Commons Sitting of 9 September 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Irvine Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,—"to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Irvine Harbour," presented by the Lord Advocate; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Monday next.
FINANCE BILL (PETITIONS).
Mr. E. H. CARLILE: I beg to be allowed to present Petitions from Buckinghamshire against the Finance Bill, on the ground, among others which are stated in the Petition, that it is calculated to injure the commerce and industries of the country. The Petitions are from: Newport Pagnell, Gayhurst, Brill, Ravenstone, Hanslope, Stantonbury, Stoke Goldington, Stony Stratford, Fenny Stratford, Buckingham, and Olney.
INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY BOROUGH OF PLYMOUTH)
Return ordered "comprising (1) the Reports made to the Charity Commissioners in the result of an Inquiry held in the County Borough of Plymouth into Endowments, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, and appropriated in whole or in part for the benefit of that County Borough, or of any part thereof, together with the Reports on those Endowments of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning Charities, 1818 to 1837; (2) a Digest showing whether any, and, if any, what such Endowments are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners in the County Borough; and (3) an Index, alphabetically arranged, of names and places mentioned in the Reports."—[Mr. E. J. Soares.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Mulai Hafid's Prisoners.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
  1458
  he had yet received any reply to the protests lodged by the British Government against Mulai Hafid's treatment of prisoners; and whether any assurance had been given that punishment involving-mutilation or lingering death shall cease?
  The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. T. McKinnon Wood): The representatives of all the Treaty Powers at Tangier have signed a collective note of protest to the Sultan which was despatched to Fez on the 3rd instant. There has been no time as yet for an answer to be received.

  Persian Political Offenders' Amnesty.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether the British and Russian Governments have succeeded in securing from the Persian Government amnesty for political offenders?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: An amnesty has been granted, but certain persons, now in refuge at the Russian Legation and Turkish Embassy, are excepted by name from the amnesty. Out of respect to the Missions mentioned their trial is, however, postponed, and meanwhile they are to go into exile. Should sentence be passed on, them during their exile, it may be executed if they return.

  Traffic in Arms (Persian Gulf).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether the traffic in arms by way of Muscat and the Persian Gulf exists in quite undiminished vigour; and whether there is any hope that the Brussels Commission will, within a reasonable time, formulate any international means of dealing with this admitted evil?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The arms traffic in the Persian Gulf still exists on an extensive scale, and the matter is being considered by His Majesty's Government. I cannot answer the second part of the quesion until the Brussels Arms Conference, which is to meet again on 4th December next, has reached a conclusion.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at present such an enormous number of rifles is being imported, by this route that many of them are actually being sent over into India?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid that that is true.

  Affairs in the Congo.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he had any official information that Prince Albert of Belgium has furnished a report to the Belgian Government on his visit to the Congo to the effect that he was very unfavourably impressed with the condition of affairs there and by the devastation and destruction of native life; and whether he had lately received any authoritative communications concerning the system pursued at the present time in the collection of rubber, and, if so, what was the nature of those communications?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have received no official information of the nature referred to by the hon. Member. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  Land Tenure in Poland (British Subjects).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a Report from His Majesty's Chargéd' Affaires at St. Petersburg with regard to the tenure of land held by British subjects in Poland; whether British subjects inheriting land in Poland and the Western Governments of Russia are obliged to sell their land within three years, while German subjects are allowed to retain their land for 10 years; and whether he will endeavour to secure equally good treatment for British subjects?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Report referred to has not yet been received, but I hope to receive it shortly. In the meantime, I have nothing to add to the answer returned to the hon. and gallant Member's question of 5th August.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman let me know when he does receive it?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly.

  Li-Kin System in China.
  Captain MURRAYasked whether the Chinese Government have taken any steps to carry out the provisions of Article VIII. of the Treaty between Great Britain and China of 1902, relating to the abolition of the li-kin system in China; and, if not, whether their omission to do so is governed by the fact that the engagements referred to in Section 14 of Article VIII. have not been entered into fey the Powers concerned?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The only step hitherto taken by the Chinese Government is a recent proposal that negotiations for an increase of the Customs Tariff in return, for the abolition of li-kin should be entered into with the Powers. In view, however, of the failure of the Chinese Government to carry out other important provisions of the Treaty of 1902, His Majesty's Government are not at present disposed to give this proposal their support; more especially in view of the fact that new li-kin stations are being established in China, and that foreign trade is being subjected to li-kin exactions of greater frequency and amount.

  Evicted Tenant Reinstatement(Clooncruffe).
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Bernard Martin, the former tenant of a farm known as Clooncruffe, on the Kilronan estate, Keadue, county Roscommon, was evicted 16 years ago for non-payment of rent, and that the Commissioners promised to reinstate him but have failed to do so; and whether, under the circumstances, he will direct the attention of the Commissioners to the case with a view to having Martin either restored to his home or provided with another under the provisions of the Act?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): As I have already informed the hon. Member in reply to a question on the same subject asked by him on the 28th June last, the Estates Commissioners have inquired into Bernard Martin's application and have decided not to take any action in the matter.

