the Midland Grand Hotel, Manchester, £500. It shows the enormous minimum duty that will have to be paid. I could multiply the number of examples. If the tax is not justified as a tax upon the monopoly value then it must be justified from the fact that these hotels are rich and prosperous, and therefore able to pay the tax. That is disproved by the fact that the London hotels in the past year, I am told, have not paid on the average more than 4½ per cent. The new duties suggested will do much to destroy a great many of the hotels not only in London, but in the country, and destroy some of those that are most valuable for the promotion of the trade and commerce of this country. Something has been said about the objection of the Government to the exemption of some of the railway hotels. I venture to think that the railway hotels supply a most necessary link in the chain of commerce, and every Bill that goes in the direction of destroying or putting an end to them will deal a very severe blow at the trade and commerce of the country. To revert to the question of the chain of Midland Railway Hotels, whereas the present payment is only £300, they will have to pay in the future either £4,500 under one scale, or
    1226
    £2,500 under the other. On the most favourable basis these hotels will have to pay ten times as much as at the present time.
    I do not believe there is a single man in the House who really considers that hotel proprietors ought to pay as much as ten times on the most favourable basis. In Paris, Berlin—I am afraid I have no figures for Frankfort—the principal towns of France and Germany, it is generally agreed that hotels should be encouraged. They do not pay these heavy duties: on the contrary they pay a nominal duty. Towards Imperial and local purposes they will have to pay less than under this new taxation similar hotels will have to pay here for licence duty alone. It must be obvious that if we want to encourage foreign guests and visitors to come here, and to develop our seaside places and health resorts, we shall have to act accordingly. May I give another instance. The Adelphi Hotel, Liverpool, contemplated a large addition to meet the traffic from the United States which, from lack of accommodation, was in danger of being diverted to Southampton and Cherbourg. I am told now, owing to this anticipated additional duty, that these alterations cannot possibly be done; therefore, that chance of attracting visitors will be gone. Foreign hotels and restaurants can very often charge a higher price for their food and wines than the hotels in this country. When the ordinary tripper goes abroad and wants to compare the prices of food in other countries he comes back and tells his constituents the difference between that country and this; but if some of the constituents of hon. Members opposite knew where they got their information—and that some of their investigations were conducted in the "Gay City," of which the President of the Local Government Board spoke the other night—they would be less prepared to give ready credence to their statements about the prices of food and drink abroad as compared with this country. Might I suggest another reason which, perhaps, is not strictly relevant to this Amendment. In the case of restaurants there is the additional hardship in their having to pay this heavy duty because they pay not only as in the case of the public-houses on the supply of intoxicating liquors, but on food and lodging and other things. The duty hits them twice as hard as it does the ordinary public-house, because the public-houses are paying duty merely on their receipts on liquor, whereas the hotels and

    1227
    restaurants pay on the food and liquor and all the other accommodation they provide. I do not really believe the Government intend to destroy the hotels of the country. That is what I believe would be the effect of this Clause unless it is very materially modified. I move this Amendment with the object of raising the whole question. Whether the Government are prepared to grant that these establishments should remain at the present rate of duty is another matter. My contention is that this particular taxation is unduly high and will tend to destroy these hotels and will deal a very great blow to the trade and commerce of this country, and I think the House ought seriously to pause before they pass this Clause.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member has assumed with great force that hotels ought not to be treated on the same footing as public-houses. He has pointed out a variety of differences between the two classes of premises. The whole purpose of this Clause is to make that very necessary distinction which is obviously required. We are not treating the hotels on the same basis as public-houses. Now what is the Amendment the hon. Member asks the Committee to accept? He proposes to omit the whole of the new Licence Duty to be imposed upon hotels, and to leave them precisely as they are to-day. Is it seriously proposed by hon. Members opposite that great establishments like the Savoy, with its enormous restaurant business, with its sale of tens of thousands of pounds worth of liquor in the course of a year, should continue to pay the Licence Duty it now pays of £20 per annum, and that hotels like the Metropole and the Cecil should pay only £60 a year, and that the sole contribution of the Midland in Manchester to the State should be £60 per annum? I do not think the proprietors of the hotels themselves, when they discuss these matters, would seriously contend that at a moment when it is necessary in the interests of the State to ask for larger contributions from the nation that this scale of Licence Duty should remain unamended, and I should be surprised if any more authorative voice than that of the hon. Member is raised upon the other side of the House in support of the Amendment now before us.
    Certainly a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord St. Aldwyn—Sir Michael Hicks Beach as he was then—was most
    1228
    emphatic on this point. He said, speaking of the public-house licences, they were unfair, and that there was something else less fair, and that was that the great hotels and music halls had to pay no more than £20 a year Licence Duty, notwithstanding their enormous rents and the enormous amount of liquor they sold. I am really astounded that after a great variety of indefensible Amendments had been laid before the Committee one more indefensible than any of the others should have been laid before the Committee. The figures which have been quoted are by no means terrifying. It is true that the duties to be asked for from some of them are much larger than the £20 which they now pay. I know that in many cases they will pay duties which are higher than the minimum proposed in the Bill, but a minimum is necessary because under the monopoly value certain hotels would get off by paying practically nothing at all. Since the hon. Member has raised the whole question of the scale of duties, perhaps I may be allowed to point out that the Amendments in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a very great difference in that scale. I hold in my hand a copy of the Memorandum sent out by the representatives of hotels and restaurants on the 10th of May last representing most of the chief hotels in the country. Of course, they object to any additional taxation, and they say that certain changes should be made. They suggest that in Sub-section (1) of Clause 31, "thirty-three per cent." should be altered to "forty per cent." for the benefit not of hotels, but of restaurants.
    If it can be shown that genuine restaurants have a proportion of over 33 per cent. we shall consider the suggestion made that the figure should be raised. In Clause 31, Section (1), they ask that the words "double that" should be deleted and that we agree to, and that will mean a great loss to the revenue. Next they ask that after the word "payable" ["payable as receipts "] in Sub-section (1) of Clause 31, the words "on the annual compensation value" should be inserted. That proposal I am not able to understand, because it would not make sense of the Clause. They also suggest that in Sub-section (3) the words "thirty-three per cent." should be altered to "twenty-five per cent.," and that also has been conceded by an Amendment on the Paper. Lastly, they suggested the deletion of the minimum duty of "not less than one-tenth of the full duty." We have not gone so far as the deletion of

    1229
    those words, because that would mean that no duty would be payable or, at any rate, only a duty of shillings in the case of a number of large establishments and, therefore, it is essential to retain a minimum duty. We have, however, reduced it considerably, and we are only charging one-fifteenth. When the Amendments proposed by the Government are taken into consideration and compared with what is asked for by the Committee of the representatives of this industry, it will be seen that the Government has gone a very long way to meet their desires; in fact, they have gone nine-tenths of the way.
    12.0 P.M
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman alluded, I think, a little unnecessarily, to the large number of indefensible Amendments which have been moved from this side of the House, but he might have stated also how large a number put forward by my hon. Friend have been accepted by the Government in order to get rid of the gross absurdities which have been disclosed in the course of the Debates. But I pass from that in order to deal with the Amendment which my hon. Friend has proposed in a speech of very great moderation, marked also by very considerable knowledge of the subject. The whole case raised by my hon. Friend is that the present or proposed duties under this Bill are wholly excessive. It is quite true the form my hon. Friend's Amendment has taken, for reasons which are quite intelligible, is to propose that the new duties proposed by the Government shall not be applied, but nobody, of course, is unaware that what my hon. Friend really desires is to elicit the opinion of the Committee whether or not the actual proposals of the Government are excessive. But the Government have adopted the course they almost invariably pursue in similar cases, and instead of answering what they know is the real charge against them—that they are imposing excessive duties—they deal with the formal point that there shall be no duties at all. What is the case made by my hon. Friend? He says that, taking the hotels at the present time, the proposals of the Government are excessive and exorbitant. My hon. Friend quoted the case of the Midland Grand Hotel at Manchester, as well as one or two others. These immense hotels play a not unimportant part in the life of this country; they enjoy the privilege of offering hospitality to Cabinet Ministers, and the Midland Hotel is well known to many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let us take the case of that
    1230
    hotel. I think the new duty on that will be £1,900.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I demur to that figure.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I think the maximum amount is £1,900, but more probably it will be £1,250. But, whichever sum it be, I submit that the figure, having regard to the present position of our great hotels and the public services they render, is wholly exorbitant. It is hardly necessary to labor this proposition. What is true of the great provincial hotels is equally true of the great London hotels, so that after all the question before us is a very simple one. Is the contribution they are asked to make in a year like the present, and which, in the case of hotels such as I am speaking of, amounts to £1,200 or £1,300, an excessive sum to ask for the necessities of the country? I know of two considerations only by which, in my humble judgment, the Committee can wisely be guided. First, what service, if any, do these great institutions subserve, bearing in mind both their social and their business sides? Secondly, admitting that the business and social purposes served by institutions of this class are very great, are they earning profits on such a scale as to entitle us to make these very large pecuniary requisitions upon them? There was not a single word in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which indicated that he had given the slightest consideration to what are dominant points in this matter. There is no country which, however incomplete its social or business development may be, does not recognise the obligation under which it lies to those by whose enterprise these institutions are established. In Canada, or in any new community, however small as compared with our own cities, you will invariably find one of these great institutions serving as a meeting place for business men and social purposes as well. Therefore, so far from selecting these institutions as subjects of financial attack, you should be careful that those who, very often at great pecuniary risk to themselves and with great uncertainty for the pockets of the shareholders, have undertaken to establish them in the interests of the whole community. On the first point, therefore, there should be complete unanimity. As to the second, I quite conceive it might be said, "True it is that those who have invested their money in establishing these great in

