§ (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 SAMUELThe 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. LYTTELTONI 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 WINTERTONIt 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 SAMUELI know the hotel belonging to the railway company. I was referring to the public-house.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe 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 COLLINSI 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-HICKSI 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 SAMUELHave they bars?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI 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 HELMSLEYThe 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. HENDERSONI 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 ERESBYI 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. BELLOCI 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 SAMUELThe 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. BELLOCOn whose judgment?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt is not a question of judgment, but of arithmetic.
Mr. BALFOURI 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. VERNEYI 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 hotelI 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. GIBBSI 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.
1213| 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."
1214§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 114.
1215| 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 SAMUELLet 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 WINTERTONThere 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. HEALYIn 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. HERBERT SAMUELCertainly 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 SAMUELI 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. SMITHThe 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. LYTTELTONI 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 SAMUELIf 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 SAMUELI 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. HEALYI 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 EVANSThe 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-
1222§ posed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 107.
1223| 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 SAMUELThe 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. SMITHThe 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 SAMUELI demur to that figure.
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHI 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 SAMUELThe 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. SMITHI 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. HENDERSONI 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 LYTTELTONThere 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 EVANSI know of an instance in which application was made thirteen times before a licence was granted.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONIt 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 MINISTERAs 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. LYTTELTONNot by way of monopoly?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt 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-THOMSONThe 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.
1243| 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-
1244§ 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.
1245| 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 WINTERTONI 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 SAMUELOn a point of order, this is not a question of the minimum duty charged.
§ Earl WINTERTONUnder 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 EVANSThe Noble Lord is repeating what has been said over and over again.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe 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.
§ Earl WINTERTONWhat 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. ARKWRIGHTI 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 SAMUELThe 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. YOUNGERWhy do you not fix as a minimum your existing duties?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELBut 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 WINTERTONDo 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 SAMUELYes, Sir.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe 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 JONESWhere?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINHas the hon. Gentleman never discovered that there are places in America under prohibition where the sale of liquor goes on freely?
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI ask for one place.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI 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. FELLI 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 SAMUELYes, since then we have modified the Bill.
§ Mr. FELLYes, 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 CHAMBERLAINThat is the point with which my hon. Friend (Mr. Fell) is dealing.
§ Mr. FELLEven 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 GRETTONNo 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 SAMUELWhat would be the rateable value?
§ Mr. GRETTONVery often it is considerable.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELHow much?
§ Mr. GRETTONThe 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.
1257| 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 CHAMBERLAINI 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 MINISTERI 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 CHAMBERLAINIs it proposed to take the whole Clause then?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI 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 CHAMBERLAINI 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 SAMUELI said we should be very glad to have concrete instances brought to our notice.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe 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 MINISTERI 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. ARKWRIGHTI 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 MINISTERConcessions.
§ Mr. ARKWRIGHTThat 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 HELMSLEYI 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 MacVEAGHWhere are Balfour and Pretyman?
§ Viscount HELMSLEYWe 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.
1261| 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."
1262§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 138.
1263| 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 (York)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 EVANSI 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. FABERIn 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 EVANSThen to meet the hon. Gentleman I will accept the other Amendment.
§ Mr. G. D. FABERThen, 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 EVANSI accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1266§ 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 EVANSWith 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 CHAMBERLAINThe 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 CHAMBERLAINWill the learned Solicitor-General read to the Committee the rules of Court on the subject.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI 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 CHAMBERLAINWhat 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.
1269| 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. CAVEI 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 SAMUELThe 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.
1273| 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.]
1275§ 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 EVANSThe 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. YOUNGERMay 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 EVANSCertainly; either will do.
§ Mr. YOUNGERThen I will move those words.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not know what my bon. Friend is moving, but I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1276§ 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 EVANSI think the hon. Member is asking too much.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAfter 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 RUTHERFORDI 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.
1277| 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).