  Scholastic Philosophy (Queen's University).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state who were the persons who appeared before the Statutory Commission of Queen's University in Belfast, under the Irish Universities Act, 1908, to request the Commission to include scholastic philosophy in the arts curriculum of that university; and what other subjects did they ask to be included in the curriculum?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that three members of the Senate of the Queen's University, Mr. John Burke, Mr. Patrick Dempsey, and Mr. Charles L. McLorrinan, came to lay their views upon the organisation of the University before the Belfast University Commission. They asked that

  1461
  provision should be made for philosophical teaching such as Roman Catholics could attend without danger to their faith. They were informed that the Commission had already decided to institute a lectureship in scholastic philosophy. The only other subject they asked to be included in the curriculum was the Irish language. The Commissioners had already decided to institute a lectureship in Irish.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no other denomination except the Roman Catholics have applied to the members of the Commission for special facilities?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know if it is a fact, but I have no doubt that it is so. It shows that they are satisfied with the system of teaching already there.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether "the Statutory Commission of Queen's University, Belfast, advertised for a lecturer in logic and scholastic philosophy, and made the appointment for the subject of scholastic philosophy only; and why was a lecturer in logic not appointed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It was at first thought that the lecturer in scholastic philosophy might relieve the professor of logic and metaphysics of part of his very heavy work by undertaking the subject of logic. But the professor of logic and metaphysics expressed a desire to retain the teaching of logic in his own hands.
  Mr. WILLIAM MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, as the result of his communications, if this lecturer is appointed on making a declaration that he would not teach any matter which was a matter of controversy?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. GRETTON: Is logic much studied in Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I trust so.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether the appointment of lecturer in scholastic philosophy by the Belfast Statutory Commission was made subject to the approval by the Universities Committee of the Privy Council by the Statute creating the lectureship in scholastic philosophy?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Statutes did not make this appointment subject to such approval, but the lecturer in scholastic philosophy was informed, like every other
  1462
  lecturer and professor appointed by the Commission, that his appointment was only provisional and might be annulled by a disallowance of the Statutes.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it a fact that an appeal has been lodged against the establishment of this lectureship?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: When is that appeal going to be heard?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I saw from an Irish newspaper that the date fixed is the 24th of this month.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the Government, by their Law Officers or otherwise, support the appointment on the hearing of the appeal?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no knowledge of that.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is a long way from the question.
  Mr. C. CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Belfast Statutory Commission, before granting the lectureship in scholastic philosophy, exercised the power to take evidence given by the Irish Universities Act; whether he will say on what evidence as to the educational wants of the district around Belfast the decision to establish such lectureship was founded; and whether the appointment of the lecturer in scholastic philosophy was unanimous on the part of the Statutory Commission?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commission did not think it necessary to take evidence as to the organisation of the teaching staff of the University. The majority of the Commissioners are themselves personally acquainted with the educational needs of the district around Belfast which justify the establishment of the lectureship in question. One of the Commissioners (Mr. R. J. Martin) dissented from the appointment of the lecturer.

  Irish Land Bill (Government Amendments).
  Mr. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would state when the Government Amendments to the Irish Land Bill, now promised, will appear on the Paper?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I hope to be able to put down most, if not all, of the Amendments to-morrow, and any that may then stand over the next day.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act (Appeals).
  Mr. WILLIAM MOOREasked the Chief Secretary if there is any power in some members of the Local Government Board, short of the full number, to exercise the powers conferred on the whole Board by the Labourers (Ireland) Act of 1906 to hear appeals from the reports of their inspectors under that Act, and, if so, under what section is this permissible?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Section 102 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, provides that any act to be done by or on behalf of the Local Government Board may be done in the name of the Board, by the President, the Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the Vice-President, or by any person appointed by the President or the Vice-President to act on behalf of the Vice-President.
  Mr. MOORE: Does that Section only refer to Ministerial and not to judicial acts?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I did not notice that.

  Chinese in South Africa.
  Mr. GEORGE RENWICKasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the numbers of Chinese and Natives of Africa, respectively, who were now living in compounds in connection with the mines in the Transvaal; what was the mortality amongst the two classes of men; and whether arrangements had been made for the accommodation in the compounds of the wives of such men as wish to have their wives living with them?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): According to the latest figures available there were 5,370 Chinese left on the Witwatersrand on July 31st, and 175,895 coloured persons were employed in gold mining in the Transvaal in the month of June. No figures are available to show how many of these labourers are living in compounds. The conditions under which Chinese and native labourers live are, however, different, as I pointed out in an answer to the hon. Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire, on the 13th of July. During the quarter ended on the 31st of March, the latest period for which figures are available, the rate of mortality from all causes per 1,000 per annum was: Chinese, 15.959; natives, 35.408. Accommodation for native wives and families is not, as I understand, provided in the compounds. Chinese labourers were offered facilities for bring-
  1464
  ing their wives and families with them, but except in two cases advantage was not taken of the offer.
  Mr. RENWICK: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why so many Chinese are still in. South Africa upwards of two years after the period fixed when they had to leave
  Colonel SEELY: Because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, at the very end of this, as we regard it, degrading experiment, a very large number were brought—13,000, I think, was the number—just before the prohibition was made. The contracts will expire at the beginning of next year.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Would not the number of Chinese in South Africa be less, at the present moment if they had not been retained beyond the time fixed for repatriation on account of the shortage of native labour in the mines?
  Colonel SEELY: This is the first time I have heard of it. All the Chinese are returned the moment their contracts have expired. If the hon. Gentleman has any information to the contrary I should be glad to have it.
  Sir G. PARKER: I will put a question down.