    1231
    stitutions have done good to their fellow citizens, and incidentally also to themselves." But let us see whether the profits they are making are on so large a scale as, while rendering the fullest acknowledgment of public service, we may make a requisition upon them comparable to that contained in this Clause. Anyone who has given the most superficial consideration to this question must be aware that there is hardly a great hotel in England at the present time that is paying more than 5 per cent.
    I am anxious not to state the proposition too widely; there are indeed many hotels which are not paying anything like that. But if I am right in saying that institutions which toy common consent have done public good are hardly paying a commercial rate on the money invested in them what kind of case is made out for this wholly exceptional taxation? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says these figures are not terrifying to him. I do not suppose that the Super Tax is terrifying to a man with only £100 a year, and if one does not happen to be a shareholder in one of these hotels no new incidence of taxation can be specially terrifying to him. The Chancellor of the Duchy might have told the Committee that the new figures were not terrifying to him because he had not invested his money in these hotels. But they are very terrifying indeed to those who have. I have noticed that every argument which has been used hitherto in the country and in this House for increasing the taxation on these hotels has been based on considerations which are applicable only to the ordinary public-house and which do not apply to the case of hotels. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the only case which has ever been made out for maintaining and increasing this burden in the case of hotels depends on the monopoly argument. But no one who has followed the recent development of the controversy on this subject in the country is unaware that, while the whole argument has depended on the monopoly argument, the substraction of the argument disappears the moment you seek to extend it to the case of hotels, because there is no monopoly in his country in the case of big hotels.
    If you established absolute Free Trade to-morrow in England in hotels I do not believe you would add £1 to the value of any single hotel. I think the Chancellor of the Duchy is anxious to quote the case
    1232
    of the Waldorf and to ask why if there is no monopoly value the proprietors should have been willing to pay £1,000 a year in order to obtain the right to sell alcohol. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned this before, but he has omitted to tell the whole story. I may narrate it as it was told me by the person principally concerned. After obtaining provisional encouragement from the Bench to embark upon the expenditure which ultimately culminated in the building of this great hotel, and after he had incurred pecuniary commitments which made it impossible for him to recede, he was approached by the clerk to the justices, who, on the ground that the matter had never been mentioned during the whole preliminary negotiations, and on the ground, too, that a public-house licence of very small value had been suppressed in order that this house might be built, demanded, when all the pecuniary commitments were complete, that this £1,000 should be paid. The proprietors and the shareholders of the Waldorf Hotel have no other choice at all but to pay this money, which is £1,000 a year, but to suggest that this is an argument for saying that persons while the position is not committed in any way are prepared to pay money is not accurate. That statement of facts is an idle statement, and I am prepared to submit this to the judgment of any Member of this House, wherever he sits, who is a member of a licensing bench—has he ever in his experience known of anyone of these big London or Liverpool hotels which ever had its licence refused? If that be so, in the case of these great hotels you have free trade to-day, and the argument based on monopoly disappears.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member was not far wrong, but was not quite right. I was not going to refer only to the Waldorf Hotel. I have a county council return of new licences granted since the Act of 1904 in London, and there are two pages consisting almost entirely of hotels, all of which are paying sums, some very moderate £30 to £50, and many £100, £200, or £300, and all under the Act of 1904 of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the name of monopoly value.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and I intend in a single sentence to take the facts as he states them, and they are that you have, taking London for 12 months, not one case on the scale of the Waldorf Hotel. They were prepared to pay £1,000 a year,

    1233
    and if you take all the hotels in London, of which he has got a return, in one case there is £300 paid and in another £100. They are insignificant and do not begin to start a monopoly value. My case is that in the case of the big hotels there is no such thing as monopoly value, and, as I said, in all these great institutions, the circumstances of which we are considering, there is absolute free trade, and no one figure in the right hon. Gentleman's possession disturbs that. I can only say that I hope we shall hear a more satisfactory and effective definition of the position of the Government than that which the Chancellor of the Duchy has made. I cannot help hoping that the President of the Local Government Board who recently assured us that he knows Paris as well by night as by day, and therefore knows about Parisian hotels, will satisfy the Committee that the charge which is made against him about disloyalty to the Budget is without foundation and that he too has found salvation at even this late stage of the day.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I cannot support the Amendment, though I do not say the present scale cannot be improved. I should not like hotels like the Savoy to go on paying £60 or even £100, while the Waldorf was paying £1,000. The Chancellor of the Duchy said there are two pages of new hotels since the Act of 1904. It seems to me that there is never any opposition to applications for new hotels, so that there is not the same monopoly value attached to them. The site of the hotel to which I refer was granted on a ground lease before there was any talk of monopoly value. It was only supposed then that there was £30 duty to be paid for the old public-house which was going to be pulled down. But the monopoly value was assessed upon the estimated amount of sales. I cannot see for the life of me why a hotel should pay a penny piece more than a club. Will anyone say such a hotel as the Metropole is not of infinitely more value to the citizen than the National Liberal Club or the Constitutional Club? What are they but hotels? Men can belong to them for two guineas and come up to London and stay there. There is more whisky consumed in the National Liberal Club or the Constitutional Club during any night than there is in any of the big hotels in London. What have the clubs done for London compared with the hotels? Thirty years ago when I first came to London there was not a decent hotel in the place.
    1234
    People did not come up from the country and foreigners did not come to London. How could you have had the Franco-British Exhibition in those days. You could not have done it. For the accommodation of the thousands of people who visited that exhibition the large hotels were necessary. They accommodate 400 or 500 people. How could these visitors have been accommodated without the hotels? The clubs could not have given them accommodation. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Embankment."] Most people choose to have a comfortable bed. These hotels are fulfilling an absolutely necessary purpose in this country. This is a highly commercialised country, and people come here from all quarters in pursuit of business objects. The popular supposition is that these hotels make most of their money on drink. It is absolutely untrue. Considering what they have to keep up, the profit on drink is in some cases, at all events, far and away the smallest proportion of their profits. The profit of these hotels is made on room accommodation.
    A great many Americans come over here, but they do not consume alcoholic drink. I can assure the Committee that so far from the proportion of alcoholic drink being one-third, it is not one-seventh. Why should these hotels be charged more than clubs? Are they not doing a greater service to the country than all the clubs put together? An American banker told me that the average remittance to an American who came here with his wife was £1,000. There are millions of money spent in London by foreigners, and but for these hotels they would be bound to go past the place. If it is our object to improve the trade of London, and to make the Metropolis, what it is becoming, one of the most beautiful towns in the world, these hotels, instead of being discouraged, ought to be encouraged. Let me point out that while the hotels were only paying licence duty of £60 it was not a matter of much consequence, but when you raise the duty to anything like £1,000, you put upon them what is equal to an additional capital value of £25,000, and that may effectually stop the finding of the money for these institutions. There are none I know of paying more than a return of 5 per cent. on the capital. Some of them are not paying anything on the ordinary shares; some have difficulty in paying dividend on the preference shares, and the debentures are at a discount. These facts do not show that hotel keeping is such a prosperous trade. Some public-houses are making 20 to 30 per cent.