  British Guiana.
  Mr. T. SUMMERBELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a general desire in British Guiana to establish a banana industry; and whether the Government can do anything by way of encouraging an export trade in bananas?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State has not received any representations on the subject from the Colony. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to furnish me with such information as he has in his possession.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked whether, in connection with the Committee of Inquiry into Coolie Indentured Labour, the decision not to receive any witnesses from the People's Association of British Guiana can be reconsidered with a view to opinion in British Guiana being fully put before the Committee?
  Colonel SEELY: The Committee have had before them a letter from the Association dated 23rd July, stating that a Memorandum on the whole labour question in the Colony was in course of preparation. They are awaiting the receipt of the Memorandum, and have caused the

  1465
  Association to be so informed. The decision as to summoning witnesses on behalf of the Association will not be finally taken until the Memorandum has been considered.
  Mr. J. D. REES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has any information showing to what extent the People's Association of British Guiana represents the people of British Guiana?
  Colonel SEELY: That is a very difficult question to answer in the case of all kinds of associations.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Under-Secretary whether he is aware that the Legislature of British Guiana some time ago declared in favour of the undertaking of irrigation and drainage schemes for the successful exploiting of the minor industries of an essentially agricultural country such as British Guiana; and whether he can state what steps, if any, have been taken to give effect to the declaration of the Legislature?
  Colonel SEELY: A Committee was appointed by the Governor in 1906 to consider a scheme for irrigation works on the Corentyne coast, but they reported that the scheme was not feasible. It would appear from the Committee's report to be doubtful whether any practicable scheme would be acceptable to the inhabitants of the localities concerned. In the Abary district experiments are being made by private enterprise with a view to the cultivation of rice on a large scale, and it is understood that if these experiments are successful a large area of Crown land "will be taken up for the purpose. I may add that the present Colonial Engineer of British Guiana was selected for the appointment on account of his knowledge and experience of irrigation works.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. CONOR OKELLY (for Mr. O'Dowd)asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the pension of Mary Connell, of Ougham, Tubbercurry, county Sligo, was stopped because, as alleged by the pension officer, she was not the required age; whether he is aware that the Census Return of 1841 shows Mary Connell, otherwise Brennan, of Bilra, parish of Aehonry, to be 10 months, whilst the Census of 1851 shows her as being 10 years; and can he explain the discrepancy of 10 months, and say whether this woman's pension will be restored to her?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no discrepancy between the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851 in this case, and both Returns show that the claimant has not yet reached the age of 70. She was ten months old when the Census was taken in June, 1841, and was still under eleven, and therefore rightly returned as ten, years of age at the next Census in March, 1851. As a rule, except in the cases of infants, only complete years are given in the Census Returns.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the grounds on which pensions have been withdrawn from John Wynne, Pat Carey, and Thomas Keane, all of Tubbercurry, county Sligo; and is he aware that their names do not appear either on the Census Returns of 1841 or 1851?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As the names of these claimants could not be traced in the Census Returns of 1841 or 1851, the Local Government Board asked them to furnish any other evidence of age which they might be able to obtain. The Board did not consider the evidence which they submitted sufficient to establish their age, and accordingly upheld the pension officer's appeals.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Patrick Mullarkey, of Tubbercurry, county Sligo, has been deprived of his old age pension, of which he was in receipt for some months, because, as alleged, he was a resident of the United States for some years; whether Mr. Mullarkey submitted a statement to the Local Government Board three months ago explaining that he went to America on a visit to his children, remaining there only 18 months, and that hi was and still is the rated occupier of four acres of land in Bullgara, Tubbercurry; whether such statement has been endorsed by the local pension committee, who know the circumstances; and whether, seeing that the Local Government Board still retain Mr. Mullarkey's proofs, full inquiries will be made and the case reconsidered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In this case the Local Government Board upheld the appeal of the pension officer against the decision of the committee allowing the claimant a pension. The claimant admitted in the-statement which he furnished to the Board that he had been two years and a half in America. It was found on inquiry that

  1467
  his name was not, and never had been, in the rate-books in respect to the property referred to in the question, and it was also ascertained that there was no house on the plot. The Board were satisfied that the claimant did not fulfil the statutory condition as to residence. It is not open to them to reconsider their decision.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state the number of persons in receipt of old age pensions who died in Ireland during the six months ending July last; and whether he will state the number of applications for pensions received during the same period, the number granted, the number of appeals to the Local Government Board, and their decision?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Figures for the six months ended 31st July last are not available, but the figures for the six months ended the 30th June last are as follows:—

  The number of persons in receipt of old age pensions reported as having died in Ireland in the six months ended 30th June last was

  7,637

  The number of applications for old age pensions received in Ireland during the same period was

  38,123

  The number of pensions granted in Ireland in that period was

  25,374

  The number of appeals to the Local Government Board in the same period was

  14,109

  The number decided was

  14,086

  Patent Medicines (Revenue).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the amount of revenue derived from the duties on quack medicines in the years 1905–6, 906–7, and 1907–8, respectively?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The amounts of revenue derived from the Medicine Stamp Duty, to which I take the hon. Member to refer, in the years 1905–6, 1906–7, 1907–8, were £324,112, £327,106, and £334,142 respectively.
  Captain CRAIG: Is this extraordinary increase year by year in those quack medicines to be attributed, to a certain extent, to the fact that the label put on by the Government in order to collect the duty is taken by certain of the poorer classes to mean that the contents have Government approval?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think so. There has been no extraordinary increase. It is only an increase of £324,000 to £334,000.
  Captain CRAIG: That is an increase of £10,000 for duty alone on the sale of these medicines.

  Acreage under Crops (Ireland).
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will explain why circulars have recently been issued by the Department to Irish farmers asking full particulars as to the acreage of their different crops; and whether, seeing that this information is already collected annually by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, he will explain the object of the trouble and expense of the double inquiry?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): Circulars are sent to a limited number of farmers throughout the country in order to confirm without delay the returns as to the area of particular crops. The furnishing of a reply is voluntary. The expense or trouble involved is small, and it is desirable in the interests of agriculture that such inquiry should be made.

  Nelson Provided School (Great Yarmouth).
  Mr. ARTHUR FELLasked the President of the Board of Education on what grounds the Board of Education has refused the Great Yarmouth Education Committee the right to teach in the Nelson provided school two extra subjects as provided by the Code, Article 5 (a)
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): Generally speaking, the Board are of opinion that it is more important that local education authorities should at the present time devote their attention to raising the general standard of the work done in their public-elementary schools than that they should institute experiments by way of a more advanced curriculum in exceptional schools. Such subjects as languages, shorthand, and science are accordingly not, as a rule, approved in a public elementary school when there is any danger that the ordinary school hours will not suffice for an adequate amount of time to be given to them, or that the ordinary school subjects-will be neglected.
  Mr. FELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the fact that the subjects which were being taught in the school were on account of the special requirements of the trade of the town?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes; we have taken that into account. I have stated the general view of the Board in the answer I have already given.
  Mr. FELL: I did not want their general view, but their view in regard to special cases.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Is it not a common thing to have these subjects taught in elementary schools?

  Old Age Pension Refused (Manchester Appeal).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received an appeal from Elijah Greathead, of Manchester, against a decision of the Manchester Pension Committee disallowing his claim to pension on the ground that he was absent from the United Kingdom from 1901 to 1904; and whether the fact that he merely left England on a long visit to some friends, and kept a furnished room in England with the express intention of returning will entitle him to a pension?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have received an appeal against the decision of the sub-committee in this ease; but their proceedings are subject to review by the local pension committee, with whom I am in communication with regard to the matter. Pending the investigation of the case, I am not in a position to express an opinion as to whether the claimant is entitled to a pension.
  Mr. M. JOYCE: May I ask whether the law will be administered in England the same as it is in Ireland, because we had a question to-day to the Chief Secretary in which he answered—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into an argument.
  Mr. JOYCE: I think it is a very fair question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is fair. It was a question which the President of the Local Government Board would not be able to answer.

  Motor Car Act (Devon County Council).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Devon County Council to erect warning signs, under the provisions of the Motor Car Act, 1903, unless the sum of £50 was contributed towards the cost thereof by private persons or organisatiobns; and whether, in view of the action of the county council in refusing to carry out their statutory duties as enacted in Clause 10 (2) of the Motor Car Act, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: I have had some correspondence with the Devon and Cornwall Automobile Club and the Devon County Council on this subject. I learn that, after a conference between a sub-committee of the council and some members of the club, the council came to the conclusion that they would only be justified in incurring expense in erecting notices if a part of the cost were provided from sources other than local funds. I have no power to compel the county council to' erect these notices.

  Coaling Hulk "Ethiopia" Removal (Portland Harbour).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the order issued by the Admiralty for the removal of the Portland and Weymouth Coaling Company's coaling hulk "Ethiopia" from Portland Harbour will result in 250 workpeople being deprived of their means of livelihood; whether he will state the reasons for the issue of this order; and whether he will reconsider the matter with a view to the withdrawal, if possible, of the order, and so leave undisturbed the means of livelihood of the workpeople concerned?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): With regard to the first part of the question, I am aware that the statement has been made, but it has been disputed, and the circumstances are not within my knowledge. Protection of naval interests in the harbour is the reason for the order. With regard to the third part of the question, as representations have been made to me on this subject, and are now receiving my immediate consideration, I am not in a position at present to make a reply.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: May I ask with regard to the disputed points whether he will make inquiries?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question as to whether 250 people are or are not out of work, important as it may be, is not really the matter which is in dispute between the parties.

  British Subjects and Spanish Affairs.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that British subjects resident in England have recently been subjected to police surveillance on account of their correspondence with Signor Ferrer and other Spanish subjects, who have been arrested on suspicion of complicity in the Barcelona riots; and whether, having regard to the nature of the repression carried on by the Spanish Government and the conduct of the Spanish police, he will prohibit any further action of a similar kind by the police in this country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): There are no grounds that I know of for the suggestion that British subjects have been under surveillance by the police.
  Mr. POINTER: If the facts are submitted to him will he give the matter consideration I
  Mr. GLADSTONE: What facts?
  Mr. POINTER: The facts referred to in the question.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Certainly. If they are facts.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: How many people were murdered in Barcelona during the disturbances there?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I do not know.
  Mr. P. MORRELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say there is no correspondence with the police in regard to the suppression of those riots?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I really know of no such correspondence.

  Hops Bill.
  Captain CLIVEasked the Prime Minister if he has yet decided to reinstate the Government Hops Bill, so that if unopposed, it may have an opportunity of passing?
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked whether he will reconsider his decision to drop the Hops (No. 2) Bill?
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked whether he can see his way to introduce a Bill before the end of the present Session for the purpose of dealing with the question of hops?
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the questions may I ask whether the Hops Bill merely in its present state contains provisions against the use of substitutes, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the evidence before the Select Committee on the hop industry indicated that the tendency was for the use of substitutes to increase in years of scarcity; and whether his information is that the crop is likely to be a small one this year?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I regret that I am unable to hold out any prospect of legislation on this subject during the present Session.