    1235
    on the capital every year, but there are not many. Why cannot we go in for the simple plan of charging a percentage en the takings? Do not let us forget that compensation value and monopoly value are based on sales. How is monopoly value arrived at? I will tell the Committee. The licensing justices appoint two valuers and they make an estimate as though the hotel had not started. They have no actual figures on which to go.
    They estimate what the hotel will return, how much on alcoholic drinks, how much on rooms and food, and so on, and after a long calculation they estimate the amount of sales and the profit on drink, and then they charge to this profit a proportion of the general expenses of the hotel, and they arrive at a figure which they give to the licensing justices. That, of course, ought to be revised, and will be revised in two or three years. But why should you not go direct to it? Why should you make such a roundabout effort to get what you can get by a straight line? There is not a single hotel in all London of any size which cannot show all its returns for drink on one day. In the hotel to which I refer I can show you the whole of the sales every week, balanced to a shilling. It is necessary to do so with a big hotel. The scope for robbery is so great that you are bound to keep an exact check over every 6d. worth of drink that goes into the place. The consequence is that there is not the slightest difficulty in knowing the exact figures. There is less difficulty than in a club. Why not adopt the same plan? The Government seem to find some difficulty in it where I see none. I will undertake to ascertain the exact figures for the rules of alcoholic drink for every big hotel in London in a fortnight. I submit that we should come back to that simple plan and charge 6d. in the £ on all sales. This would give a very excellent return, and would, I am sure, give satisfaction. As to the monopoly value which was fixed by the Act of 1904, I am bound to say this of my right hon. Friend below me, that his valuation does not come so heavily as the licensing justices monopoly value to which the hon. Member referred as a serious tax.
    The hotel in question under my right hon. Friend's new valuation, so far as I can make out, will come to about £500 or £600. So, after all, if the worst comes to the worst it is not so bad as the monopoly value. But I would appeal to have the
    1236
    monopoly value to the London County Council done away with and all duties paid to the Government. I think that; they might all pay a great deal more, but there is a very great difference between £60 and £600; and if it is too little do not let them err on the side of making it too much. They have had enough work to make it a paying concern, and it is absolutely necessary to encourage them, because in a country which is specially commercialised as ours is, if we desire to maintain our position and to foster friendly relations with other countries, then the more people we can welcome to this country by providing them with substantial and good hotels the better.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: There are a number of very large hotels in my Constituency, and I am anxious to second the appeal made by one of the Government's own supporters that these hotels should be treated with justice and consideration. I am bound to say that the Government have not shown themselves altogether un-teachable in this matter. Hotels were originally placed in this Bill, because they were in the eyes of the Government part of the liquor trade. What I wish to urge upon the Government—and it has been done with some success already—is that the classification is utterly incorrect. The reasons why these crushing burdens are to be placed upon hotels, and the reasons which were in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, were reasons which are applicable to the licensed trade as a whole. They spoke, for instance, of the necessity of severe taxation in the place of the Licensing Bill, with the deliberate intention, as avowed by several Ministers, of crushing out a number of licensed houses. It was done because hon. Gentlemen opposite thought the number of these houses was redundant, that they were a source of public mischief, and that they ought to be reduced. That was the first reason. The second reason was—and it was stated with equal clearness and precision—that the hotels enjoy a monopoly value. These two reasons, which were the basis of the licensing proposals, are wholly inapplicable, I submit, to the hotels of this country. They are not redundant in number, and not even the most fanatical of teetotallers desires to reduce their number. They have not a monopoly value, because, as has been pointed out, no bench of magistrates refuses an hotel licence. When this question was first debated in this House,

    1237
    I challenged any hon. Gentleman opposite to point to a single instance in which a bench of magistrates have refused to licence an hotel of any considerable size. That challenge has never been responded to.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I know of an instance in which application was made thirteen times before a licence was granted.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: It is a pity the hon. and learned Gentleman did not say so before, and I should like to know something about the class of house. So far from their being a source of danger, hotels in London, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, and at seaside places and other resorts, are a public benefit. The result of their presence, such as in the Strand, is splendid business done in the neighbouring thoroughfares, which is a source of profit to the tradesmen. I am informed, and I believe there is no doubt about it at all, they are a great source of attraction to foreigners and to foreign visitors. I am told that the Germans recognise this to such an extent that they are actually offering subsidies to hotels in certain towns by reason of the attraction which has been shown to exist in those towns, and that as a result business transactions are brought to those towns which but for the presence of hotels would not be so brought. If you ruin the hotels by this taxation no doubt you will have the opportunity of showing your repentance by putting them upon the Development Grant. I think that would be a somewhat grotesque process. If they are an attraction to business abroad, if they diffuse wealth and custom about them, if they are not the subjects of monopoly, and if they are, so far from being sources of public mischief and redundant in numbers, sources of public advantage and gain, then how misplaced they are, I venture to say to the Prime Minister, in this connection at all.
    What has been called a taxation on property value is a taxation not really upon monopoly, but a taxation upon the convenience which licences do give to these hotels. It is familiar to those who are brought into this subject that there are very large and beautiful hotels at Brighton and Folkestone where no licence is granted or sought for, and where hotels are equally or, I think, even more fashionable than those that have licences. That proves that the licence is not a source of gain, which it is in the
    1238
    case of the ordinary public-house; and that the utmost you are entitled to charge those proprietors is for the facility and for the convenience which the licence gives to their customers. It is, no doubt, in most cases a convenience that the licence should exist. I do not think I need do more than summarise what I have said. The two great arguments for heavy Licence Duties are the two arguments; which lay at the root of the Licensing Bill of last year, and which lie at the root of this. Those two great reasons are urged by hon. Members opposite as the redundancy and mischief of public-houses, and the monopoly value which attaches to them, from the power of excluding others from dealing in the same commodity. Neither of those two reasons exists in the case of hotels, or could not be pretended to exist. On the contrary, I think I have shown, and those who preceded me better than I have, that so far from being a source of public mischief, they are a source of public wealth worthy not to be discouraged, but to be encouraged.
    The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the speech of my right hon. Friend, I agree with almost every sentence in it. I do not think it has ever been denied that hotels, are a great public convenience, that they have the incidental advantages to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that they promote the amenities of social life, facilitate travel, induce foreigners to come to our shores, and provide a great deal of employment. To all those propositions I, with full conviction, subscribe. But that is not the question before us. No one is really proposing to stop the growth of hotels. The question is, in the first place, are they sufficiently taxed at present? and, in the next place, would they be excessively taxed under the provisions of this Bill? To neither of those questions did the right hon. Gentleman address himself. The Amendment before us proposes that the existing scale of taxation should continue. Not a single speaker supported the Amendment. Everybody admits that to exact a contribution of £20 from a hotel without a bar, and a maximum of £60 from a hotel with a bar is, under existing financial conditions, almost an absurdity. No one has attempted to defend it. That is the only Amendment that the Committee has now to decide upon. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to raise the other question of whether the scale proposed by this Clause was excessive. What is the alternative? The only alternative is

    1239
    that proposed by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson)—a tax on sales. There are many objections to that.
    There are great practical difficulties in carrying it out, and it would certainly have the effect of taxing the goodwill of the hotel-keeper, because the amount of the sales at any given hotel bear at any rate some relation to the personal efforts of the people engaged in carrying it on. That, however, is an incidental point. The point I want to maintain, and one much more germane to the question before the Committee, is that the scale proposed is not excessive. What are we doing? We are giving two alternative forms of taxation to these hotels. The first is that contained in the present Sub-section, namely, a reduced duty bearing the same proportion to the full duty as the receipts from liquor bear to the total receipts. That is, I think a fair and reasonable proposition. We propose, on the other hand, an alternative which will be reduced by the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from 33 to 25 per cent. of the compensation value. It is idle to say that these hotels have not a monopoly value. Everybody admits that it is desirable—I will not say indispensable—for a tenant of this kind to take out a licence. Why? Because taking out a licence adds to the value of the premises.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Not by way of monopoly?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It adds to the value of the premises. My right hon. Friend says: "Not by way of monopoly." In one sense that is true. It depends upon the sense; but in the way in which the word "monopoly" has been used—not quite correctly—in these discussions, it is added monopoly. That it is an added monopoly in the sense in which it is interpreted in the Licensing Act of 1904 is sufficiently proved by the fact not merely of the Waldorf Hotel, which is an exceptional case, but, as has been pointed out, from the fact that the great bulk of hotels which have been licensed in London since the Act of 1904 have had exacted from them, and are paying, annual sums by way of monopoly value. It is clear that the licence does give value to the hotel, and when it is a question of assessing the value of the privilege conferred by the granting of such licence to a new hotel the licensing justices, or the licensing Commissioners of Inland Revenue, exact either an
    1240
    annual sum or a lump sum from the licensee for the privilege so conferred. If that be so, surely I am not using extravagant language, or making an extravagant claim, in saying that this is a sufficient basis upon which to proceed to the alternative Subsection of this Clause and say that if there be such compensation value to take 25 per cent. of it is surely a very moderate contribution for the State to exact. On these grounds I venture to say that in the first place these hotels are paying at present what everybody admits to be an almost extravagantly low sum, and, in the next place, that to impose taxation on the scale proposed is, having regard to the value of the privilege which the licence confers upon them, not in any way excessive or beyond the requirements of the case.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Prime Minister considers that the demand of the Government is not immoderate. But if the right hon. Gentleman considers there are not only to be met the cases of the hotels and restaurants, but the case of another class of buildings, I think he will see that the minimum of 25 per cent. of the compensation value does not exactly meet the case. Because I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that while the Prime Minister has spoken about 25 per cent. of the compensation value, it must not be forgotten that there is going to be indicated in subsequent Amendments of the Government the stipulation that the minimum duty shall be paid. Just consider how that affects another class of property altogether, which falls in the same category—the case of a big block of flats. Take a case that has been mentioned in these Debates, Whitehall Court flats. Their rateable value is something like £24,000. By your Clause the lowest amount of duty which that block can possibly get off with is a thirtieth of the annual value, which is £800, at a minimum computation. If the right hon. Gentleman will make a little inquiry I think he will find I am not over-stating it—that the total sale of liquors in Whitehall Court flats is certainly not more than £2,400 per year. Perceive, you are going to exact a duty of £800 on total sales of £2,400! You exact from the unfortunate proprietors who carry on the undertaking a 33 per cent. duty on their total sales. That is the result of your minimum Clause, of the just, reasonable, and moderate proposals of the Prime Minister! Go round the corner to the National Liberal Club. Compare the duty. I am told that their

    1241
    total sales of liquors are put at £9,000. I think, as a matter of fact, it was £11,000 a year or two ago. The total duty there is £200, something rather less than 2¼ per cent. So that the right hon. Gentleman will see that those proposals which are supposed to be tender and just to all are putting on, in the case of this large club, a liquor duty of about 2¾ per cent., whereas in the case of a commercial undertaking next door the duty which is proposed to be exacted is 33 per cent. I say that is indefensible. When we arrive)
    at the consideration of the minimum amount I hope this question of flats will not escape the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
    The PRIME MINISTERrose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 94.

    Division No. 612.]

    AYES.

    [12.55 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Radford, G. H.

    Agnew, George William

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Alien, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Harwood, George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Rendail, Athelstan

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Barnard, E. B.

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

    Robinson, S.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Beale, W. P.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Rowlands, J.

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Branch, James

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

    Bright, J. A.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Seely, Colonel

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

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Lambert, George

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Lamont, Norman

    Soames, Arthur Weilesley

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Summerbell, T.

    Cleland, J. W

    Lupton, Arnold

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Clough, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Lynch, H. B. (Yorks, W.R., Ripon)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Tomkinson, James

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Cooper, G. J.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Verney, F. W.

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

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

    Walsh, Stephen

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Waring, Walter

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Crossley, William J.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Watt, Henry A.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Mond, A.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Morse, L. L.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Dobson, Thomas W.

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

    Williams, Liewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Myer, Horatio

    Williams, Sir A. O. (Merioneth)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Nicholis, George

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Elibank, Master of

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Erskine, David C.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

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

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Falconer, James

    Partington, Oswald

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

    Glover, Thomas

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Gulland, John W.

    Pointer, Joseph

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

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

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Balcarres, Lord

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Healy, T. M. (Louth, North)

    Renton, Leslie

    Cave, George

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Renwick, George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Keswick, William

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Starkey, John R.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Doughty, Sir George

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Moore, William

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Winterton, Earl

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Younger, George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Gretton, John

    Oddy, John James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Percy, Earl

    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out ['the duty payable under this Act in respect of the licence shall, subject to the minimum provided by this section, be a reduced duty on an amount double that which bears the same propor-
    tion to the full duty payable as the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor bear to the total receipts'] to the word 'subject' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 93.

    Division No. 613.]

    AYES.

    [1.0 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    Lupton, Arnold

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

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Agnew, George William

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lynch, H. B. (Yorks, W. R., Ripon)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Elibank, Master of

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Erskine, David C.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Evans, Sir S. T.

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

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Maddison, Frederick

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Falconer, James

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Barnard, E. B.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Mond, A.

    Beale, W. P.

    Glover, Thomas

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morrell, Philip

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Gulland, John W.

    Morse, L. L.

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Myer, Horatio

    Branch, James

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Nicholls, George

    Bright, J. A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Harwood, George

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Partington, Oswald

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Henry, Charles S.

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

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hogan, Michael

    Pointer, J.

    Clough, William

    Holland, Sir William Henry

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

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Radford, G. H.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

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

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lambert, George

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Crossley, William J.

    Lamont, Norman

    Robinson, S.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Rce, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Rowlands, J.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Seely, Colonel

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Verney, F. W.

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

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Walsh, Stephen

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

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Waring, Walter

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wood, T. McKinnon

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Summerbell, T.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

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

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

    Oddy, John James

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fell, Arthur

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingion)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Percy, Earl

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rerton, Leslie

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Renwick, George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, North)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Helmsiey, Viscount

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Cave, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Starksy, John R.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Keswick, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walker, Col W. H. (Lancashire)

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Winterton, Earl

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Moore, William

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Younger, George

    Doughty, Sir George

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Newdegate, F. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Lane-Fox and Mr. George Gibbs.

    Earl WINTERTON: I move to leave out the words, "subject to the minimum provided by this section."
    The Amendment deals with the question of the minimum amount of duty to be levied, and it is really one of importance. Part of the arguments which might arise in connection with it have been covered already lay the discussion on the last Amendment, but the point has not really been dealt with in a concentrated form. The Prime Minister, in the course of the speech he made on the last Amendment, asked a specific question of those sitting on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks by saying it was not denied that at the present time hotels were not paying a sufficiently large sum of money, and he asked the question whether the Opposition entertained the view that the duty to be paid under this Clause was higher than the hotels ought to bear. It really is with the object of meeting that ques-
    1246
    tion that I have moved my Amendment, and I intend presently to give some figures which I think will be a sufficient answer to the question. I most emphatically assert that, as the clause stands at the present time, an unfair burden will be placed on bonâ fide hotels and restaurants. There is an Amendment down later on in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the amount of the minimum duty which will be payable under the Clause. If the Chancellor's Amendment should be adopted, the duty would work out at one-thirtieth of the annual value, instead of one-twentieth as at the present time.
    Take the case, which I am informed is a very usual case, of an hotel in London which, for the purpose of argument we will call an hôtel de luxe, of a total value of £24,000. Even under the reduced minimum proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that hotel would have to pay a duty of £800. Is it really contended

    1247
    that this enormous duty of £800 upon such an hotel as I have described is a legitimate one? Is it denied that it will seriously damage the trade done by these hotels—not the trade done in liquor, but the trade of the hotel generally? It has been pointed out that the average interest paid by these large hotels is something like 4 or 5 per cent. It may be said further that many hotels in London and elsewhere are paying a very much less percentage, something like 1 or 2 per cent. It is obvious that if some of these hotels now paying a duty of £60 have in the future to pay £800, they will find bankruptcy staring them in the face. I do not think the Amendment proposed will have anything but a very small effect upon the matter. There is another point in connection with this question which has not been answered by the Government. The average hôtel de luxe, with an annual value of £24,000 is going to pay £800. It is going to pay £800 for what? For the monopoly value of selling drink? Nothing of the kind. It has to pay £800 as a hotel, and there is nothing to prevent another man who is fool enough to do so erecting, say, ten hotels in Regent Street similar to the Piccadilly Hotel, for instance. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent him building those hotels and getting a licence. The greatest temperance fanatic in this House would not dare, if he were a member of a licensing board in London, refuse a licence to hotels like the Waldorf or the Piccadilly. It is ridiculous to say that there is any monopoly value in the class of house affected by this Section. It is ridiculous to say that there is any monopoly value of the kind associated with the ordinary public-house. We have had no reply from the Government to this question of the monopoly value.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On a point of order, this is not a question of the minimum duty charged.
    The CHAIRMAN: The question is whether there is to be a minimum or not.
    Earl WINTERTON: Under this Bill as it stands a very large sum of money is being demanded from the owners of large hotels, and what I was arguing was that this large sum of money was being demanded not for monopoly purposes as is contended by the Government, but for something very different. Why is the State demanding such sums as £800 from these large hotel keepers? It has not been denied
    1248
    in the course of the Debate that these large hotels are of the very greatest value to London, and, indeed, to the whole country. They are of the very greatest commercial value apart altogether from their own finances. I do not think it is going too far to say that the existence of these hotels has, in recent years, done more for London than any other circumstances. If it had not been for the large hotels there is not the faintest doubt that one-sixth of the foreign visitors we have had would never have come to this country.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Noble Lord is repeating what has been said over and over again.
    Earl WINTERTON: The matter has not been disposed of; it has not been answered. No reason has been given why this enormous new taxation should be placed upon these hotels. A reason why they should not be subject to such taxation is that they are an enormous convenience to this country. I do not think the effect they have on the country can be exaggerated.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the noble Lord is speaking to the Amendment.
    Earl WINTERTON: What I was trying to show was that the minimum was far too large; that in the case of certain hotels the burden would be so great that they would practically have to shut up shop. What I was trying to point out was that such a state of affairs would be a very disastrous one for the trade and commerce of this country. I do not suppose it would be denied that it is an advantage for rich men to come and spend their money in this country. Even the President of the Board of Trade does not object to rich men coming here so long as they do not draw the sources of wealth from this country. If you pass this Section as it stands you will shut up a great many hotels throughout the country and remove a very great convenience. Not one reason has been given for placing this aggressively large taxation upon these hotels.
    Mr. ARKWRIGHT: I think this is a matter we ought to discuss at reasonable-hours. I do not wish to go again over the ground as to the use of the hotels to this country or anything of that sort, but, apart from the amount of the minimum, which is a conundrum the Government have set us within the last few days by altering the