  Appointment of Magistrates.
  Mr. HENRYasked the Prime Minister if he can state when it is proposed to appoint the Royal Commission for the purpose of investigating the methods to be adopted for the selection of suitable persons to be justices of the peace?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is under consideration. There will be no undue delay.

  FINANCE BILL.

    LICENSED PREMISES AND CLUBS.
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary whether he has any information that licensed premises closed on the ground of redundancy by the Act of 1903 have been reopened as clubs after the former owners had received compensation; and can he say how many licensed premises have been converted into clubs?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: I have received some resolutions from compensation authorities on this subject, and a few actual cases have come under my notice; but I have no general information or figures bearing on the question.

    CLUB STATISTICS.
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the figures he gave to the House on 2nd September that the net increase of clubs in five large English cities during the past

    1473
    four years was one that referred to clubs affiliated to the Club and Institute Union; whether he is aware that the official statistics show the net increase of registered clubs in the petty sessional divisions and county of Liverpool alone in 1908 was 31, and the convictions for drunkenness in the same area 12,710; and whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of all the correspondence with this union from which he quoted in his speech?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Herbert Samuel): As, I stated at the time, the figures relating to the increase in the number of clubs in certain large towns, which I quoted in the Debate on September 2nd, were taken from a table included in a return relating to licensed premises, published by the London County Council, and did not relate to clubs affiliated to the Club and Institute Union; the figures included in that return did not comprise the petty sessional divisions of the Liverpool Division. The statistics given in the question are correct. In answer to the last part of the question the only correspondence with the Club and Institute Union, from which I quoted, related to the average number of members in the clubs affiliated to the union, and the whole of the information included in that correspondence was given in my speech.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Pink Paper issued by the London County Council as to public-houses no figures of an increase are given, and I therefore ask where he obtained the information he gave to the House? The abstract of 1908 is not yet laid upon the Table of the House.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman is under some misapprehension. I will show him the Return on the last page.

    LAND OF RELIGIOUS ORDERS.
    Mr. SLOANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the number of acres of land in possession of all religious orders and other denominations in the United Kingdom upon which no rates or taxes are levied or collected?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I regret that I am unable to supply the hon. Member with this information.
    Mr. SLOAN: Is it possible to get it at all, and, if I move for a return, will he grant it?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not see how I could possibly get the information unless the hon. Member waits for the valuation.
    Mr. SLOAN: If the valuation comes along, will these institutions not have to be valued for the purposes of taxation?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: A Member of the Government will be responsible for giving the information, but up to now there is no data.
    Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he grants this Return he will offend the whole Nationalist party?

    DEATH DUTIES.
    Mr. SLOANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to make provision in the present Budget respecting the Death Duties which are at present lost to the State in connection with religious orders in the United Kingdom; and, if not, can he say why?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, Sir, I see no reason for making any provision of the kind indicated.

    APPOINTMENT OF SURVEYORS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Board of Inland Revenue has recently issued advertisements for surveyors, and, if so, whether such surveyors are for the purposes of the Land Tax valuation under the Finance Bill; and, if so, what are the qualifications required on the part of applicants?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on the 31st ult. to a question by the hon. Member for South Hackney, in which he explained that the advertisement in question refers to the appointment of valuers in connection with Estate Duties.

    LICENCE (OFF-HOLDERS) CONDITIONS.
    Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he suggested to the English off-licence holders-that they should meet the representatives-of the Scotch and Irish off-licence holders and should draw up and submit to him a uniform scheme for the three countries; whether this scheme recommended the sale of spirits in small bottles in England as

    1475
    well as in Scotland and Ireland; whether any intimation was given by a responsible permanent official that this part of the scheme had met with the approval of the Cabinet and would be embodied in an Amendment; and, if so, why this Amendment has now been withdrawn?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: After the publication of the Finance Bill I received numerous representations, both by deputations and correspondence, on behalf of the off-licence holders in England, Scotland and Ireland, asking me to modify my proposals in various respects. As there was considerable divergence of opinion between the various parties interested, I suggested that I should be in a better position to deal with the question if the representatives of these licence holders could, after consultation, lay before me for my consideration a statement of the modifications which would be regarded as acceptable by the licence holders in all parts of the United Kingdom. To assist them in their deliberations I placed at their disposal the services of the permanent official who is responsible for the administration of Excise licences, and that official reported to me the result of the consultations. He gave no intimation to any of the persons interested that any of the suggested modifications had been accepted by the Government or would be embodied in an Amendment.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: If the Amendment was placed on the Paper by mistake was it without the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if not, by whom was the mistake made?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept full responsibility for whatever inadvertence there was in the matter. There was undoubtedly a mistake. I did not know it was on the Paper, and the first intimation I had was when I saw a report in a paper. I can only say it was not due to any inadvertence of the draftsman. It was suggested that he was responsible, and I think I ought to say that.
    Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that no intimation was given by a responsible official that the Government favoured the scheme?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No. I am assured no intimation at all was given that the Government would accept. I am certain that no official would do that with-
    1476
    out an intimation to a representative of the Government.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: How did it get on the Paper?
    Mr. MOORE: Was the Amendment which appeared on the Paper submitted to persons representing trade interests?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Is the Bill now in its final shape as regards the quart bottle? Are there to be any further "inadvertent" Amendments?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Everything depends on the discussion in the House of Commons. I do not know whether the hon. Member means to suggest that the Government have made up their minds not to accept any Amendment, whatever the drift of the Debate may be.