    1249
    incidence of the minimum, there is quite a large question whether you are adopting a minimum in any case at all. That to my mind is a matter which cannot lightly be dismissed. For the purposes of this Bill, which may be right or may be wrong—and I do think the Government protest too much that this is a fiscal question—this particular scale has been adopted and a reduction has been made in favour of certain houses, inasmuch as they are houses which do not in the first instance, and principally, rely upon their liquor sales. A broad and deep dividing line has been drawn between these houses, and a certain graded scale has been established by which they pay according to the proportion of their liquor sales to their total sales. That is no doubt the intention of the Government, and it is probably a proper intention. Why, in the name of Heaven, not adopt that principle to the whole question? If this is right, why not carry it down to the house that has the smallest amount of liquor sales? Why have this minimum, which is either a hardship or will not affect any houses at all? That brings me to the last question I intend to ask, namely, whether the Chancellor of the Duchy will be good enough to tell us upon what figures and as a result of what calculation he first of all fixed this minimum at what it was, and now proposes to alter it. Evidently there is to be a certain class of house affected by this minimum, or there is not any such class of house in existence at all. If there are certain houses to which this minimum will apply we presume the Government has made a calculation before introducing this big principle. I should like to ask if we may have very briefly the figures and calculations upon which this proposal has been made.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member who has just spoken asks why there should be a minimum at all, seeing that if the principle of percentage of liquor sales is a sound one it should be carried throughout and apply to the houses which have an exceedingly small proportion of liquor sales as well as the others. The hon. Member forgets the hotel keepers will have two options. He may be assessed under the First Sub-section, which relates to annual value, or under the Third Sub-section, which relates to monopoly value; but there are certainly exceptional hotels, in the case of which the difference between the value of the
    1250
    premises licensed and the premises unlicensed is either nil or very nearly nil. There is one well-known hotel in London where that is the case, where the premises would be quite as valuable as flats and without a licence as they are now as a hotel. The effect would be if you frame a minimum that that hotel would get off with less than the £20 Licence Duty it pays to-day.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Why do you not fix as a minimum your existing duties?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: But the existing duty may be too low. The high value of the premises as a building may co-exist with fairly valuable liquor sales, and the present minimum is utterly too low in the case I have in mind and in other similar cases which undoubtedly occur. Therefore there must be a minimum or your duty would disappear altogether in certain cases. The question is, however, whether the minimum proposed in the Bill is excessive, and I did not rise after the Noble Lord sat down because I was anticipating that the hon. Member who has just spoken would have given us some concrete cases of real hardship imposed by this minimum, and the Government is always ready to consider any concrete case of hardship. I do not for a moment pretend that the matter, which is one of importance, should be decided without consideration merely because we have reached half-past one o'clock, but the hon. Member has not given us a single case, and the Noble Lord only gave us one, namely, the average hotel de luxe, which is supposed to have a rateable value of £24,000, and would pay licence duty on the minimum of £800. I believe there are only two hotels in London, the Cecil and the Savoy, with a rateable value of £24,000, and which would pay £800 licence duty, and I do not think that the duty, considering their scale of operations, is very excessive. Another concrete case was given by the hon. Member for Lanark, that of Whitehall Court, in which case he said a very large sum would be paid for licence although the monopoly value is exceedingly small. That is the kind of case the Government would be very ready to consider, and if only hon. Members would give us concrete cases which have not been brought to our notice showing that the minimum scale might press with undue hardship they would undoubtedly be considered with sympathy. It is not necessary to have a relation between the rateable value and the minimum duty. It might be possible

    1251
    to insert a fixed sum of so much and one-thirtieth of the rateable value, whichever is less. I do not ask hon. Members to detain the Committee now as the hour is late, but if they will give any concrete cases I will undertake that they shall be carefully considered, because the Government are anxious not to impose any hardship of this kind.
    Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that in the case of the Savoy and the Cecil he thought £800 was a just sum for them to pay?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman says the Government have never considered such a case as Whitehall Court, nor had it brought to their notice until my hon. Friend spoke a moment ago. I think we suffer a good deal from the system of disjointed management which applies to this Bill. I called attention to a similar case the other day. Whitehall Court was mentioned at a very early stage of our discussion. The specific case was brought forward either on the resolutions or on the second reading. I think it was on the Resolutions. The Chancellor of the Duchy had nothing to do with the Budget at that time, and we cannot blame him for not having been present at that moment and not having known what passed, but it is rather hard that when we come to discuss this Clause now those who were present then are Heaven knows where, and we have new Ministers in charge of the Bill for the first time, who have not attended to the earlier discussions, and so take advantage of the fact that they were absent from those discussions to say that this is a new point which they have never had brought to their notice and could not have considered. Then said the Solicitor-General: "I did attend the earlier discussions." Then why did he not take a note of the point and bring it to the knowledge of his colleague? We have heard of the Admiralty not informing the Cabinet. Does not the Solicitor-General inform the Chancellor of the Duchy? The question was that a particular case was cited in my hearing in this House in an earlier stage of the discussion, and I regret that the Government so conduct their business that they took no note of these points when they were raised a second time on an occasion in the Bill when it becomes important to deal with them. They say they are
    1252
    absolutely new to them, that they are brought up to their surprise, and that they are totally unable to deal with them. What my hon. Friend proposes to do is to omit from this Bill the artificial minimum on a sliding scale which the Government themselves have proposed to create. My hon. Friend the Member for Herefordshire asked "Why do the Government put in a minimum at all?" The answer of the Chancellor was instructive, but I do not think I can say that it was satisfactory. He said: "There is a notable case of a hotel in London which could be conducted with absolutely equal advantage as flats if it abandoned its licence"; and in a later sentence of his speech he said there must be a minimum, because, if not, the duty would disappear in many cases. What does that mean? It means you are going to charge a duty because the hotel has a monopoly value in its licence, whereas in a great number of cases it has no monopoly value. The Chancellor is always instructive, and, if I may say so, he is always well-informed. He knows the case of the Government, and he gives it. But what is the case which he presents? It is a case which destroys every argument which has been urged for this duty since we began the discussion on this Clause.
    There is only one other point to which I wish to draw attention. It is in relation to an aspect which has not been dealt with at all, or, if it has, only slightly dealt with. It is purely fiscal in its effect. If you put on these enormous duties what is going to be the effect? Every man who now takes out a licence will have to ask himself seriously whether it is worth his while to continue to apply for that licence? The case has been already mentioned of hotels which are conducted to all appearances, so far as the knowledge of the guests are concerned, exactly as if they were licensed houses, but without a licence. In one case cited two hotels were referred to within a couple of hundred yards of one another, and there was a third. The third had a licence; the other two had not. Do you have any difficulty in getting liquor in them? Of course not. You cannot get a glass; you have to buy a bottle. Instead of being able to buy four glasses of whisky at nine o'clock you have to take a bottle or none at all. That is the whole difficulty. They do not have a licence; but they send out to somebody who has a licence, to a wine merchant or to a man who has an off-licence, and you order from his list. If

    1253
    you give your order a quarter of an hour before it is required your liquor will be served as well as if there was a licence. Such hotels are not severely affected by the fact of having no licence. In regard to a good many hotels their position will have to be considered, if you force a minimum of this kind; and what I have said is not confined to hotels. We all know the same applies to restaurants. We know of restaurants where you can go in for your meal and where you can get your liquor, but where the proprietor holds no licence. If you enforce this high minimum the proprietors of these restaurants will put to themselves the same question: Is it worth while to be licensed at all? By these duties you may not limit the sale of the liquor, but you will limit the return from the sales. I do not say that you will have reached under this Bill exactly the same state of affairs as in parts of America where the sale of liquor is forbidden, but where the sale of liquor goes on freely.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Where?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Has the hon. Gentleman never discovered that there are places in America under prohibition where the sale of liquor goes on freely?
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I ask for one place.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I can tell the hon. Member if he comes to me after this Debate. I can tell him of three places. I can give him names and circumstances, but I will mention them to the hon. Member privately if he likes to have them. I do not say that there will be that open defiance of the law or open connivance which prevails in America. I do not say there will be that breach of the law, but I say there will be an avoidance of the duties, and therefore from this purely fiscal point of view I say the exaggerated duties which you insist upon by this minimum will have the effect of diminishing licences, and therefore diminishing your tax without diminishing the consumption of the liquor in the establishments concerned.
    Mr. A. FELL: I cannot, as chairman of the Whitehall Court, agree to leave that case in the position in which it stands tonight. Four months ago the matter was brought before this House, when I showed how the new duty would operate so oppressively that the licence would have to be surrendered, as it would be impossible to
    1254
    continue to supply the residents in that block with the alcoholic liquor they desired. The Attorney-General was present at that time and took a note of this case. He replied most sympathetically. I could almost have believed that the Attorney-General was making his reply when the Chancellor of the Duchy gave us the same sympathetic statement. What I complain of is that we get no further.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, since then we have modified the Bill.
    Mr. FELL: Yes, to the extent of one-thirtieth, the figure in the original Bill being one-tenth. The maximum at that time was perfectly preposterous. It would have been £5,000 upon sales of liquor amounting to £2,000 per annum. The Attorney-General promised that the case should be met, but it has not been met in any way. The sales of liquor are really trifling, and the duty ought not to be placed so high.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): The only point involved in the Amendment is the question of a minimum.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the point with which my hon. Friend (Mr. Fell) is dealing.
    Mr. FELL: Even the Amendment of which the Government have given notice places the duty so high in regard to buildings of this kind that it will be quite impossible for them to continue the business under it. I therefore ask the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Solicitor-General if they will not meet the case by way of further amendment. I do not believe they can reduce the minimum much below the one-thirtieth of the annual value, because I know many buildings where it would not be fair. But there are several cases in which the minimum is far in excess of what it would be possible for them to pay, and the only course left to them would be to surrender the licence and to convert themselves into a club and make all the residents members of the club. That would be extremely inconvenient. In this particular case they are paying £53 at the present moment. That is a very fair sum considering the amount of liquor sold. If it is said they should not pay that, then some provision should be made excluding altogether buildings of this character from the operation of the Bill. We shall certainly have to bring the matter up again if we can get nothing beyond sympathetic remarks from two representatives of the Government. I expect that in the Report

    1255
    stage we shall have the same sympathetic remarks and that Whitehall Court will be left in the same position and will have to surrender its licence.
    Mr. JOHN GRETTON: No one has yet said anything in favour of the reconsideration of the minimum in the case of the small country inns and small country hotels in which there is no annual licence value whatever. They form a large number of cases, in which the option allowed under this Clause is of no value whatsoever. I do not know whether it is the policy of the Government to do away with houses of this description. We are all acquainted with the class of house to which I refer—the small country inn, supplying food and drink, and which has on two or three days a week an ordinary at one o'clock, cheap meals being supplied to a few people who drop in.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: What would be the rateable value?
    Mr. GRETTON: Very often it is considerable.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: How much?
    Mr. GRETTON: The profits are very small and there is no annual value in the licence. Very often such places are kept going by the owner of neighbouring property. It is evident that the Government have not adequately considered these cases, and when they give further consideration to this Clause they should look at it not only from the point of view of the hotels in large towns, but also from the point of view of the small eating-houses and small country inns, which are only busy on one or two days in the week and whose chief customers are the commercial traveller and passing wayfarer.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 73.

    Division No. 614.]

    AYES.

    [1.50 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Partington, Oswald

    Agnew, George William

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Harwood, George

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Pointer, J.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hedges, A, Paget

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

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Radford, G. H.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Beale, W. P.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Hogan, Michael

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Branch, James

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bright, J. A.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Robinson, S.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Rowlands, J.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Lambert, George

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Seely, Colonel

    Clough, William

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Cooper, G. J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Crossley, William J.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

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

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

    Summerbell, T.

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Tomkinson, James

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Mond, A.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Elibank, Master of

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Erskine, David C.

    Morrell, Philip

    Verney, F. W.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morse, L. L.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Everett, R. Lacey

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Falconer, J.

    Myer, Horatio

    Waring, Walter

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nicholls, George

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Glover, Thomas

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Nuttall, Harry

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Gulland, John W.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

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

    Williams, w. Liewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

    Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

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

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Balcarres, Lord

    Guinnsss, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Renton, Leslie

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Starkey, John R.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cave, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Moore William

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Couithope, G. Loyd

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Younger, George

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Dickscn, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Oddy, John James

    Winterton and Mr. Fell.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Amendment made: To leave out the words "of an amount double that which bears," and to insert instead thereof the word "bearing."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that we have now disposed of all the Amendments which are in order on this Sub-section. I therefore beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." I think we began the discussion of this Clause at about a quarter to ten last night, and we have accordingly been considering it for somewhere about four hours. It is now two o'clock in the morning, and, I think that, after the progress made, we may fairly ask to be allowed to go home.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not insist on pressing that Motion. We have now I think disposed really of almost every point of substance in the Clause, and in a very short time we shall be able to dispose of the whole of it. Various important points no doubt have been raised, but they have all been disposed of by adverse votes, or met by concessions on the part of the Government. There are two or three other Amendments put down by the Government which meet still further the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope the right lion. Gentleman will allow us the very short lime necessary to finish the Clause.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is it proposed to take the whole Clause then?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am really astounded at the Prime Minister. We have had an interesting discussion on the first and second Sub-sections, but they are only two out of six. The others raise some points of great substance and not a little difficulty. There is a new conundrum by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which has considerably exercised our brains even in the daytime, and which, if we are to tackle it at this hour of the night, will involve a mental operation of extreme severity. There is a good deal of legislation by reference which we really cannot be expected to tackle with any prospect of clearly elucidating the questions it involves after we have spent so many hours already on the Bill. Then the provisions of the fifth Sub-section are exceedingly complicated. There are fresh questions arising concerning the powers of the Commissioners, and receipts, and so on, which would involve very minute and careful discussion, unless it is intended that we should pass a number of these provisions by night and reflect on them afterwards by day. I am sure the Prime Minister does not wish to drive the House too much, and that in his heart he feels we should all be much better if we were in bed. If he fairly faces the problem and does not merely wish to put so much printed matter

    1259
    behind him as a kind of index of what has been done, the right hon. Gentleman will feel that at two o'clock we have got through a fair day's work, entitling us to have a fair night's rest. Therefore I appeal to him with confidence to accede to the Motion of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am going to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister which I hope he will accept as a reasonable compromise. A moment ago we had a very important question raised in connection with a matter which is laid down in Sub-section (4), but which was raised on words referred to in an Amendment to Sub-section (1). The Chancellor of the Duchy said he had been taken completely by surprise, and that the case had never even been brought under the notice of the Government.
    2.0 A.M.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I said we should be very glad to have concrete instances brought to our notice.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The concrete instance mentioned by my hon. Friend had been brought to the notice of the Government, although not to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, because he was not in charge of the Bill at that stage. But it had been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) at a very early stage of the Bill. The Chancellor was not then prepared to deal with that case. He was not prepared either to argue that the provisions of the Bill were fair or to substitute for them other provisions on the spur of the moment. What I submit to the Government as a fair proposal is that we should give them as rapidly as we can Sub-sections (2) and (3), which we have not yet touched, and that we should begin the discussion to-morrow with Sub-section (4). It will give the Government time to look into the point in question, and the Chancellor of the Duchy will be able to confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was present when the point was raised.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry I cannot accept the proposal. The Government have made a most moderate demand considering the time we have taken over this Bill.
    Mr. ARKWRIGHT: I do appeal to the Prime Minister to accept this proposal. At this hour those discussions cannot be properly reported and there are many
    1260
    people in the country who wish to follow these discussions and who want to know what the Government answers are to questions asked in the course of the discussions. The Prime Minister has just told us there are more Amendments on behalf of the Government still on the paper.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Concessions.
    Mr. ARKWRIGHT: That suits my purpose still better. Surely the Government cannot afford at this time of the day to allow these concessions not to be known in the country in the fullest way. Therefore, I ask the Government, in their own interests, to accept this Motion and not to bring this House and its procedure into bad repute.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not think the Prime Minister has properly considered the proposal he suggests. It is really rather a strong order that he should lay down exactly how much the House is to do before they go to bed, and refuse to listen to any other proposal which would suit other Members of the House. It is rather instructive to anybody who has followed the discussions in this Bill so far to look at the present occupants of the Government Bench and to consider who were the occupants of that Bench during the other late sittings when previous parts of the Bill were under discussion. It is rather instructive then to look at the Front Opposition Bench and to see there the same people who were opposing the Bill then on that Bench now. The Ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer has sat through every all-night sitting that has taken place, and has led the Opposition.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Where are Balfour and Pretyman?
    Viscount HELMSLEY: We might well retort, "Where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer?" It seems to me that the Government ought to show a little more consideration to the Opposition; and when there is such an important Clause before the House, and when there are two more pages of Amendments to get through, they ought to assent—
    Mr. HORATIO MYERrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be-now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 67.

    Division No. 615.]

    AYES.

    [2.10.a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Higham, John Sharp

    Robinson, S.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Barnard, E. B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rowlands, J.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Beale, W. P.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Jardine, Sir J.

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

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Branch, James

    Lambert, George

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Lamont, Norman

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Scares, Ernest J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Summerbell, T.

    Clough, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Cooper, G. J.

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Verney, F. W.

    Crossley, William J.

    Mond, A.

    Walsh, Stephen

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

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Morrell, Philip

    Waring, Walter

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Morse, L. L.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Elibank, Master of

    Myer, Horatio

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Erskine, David C.

    Nicholls, George

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Wiles, Thomas

    Falconer, J.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Partington, Oswald

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

    Glover, Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Gulland, John W.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pointer, J.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Radford, G. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fell, Arthur

    Oddy, John James

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gretton, John

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Renton, Leslie

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Starkey, John R.

    Cave, George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Kerry, Earl of

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Younger, George

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Moore, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 138.

    Division No. 616.]

    AYES.

    [2. 15 a.m.

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

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fell, Arthur

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Oddy, John James

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gretton, John

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Renton, Leslie

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Starkey, John R.

    Cave, George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Kerry, Earl of

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clive, Percy Archer

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G R

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

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Younger, George

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Moore, William

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Dlckson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Balcarres and Mr. Pike Pease.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hogan, Michael

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Robinson, S.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Beale, W. P.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Rowlands, J.

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Jardine, Sir J.