    REPUTED MEASURES.
    Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that there was no standard reputed quart measure and the quantity sold as a reputed quart was not invariably the same, he would say what variation under the Finance Bill would be permitted in the quantity of spirits contained in a quarter of a reputed quart bottle?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The variations in the quantity contained in a reputed quart bottle are quite inconsiderable. It has not been found necessary in the past to lay down any definition of a reputed quart bottle, and I do not think it will be necessary to do so in the case of a quarter of such a bottle.
    Mr. JOHN GRETTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what the reputed quart bottle actually contains?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It does not depend at all on the Finance Bill. It has been in use for some time without any difficulty, and I do not think there will be any difficulty now.

    CHAMPAGNE, ALE, AND WHISKY (RESPECTIVE DUTIES).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of £100 spent on average champagne would be paid to the State as duty; how much of £100 spent on mild ale, as usually drunk by the working classes, after the Finance Bill has passed, would go to the State as duty; and how much of £100 spent on ordinary whisky,

    1477
    as usually drunk by the working classes, after the Finance Bill has passed, would go to the State?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid the information given in the question is not sufficient to enable me to work out the problem which the hon. Member has set me.

    Hop Cultivation (Area and Yield).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he would state the acreage under hops this year in England, giving the area under cultivation in each county; and whether he could state the estimated yield per acre?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSE HOLD (Sir Edward Strachey): Some delay has occurred this year in the collection of the agricultural returns, but we hope to issue the acreage returns in a few days. The Board's estimates of the yield per acre will, as usual, be published early next month.

    Hops (Marking).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether His Majesty's Government received any representation from Foreign Powers against the marking of hops in the manner prescribed in the Government Hops Bill; and whether he would cause a copy of any representation or correspondence which might have taken place to be laid upon the Table of the House?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: Representations from certain foreign Governments as to the marking of hops were received, but inasmuch as the Government do not propose to proceed further with the Bill in question, my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture is not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's proposal.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. BOULTONasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if a representative from the Board had been to Newborough to inquire into the demand for small holdings which the county council of the Soke of Peterborough declined to meet; and, if so, had he reported to the Board, and what was the substance of such Report?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes; our Assistant Commissioner recently visited Newborough
    1478
    to inquire into the demand for small holdings, but he has not yet reported to the Board.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the Report be published?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: These Reports are never published.
    Mr. STANIER (for Mr. Meysey-Thompson)asked what number of persons in each county in England and Wales had been dispossessed or had received notice that they would be dispossessed of the whole or a portion of their farms to make room for small holders?
    The HON. MEMBERalso asked:—

    (1) What acreage had been taken, or was under notice to be taken, from farmers in order to create small holdings under the provisions of the Small Holdings Act of last Session;

    (2) If the hon. Baronet could state the professions or occupations hitherto followed by the persons placed on small holdings on land from which farm tenants had been given notice to quit under the provisions of the Small Holdings Act of last Session;

    (3) If he could state what number of farmers whose land had been taken or whose land was about to be taken for small holdings were or are tenants of Grown lands; and

    (4) If he could state what number of farm labourers, hinds, horsemen, shepherds, and other employés on and about farms had been thrown out of employment under the working of the Small Holdings Act; and if he could form any estimate of the number of those who were likely to lose their places from the same cause?

    Sir E. STRACHEY: In reply to the hon. Member's five questions, the information desired can only be obtained by application to about 10,000 local authorities. I hope, therefore, /that the hon. Member will not press for the detailed in-formation. Inquiry as to the number of Crown tenants, whose land has been, or is about to be, taken for small holdings, is being made, and I will send the hon. Member this information as soon as it is available.
    Mr. STANIER: I was asked to press for these answers; therefore, I hope the hon. Baronet will be able to supply them later on.

    Exportation of Horses.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked if the Government considered that Section 1 of the Older of the Board of Agriculture of 25th November, 1898, adequately dealt with the exportation of unfit horses; whether they could see their way to prohibit the exportation of all horses which, by reason of age, infirmity, illness, or injury, would be unfit for work in a foreign country, and must, therefore, be killed; and whether they would make it compulsory that such horses, when sold in this country, should be slaughtered on or near the premises where they were purchased?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board are satisfied that the Order gives to local authorities powers to deal adequately with the exportation of horses which cannot be conveyed without cruelty on the intended passage and on landing. They are advised that their statutory powers do not enable them to make such orders as would be necessary to carry into effect the proposals suggested in the second and third paragraphs of the question.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Will the Government support a Bill if one is introduced dealing with the subject?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask for notice of that.
    Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: Have not the Board of Agriculture appointed additional veterinary inspectors to report on these horses in order that prosecutions may be undertaken if necessary?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: Additional inspectors have been appointed further to safeguard the treatment of these horses.

    Foreign Crops (Information).
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDYasked whether any efforts are made by the Board to obtain from competing foreign countries estimates as to the probable output of crops of fruit or hops in those countries; whether he was aware that detriment is suffered by home growers from their inability to obtain any early information as to the prospects of foreign crops, such as plums; and whether the Board would, before another season, take steps to obtain and publish such information?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board circularised various fruit and hop associations early in 1906 in order to ascertain the
    1480
    nature of information as to foreign fruit crop prospects, which in their opinion would prove of value to the home grower. Acting on the replies received, we have obtained from time to time reports on the subject from some of our consuls abroad, and have published such portions of them as we have considered to be of interest to fruit growers. We hope that later on it may be found possible to obtain and publish reports on the subject from the International Agriculture Institute at Rome. We are well aware that it is greatly to the advantage of the home grower to have early advice as to the prospective crops in foreign countries, but there is considerable difficulty in obtaining it.