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

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Lambert, George

    Seely, Colonel

    Branch, James

    Lamont, Norman

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Channing, Sir Fancis Allston

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Clough, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Summerbell, T.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Cooper, G. J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

    Tomkinson, James

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Crossley, William J.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Verney, F. W.

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

    Mond, A.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Morrell, Philip

    Waring, Walter

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Morse, L. L.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Elibank, Master of

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Erskine, David C.

    Myer, Horatio

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Nicholls, George

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Falconer, J.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Wiles, Thomas

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nuttall, Harry

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen]

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merloneth)

    Glover, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, Henry (York, W.R.)

    Gulland, John W.

    Partington, Oswald

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Pickersgill, Edward, Hare

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pointer, J.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Radford, G. H.

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Mr. G. D. FABER: As the Clause stands it reads, "For the purpose of the first calculation of receipts under this Section, the year shall be the
    1264
    year ending the thirty-first day of March or such other day as the Commissioners may fix, either generally or for any area." It seems rather inconvenient, having first of

    1265
    all specifically named the 31st of March as you do, that you give the Commissioners general option to fix any other date, and not only so, but to fix any other date "either generally or for any area." I propose by my Amendment to leave out the words "either generally or" and to insert, if I may take my second Amendment also, the words "or to meet the circumstances of a particular case or cases." The Sub-section would then read:
    "(2) For the purpose of the calculation of receipts under this Section, the year shall be the year ending the thirty-first day of March or such other day as the Commissioners may fix, or to meet the circumstances of a particular case or cases for any area."
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am prepared to accept the second Amendment. I do not think the hon. Gentleman under those circumstances will wish to leave out "either generally or."
    Mr. G. D. FABER: In the circumstances in which we are placed I suppose we must always be thankful for mercies, however small. But I am not sure this really is a mercy. What I do object to is a general—
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Then to meet the hon. Gentleman I will accept the other Amendment.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Then, in that case, I really will not go on.
    Amendments agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "thirty-three" and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-rive" ["The reduced duty payable under this Section may, at the option, of the person by whom the duty is payable…be a duty of thirty-three per cent"].
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (on behalf of Mr. M. Hicks Beach)moved after the word "amount" to insert the words "subject to appeal in manner hereinbefore provided" ["and those Commissioners shall, on the application of any person by whom the duty is payable certify that amount in any case"].
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. G. D. FABER (for Sir H. Kimber)moved to insert at the end of Subsection (3):
    "The factors upon which, and the method or process of calculation by which, such annual compensation value is to be ascertained is or shall be communicated to the licence holder, with such information as shall enable him to inform himself of the liabilities about to be imposed on his property and business within a reasonable time before he is called upon to exercise the alternative option given him by this Section, and before his time for appealing expires.
    "The Commissioners shall, in certifying such value, have regard to the total receipts from sales of excisable liquors on the premises, and the Licence Duty payable by one licensee shall not bear a greater ratio to his said receipts than that payable by any other licensee.
    "The right of appeal given by Clause 30 of the Act shall extend to the subject matter of this Clause."
    My hon. Friend earlier in the evening explained what he intended to convey, and I do not feel it necessary at this late hour, therefore, to detain the Committee. I think the Amendment, on the whole, is just.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: With regard to the latter part of the Amendment, we have already given that in the Amendment formally moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). With regard to the Amendment as it is now moved in the altered form, the hon. Member who moved it rightly anticipated that we cannot accept it in this form, but I will tell him what we are prepared to do—not here, because we have not even got the words upon the Paper. We are prepared to give full information as to the amount that has been fixed by the Commissioners immediately after it has been fixed. We cannot accept the words "inform him of the liabilities about to be imposed" because those words would not be accurate. The liability would not be imposed until Parliament passed another Act of Parliament. No doubt the hon. Member who put the Amendment down (Sir Henry Kimber) will accept that, for it does give him something of his Amendment. We will upon Report insert provisions for giving the information, immediately the amount has been ascertained, to the person who is affected.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The concession which the learned Solicitor-

    1267
    General has offered is confined to this: that, when the annual compensation value has been determined the amount of that value shall be communicated to the person affected. I do not know what my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment on behalf of his colleague feels upon that point. The concession seems to me to be altogether inadequate to meet the justice of the case. I had here a little time ago, but I have not by me now, the rules of Court, which will be applicable as against the taxpayer in regard to the information which is required from him and the nature of the claim he must make if he brings an appeal against an assessment which affects him. It he seeks to appeal against an Assessment he has to supply every kind of information as to what he objects to and why he objects to it.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANSdissented.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the learned Solicitor-General read to the Committee the rules of Court on the subject.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I cannot do that because I have not got them here, but I can state them from memory. The taxpayer has only to give the grounds of his objection. That is analogous to an appeal against a parochial assessment. In that case the grounds of objection must be stated, but there is nothing about figures in the matter.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What does that mean in a case like this? Does it mean that it is sufficient to say, "My ground of objection is that you have assessed me too high." Is that really the best way of conducting the business from the point of view of the taxpayer or the point of view of the Government? Is it not better that there should be disclosed to the taxpayer the lines on which you have proceeded, and then he can see them for himself? All of us are not affected by
    assessments of this kind, but it is a natural temptation to any taxpayer liable to be assessed for taxation to think that his assessment has been placed too high. The first thing you want to do in order to satisfy him that you are meting out justice to him is to explain how you arrive at the assessment. If you will make it an obligation on the Commissioners not merely to inform him of the result but how they arrived at it, what were the factors they took into account and the arithmetical sum they did in order to arrive at the amount, he would be in a better position to judge whether or not he had been fairly treated and whether he would have a chance of succeeding on appeal. Surely you do not wish him to go to law? You do not want either him or the Government to waste time and money on unnecessary legal proceedings. In these circumstances surely it is better to proceed frankly with the taxpayer? What possible gain is there by concealing the factors from him? You are going to make intricate calculations which you cannot arrive at by any general principles applicable to all cases, because each case must be subject to its peculiar circumstances, and the diverse factors of which must vary with the circumstances in each particular case. In these circumstances why not tell the taxpayer what you have assumed to be the factors in his case; what rule and what principle you have applied in deciding upon it? I think that is information the taxpayer is entitled to have, and I cannot conceive that it will do the Government any harm to give it. On the contrary, I think it would save a good deal of litigation. Certainly it will save an amount of vexation and expense on the part of the taxpayer. If it saved that it would also save some expense on the part of the Government and a good deal of that litigation which their proposals are otherwise bound to arouse.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 128.

    Division No. 617.]

    AYES.

    [2.40 a.m.

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Gretton, John

    Balcarres, Lord

    Clyde, James Avon

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

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

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Harris, Frederick Leverton)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hunt, Rowland

    Cave, George

    Fell, Arthur

    Kerry, Earl of

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Valentia, Viscount

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Renton, Leslie

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

    Moore, William

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Younger, George

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Oddy, John James

    Starkey, John R.

    G. D. Faber and Mr. Lane-Fox.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichesfer)

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Radford, G. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hogan, Michael

    Robinson, S.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Beale, W. P.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rowlands, J.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

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

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

    Branch, James

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Seely, Colonel

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Lambert, George

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Lamont, Norman

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Layland-Banett, Sir Francis

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lupton, Arnold

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Clough, William

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Summerbell, T.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Corbett A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Crossley, William J.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Verney, F. W.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Mond, A.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Morrell, Philip

    Waring, Walter

    Elibank, Master of

    Morse, L. L.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Erskine, David C.

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Myer, Horatio

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Nicholls, George

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Falconer, James

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nuttall, Harry

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Williams, Sir A. Osmond (Merioneth)

    Glover, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Gulland, John W.

    Partington, Oswald

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pointer, J.

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELmoved to leave out the words, "one-tenth of the full duty" ["The reduced duty payable under this Section shall not be less than one-tenth of the full duty"] and to insert the words "one-thirtieth of the annual value of the premises in the case of fully licensed premises, and in any other case one-fifteenth of the full duty."
    This Amendment is framed to cover the case of the restaurant which has only a wine licence. Where premises are not fully licensed they ought not to be charged one-thirtieth of the annual value, but ought to be charged a corresponding reduction according to the character of the licence. The case of these premises is met by the last words of the Amendment.
    Mr. CAVE: I want to raise the point that, assuming there must be a minimum, this is not the right way to fix it. It is wrong to fix it by reference to rateable value. Suppose you have a large house, a valuable house, doing quite a small liquor trade—its duty, but for this section, would be less than the proposed minimum. Why do you fix a minimum by reference to the size of the house? How is that material? If you have a smaller house which is doing precisely the same amount of trade, then you fix a smaller minimum. That is unfair. Where you are dealing with Licence Duty, a duty on the liquor trade, why do you fix the duty higher in the case of a large house when it does only the same amount of trade as a small house?