    Black Scab.
    Mr. STANIERasked if the Board of Agriculture could recall the letter 9 154–1 (13351) which had been sent to the county councils on the subject of black scab in potatoes, in which it asked that a specimen of the diseased potato should be sent, if possible, to the Board when the disease was notified?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The communication A. 154–1, to which the hon. Member refers, merely sets out the purport of Article I. of the Destructive Insects and Pests Order of 1908, and inasmuch as the Board are not aware of any sound objection to its issue, they are not prepared to recall it. Experience has shown us that potato growers are often ignorant of the nature of black scab, and it is therefore necessary at times to obtain specimens of suspected potatoes before a diagnosis of the disease with which they are affected can be made.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Is the sending of a letter the high-water mark of what has been done up to the present by the Board of Agriculture to stamp out black scab?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: Certainly not.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: What else has been done?
    Mr. STANIER: Are the Board aware that this disease is not only contagious, but infectious, and that therefore the practice will spread the disease?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board do not think there is any danger in what they are doing.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: Will they make inquiries as to whether or not there is danger?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: If my hon. Friend can give the Board any valuable information they will be glad to have it.

    Territorial Force (Infantry).
    Mr. HUNTasked what was the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men now in the Territorial infantry who had never fired a recruit's course of musketry?
    The HON. MEMBERalso asked what was the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who were not recruits now in the Territorial infantry who had not fired a trained soldier's course of musketry?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The information required by these questions can only be obtained by calling for a special return, the preparation of which would give a great deal of trouble to the various staffs concerned. I would remind the hon. Member that these courses need not be completed until the end of October.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the trained Territorial infantry soldier was only compelled to fire an annual course of 23 rounds of service ammunition with the military rifle; and, if so, whether he was permitted to fire them all in one afternoon?
    Mr. HALDANE: A soldier is required either to qualify in the standard test, which involves firing 23 rounds, or to attend at a range three times and fire 50 rounds of small-arms ammunition, or its equivalent, in aiming tube ammunition; one of these three attendances must be at an open range. There is no objection to a man firing the 23 rounds in an afternoon provided that he passes the test.
    Mr. HUNT: Are 23 rounds all that a man need fire? Is it necessary that he should hit the target at all?
    Mr. HALDANE: He has to pass the test.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: Is it not a fact that a repetition course, in case of failure in any one practice, may not be fired on the same afternoon?
    Mr. HALDANE: Possibly.

    Territorial Force (Ammunition, etc.).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War what precautions are taken to guard the guns, rifles, and ammunition now provided for the Territorial Force;
    1482
    and what is the number of rounds per gun and cartridges per rifle which are kept ready and would be instantly available for repelling a sudden raid?
    Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member will find the required information contained in Part III. of the Equipment Regulations, Territorial Force. From this he will see that 500 rounds a gun and 300 rounds per rifle are kept ready for immediate use.
    Mr. HUNT: What precautions are taken to guard these rifles, guns, and ammunition?
    Mr. HALDANE: A part is under the custody of the Army Ordnance Department, a smaller part is with the unit.
    Mr. HUNT: Is there no guard over them?
    Mr. HALDANE: There are always precautions as to the keeping of ammunition even in time of peace, and much greater precautions would be taken in the event of war.

    Army (Frozen Meat).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that our soldiers are supplied with frozen meat twice a week, and of the fact that it is generally recognised by experts in the meat trade that one pound of freshly-killed meat has more nourishment in it than several pounds of frozen meat, he could see his way to having our soldiers supplied in future entirely with freshly-killed meat?
    Mr. HALDANE: It is not admitted that frozen meat is less nourishing than freshly-killed meat. From experiments that have been made it has been proved that pound for pound frozen and chilled meat is practically equal to fresh-killed meat. Under these circumstances it is not proposed to make any alteration in the present meat supply for the Army.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a pamphlet issued lately experts consider that one pound of freshly- killed meat is worth a stone of frozen meat?
    Mr. HALDANE: I should be sorry to accept responsibility for all the things that have recently appeared in pamphlets about the Army, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, without knowing it, himself has flourished upon frozen meat.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not a huntsman in the country who would allow his hounds to be fed on frozen meat?

    Indian Police.
    Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether European supervision exists in the police Department to a greater or lesser extent than in other Government Departments in India; and whether the police Department if beyond others staffed by Natives of the different countries in the Indian Empire?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (The Master of Ellbank): It is hardly possible to institute an exact comparison of this nature between the police and any other civil Department. No doubt, if my hon. Friend means to comprise the whole force, including the rank and file, the European element is proportionately smaller

    British Indians in the Transvaal.
    Sir HENRY COTTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, under instructions from the Government of Bombay, the sheriff of Bombay has cancelled a notice of a public meeting which had been convened by him, upon an influ-entially-signed requisition, to discuss the position of British-Indians in the Transvaal; and, if so, whether he can say why the instructions of the Government of Bombay were issued to the sheriff?
    The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has no official information on the subject. He has seen a report in the Press to the effect stated. The reason given in that report for the decision of the Government of Bombay was that they thought that the passing of the South Africa Union Bill made such a meeting under the auspices of a Government official undesirable.
    Sir H. COTTON: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the statement that the order prohibiting this meeting has been withdrawn, and that the meeting will be held on the 17fch of this month?
    The MASTER of ELIBANK: No, Sir; I have no official knowledge of that.
    Sir H. COTTON: Will the hon. Gentleman make some inquiry?
    The MASTER of ELIBANK: Yes.