    1271
    I do not see any reason why a valuable house, which does a large trade of another kind, and quite a small liquor trade, should pay not on the amount of the trade, but on the value of the premises as a whole. There seems to me really to be no reason for it, and I should like to hear it justified in some way. The effect may be to induce a man to increase his liquor trade at the expense of his other trade, because he loses nothing in duty by it, and he may be able to increase his profits. Let me put an instance which has been given to me. Take a house of an annual value of £3,000, and the receipts from the sale of liquor are £4,000. On that basis the annual compensation value would be, roughly speaking, £500, and the duty under Sub-section (3) would be £125. Now take a much larger house with an annual value of £7,500 and the same trade exactly as the smaller house.
    Under this Sub-section the duty on the larger house would be £250, so that, with the same trade, it would pay twice as much duty as the smaller house, simply because the building was a better one. Surely that cannot be a reasonable result to produce. The flaw in the whole proposal is the endeavour to fix the minimum by the rateable value. I quite see the force of what the Chancellor of the Duchy said half an hour ago that you must take care the duty is not reduced below the present amount. You should, however, have a definite minimum, not one varying with rateable value; and I should suggest that you put the minimum at £20. If the Government think that too low, let them say so; but do not let us have a sum which is fixed in this arbitrary and inconvenient fashion. We were asked by the Chancellor of the Duchy for concrete cases. I admit that, in most of the cases I have gone into, the minimum fixed would have no effect; that is to say, the duty—apart from the minimum section—would be higher than one-thirtieth of the value. But there are cases where a hardship would be created, and I need only point to one: the case, already mentioned, of Whitehall Court. There you have a liquor trade with gross profits, or gross receipts on sales, of £2,400, and the duty under this provision would be £800. I do not think it is fair, or that anybody will say it is fair that in a case where the total receipts for liquor amount to £2,400, representing a very small net profit, the duty to be paid should be as much as £800.
    1272
    You have, of course, in these cases the opportunity to pay on compensation value, but if that optional payment is small it is because the liquor sales are small. I submit to the Government that it would be fair to drop this proposal of a portion of the rental value and put in its place some fixed sum.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member agrees that whilst there may be some some case for having a minimum and not leaving it merely to a portion of the rental value, cases may arise where you would be charging no duty at all. If that is so your minimum must be on one or other of two bases. Either it must be a fixed sum, or it must bear some relation to the annual value of the premises. It is exceedingly difficult to find some fixed sum which will be low enough in the case of small hotels and big enough in the case of big hotels. I agree that it might be possible to conceive a minimum founded on two bases—not less than x pounds or one-thirtieth of the annual value if that is less. Then you would have to put for the letter x a fairly high sum. I have yet to find that there is any real hardship in the Clause as it stands. The hon. Member put a hypothetical case of two hotels of two different annual prices and two different trades. But it was a hypothetical case, and I have yet to learn that such a case of hardship being imposed exists in fact. Then we come back to our old friends, Whitehall Court and Queen Anne's Mansions. Those are the only instances that so far have been produced. Neither of those is an hotel. They are in the nature of blocks of flats, and it might well be argued that they have no very great claim to have a licence at all. They are placed at present in a very exceptionally favoured position. I have undertaken that if the hon. and learned Member will give me any other concrete cases in which this one-thirtieth of the annual value really does impose a substantial charge—a charge above what properly should be charged—then we will consider his suggestion of inserting a fixed sum as an alternative, but that fixed sum could not possibly be so low as £20.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 57.

    Division No. 618.]

    AYES.

    [2.58 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hogan, Michael

    Robinson, S.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rowlands, J.

    Beale, W. P.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Lambert, George

    Seely, Colonel

    Branch, James

    Lamont, Norman

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Clough, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Summerbell, T.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Tomkinson, James

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Crossley, William J.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Mond, A.

    Verney, F. W.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Morrell, Philip

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Morse, L. L.

    Waring, Walter

    Elibank, Master of

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Erskine, David C.

    Myer, Horatio

    Watt, Henry A.

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Nlcholls, George

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Falconer, James

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Wiles, Thomas

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nuttall, Harry

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Glover, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Gulland, John W.

    Partington, Oswald

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pointer, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Radford, G. H.

    NOES.

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Cddy, John James

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fell, Arthur

    Pretyman, E. G.

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

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Goulding Edward Alfred

    Renton, Leslie

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gretton, John

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

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

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Starkey, John R.

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

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Hunt, Rowland

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kerry, Earl of

    Valentia, Viscount

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Younger, George

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Moore, William

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Cave and Mr. Arkwright.

    3.0 A.M.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (5) to leave out "one-third" ["on a provisional payment of one-third of the full duty"], and to insert instead thereof "one-fifth."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-sec-
    1274
    tion (6) to leave out "under the provisions of Section forty-nine of the Licensing Act, 1872."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    In Sub-section (6) to leave out, "under the provisions of Section seven of the Licensing Act, 1874."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINmoved in Sub-section (6) to leave out the words, "but in cases to which this Section applies effect shall be given to those provisions by calculating the full duty payable as the amount of that duty, reduced in the case of a six-day or early closing licence by one-seventh, and in the case of a licence which is both a six-day and an early closing licence by two-sevenths."
    I only do this in order to call the attention of the Government to the fact that by the Amendment which they have made in the first half of the Sub-section they have made nonsense of the second half. It is a matter, I am sure, they will see at once. This Sub-section says "effect shall be given to those provisions." What provisions? The provisions of the Licensing Act of 1872, which you have just struck out. Therefore are there no provisions to which this Sub-section shall apply? I do not know whether the Government will supply words at once or make the matter clear on Report, but it is really their business to look after these matters.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Government are always ready to accept with gratitude any assistance, and I am personally obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out that some Amendment of a drafting character is here necessary. I do not think it is necessary to omit all the words proposed to be omitted. I think it would be enough to leave out the words "effect shall be given to those provisions" and slightly alter the other words so that they will read.
    Mr. YOUNGER: May I suggest that if you leave out the words "those provisions" you should put in such words as "the statutory enactments as to six-day and early-closing licences."
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Certainly; either will do.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Then I will move those words.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what my bon. Friend is moving, but I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. YOUNGERmoved, in Sub-section (6), to leave out the words, "those provisions" ["effect shall be given to those provisions"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the statutory enactments as to six-day and early-closing licences."
    The Government, if they like, may give me another one-seventh for Scotland, and I think I ought to get something for amending the Bill.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think the hon. Member is asking too much.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: After the hon. and learned Gentleman's sympathy, I think he ought to give me something for England.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I have taken no part in any Amendment on this Clause, because I object to the Clause in toto. I object to it upon this single broad ground that I am one of those who believe that the consumer pays the tax. In that I am happy to have practically the unanimous consent of Members on the other side, and that being the case I object in principle to any clause that gives relief to the wealthy man, but withholds it from the poor man. The distinction that is drawn between hotels and restaurants, so-called, is a differentiation made in their favour as against the public-house, which is the poor man's hotel—the poor man's restaurant, the poor man's place of recreation, practically the poor man's only place of meeting his friends, and in a good many cases the only place of comfort which is open to him—is radically wrong in principle. But it is set up by this Clause, which is a Clause in favour of the place used by wealthy people, and it is upon that ground I protest against the Clause as a whole, and desire to record my vote against its being added to the Statute.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 54.

    Division No. 619.]

    AYES.

    [3.15 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barnard, E. B.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Branch, James

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Beale, W. P.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Burns, art. Hon. John

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lambert, George

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lamont, Norman

    Rowlands, J.

    Clough, William

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

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

    Cooper, G. J.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

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

    Lupton, Arnold

    Seely, Colonel

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Crossley, William J.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Duckworth, Sir James

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

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Elibank, Master of

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Summerbell, T.

    Erskine, David C.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Mond, A.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Tomkinson, James

    Falconer, James

    Morrell, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Morse, L. L.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

    Verney, F. W.

    Glover, Thomas

    Myer, Horatio

    Walsh, Stephen

    Gulland, John W.

    Nicholls, George

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Waring, Walter

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Watt, Henry A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Partington, Oswald

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Pointer, J.

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Higham, John Sharp

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

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Hogan, Michael

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Rendall, Athelstan

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Robinson, S.

    NOES.

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Anson. Sir William Reynell

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fell, Arthur

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Renton, Leslie

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

    Gretton, John

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Starkey, John R.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cave, George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

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

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

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Younger, George

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Moore, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Watson Rutherford and Mr. Courthope.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

    Oddy, John James

    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

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

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS [MONEY].
Resolution reported,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to promote the economic development of the United Kingdom and the improvement of roads therein, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment to the Development Fund for the purpose of advances of such moneys as may from time to time
1278
be provided by Parliament, and the charge on the Consolidated Fund and payment into the Development Fund of a sum of five hundred thousand pounds in the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eleven, and in each of the next succeeding four years; and

(b) the charge on the Consolidated Fund of the payment of interest and repayment of the principal of any money borrowed under such Act to an amount not exceding two hundred thousand pounds in any year so far as the Road Improvement Grant is unable to meet the same."

OATHS BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. FELL: I had an Amendment on the Paper which I desired to move, but I have had no opportunity.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I called on the hon. Member, but he was not here to move it.
Mr. FELL: I was standing at the Bar when the Bill was brought on.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already put the Question that the Bill be read a third time.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put and agreed to; Bill passed.
ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes after Three a.m. (Wednesday, 8th September).