    Chinese Pork.
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if the shipment of Chinese pork to London was made in a steamer which received a subsidy from the Government for carrying mails?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): The consignment alluded to in the question is understood to have been made per the Peninsular Oriental Steam Navigation Company's s. s. "Palermo." Under the terms of the Post Office contract with that company, the Postmaster-General has the right to send mails by all vessels performing any service undertaken by the company for their own purpose. The "Palermo" on the voyage in question was not employed as a mail ship, nor is she likely to be so employed.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask whether the ship was not to all intents and purposes one of the Peninsular and Oriental line subsidised, and whether it makes much difference whether or not this is the actual boat?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We subsidise the Peninsular and Oriental line to render certain services to provide ships for the performance of these services; but specific ships are not allocated for the performance of these specific duties.
    Mr. FELL: Would it not be cheaper that they should be allocated?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I do not think so. The theory about the mail contracts is that proportionate value is received.

    Labour Exchanges (Appointments).
    Mr. LEHMANNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet able to state the method by which the persons to be appointed to do the work of the Labour Exchanges will be selected?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I propose to make the principal appointments myself. With the exception, however, of this comparatively small class of posts, which is not too numerous for me to deal with personally, I have decided to refer all other substantial appointments required to be made at the outset to a small independent Committee of Selection. This Committee will consist of three members, one of whom will be a leading employer, one a representative of labour, and the third, who will act as chairman, one of the Civil Service Commissioners. It may, perhaps, be convenient at a later stage to add a woman

    1485
    member when considering women's appointments. Mr. Stanley Leathes and the hon. Member for Clitheroe have already very kindly consented to serve, and I hope to announce the name of the employer member shortly. I have not yet received a reply to my letter.
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of his Department to give all the superior appointments under the Labour Exchanges Act to men who are already in the service of the Board of Trade; and whether, in that case, it is useless for those who have not that qualification to send in applications for these positions?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I shall be willing to consider myself, or refer to the Committee of Selection, the claims of any leally good candidates.

    Trinity House and Irish Lights.
    Captain CRAIGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state if, during the recent conference at Trinity House specially convened for the purpose of considering the subject of lighting the coast off Strangford Bar, the Commissioners, of Irish Lights advocated a lightship being moored off Ballyquinton Point AS the best means of marking that part of the coast; and whether he can say why the Commissioners were not permitted to -carry out their wishes, and under what Statute it is necessary for the Irish Lights Commissioners to obtain the acquiescence of Trinity House in such matters?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that at the Conference at Trinity House the Commissioners of Irish Lights advocated the establishment of a lightship in Dundrum Bay, and that the Trinity House stated that they were not prepared to give their statutory approval to the proposal, which they considered unnecessary. The proposal was then withdrawn from the discussion. The requirement that the Commissioners shall submit any scheme for the exercise of lighthouse powers to the Trinity House, who shall make a report stating their approval or rejection of the scheme with or without modification, is contained in Section 640 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
    Captain CRAIG: Are the Irish Lights Commissioners not in a far better position to judge of the necessity of a light than the Trinity House Brethren?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should not like to enter into an examination of the relative professional attainments of these two bodies; but the Trinity House Brethren are exercising a statutory duty. If an appeal were lodged by the Irish Lights Commissioners, then certainly the President of the Board of Trade would have to give a decision between the parties. I do not think any appeal is likely to be lodged.
    Captain CRAIG: Have the Irish Lights Commissioners not been established for the purpose of considering what lights are necessary around the Irish coast?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not responsible for the state of the law, which, undoubtedly gives, I believe, in the public interest, the Trinity House Brethren the authority they possess.
    Captain CRAIG: Is Trinity House a branch of the Treasury?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; it is an ancient and well-known Order.
    Mr. JOYCE: May I ask whether the same applies to the North Lights Commissioners for Scottish waters?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    Small Holdings Act (Public Inquiries).
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked the hon. Member for South Somerset how many public inquiries under the Small Holdings Act with a view to the compulsory acquisition of land have been held since the Act came into operation; and in how many cases have the Commissioners, as the result of such inquiries, declined to confirm a compulsory order made by a county council?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: Forty-seven such inquiries have been held. In five cases the Board have refused to confirm the orders submitted, and twelve of the orders are still under consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: In accordance with the request of the Prime Minister, may I repeat my question of yesterday as to what are the arrangements the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make for discussion in the Grand Committee of the Development and Road Improvement

1487
Funds Bill? May I also ask whether he proposes, if the Licensing Clauses of the Finance Bill are finished to-night, to take any other matter?
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he is aware that the Development Bill has been described by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) as "the most revolutionary measure ever introduced into Parliament, and that it endorses one of the main principles of the Right to Work Bill," and whether, in view of the fact that this opinion is shared by other Members, he thinks it fair to ask the Committee to begin its consideration in the third week in September?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not assent to the description given of the Bill, which does not seem to be borne out by the numbers in the Division on the second reading. With regard to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, we shall be glad to indicate to the Chairman of the Standing Committee, so far as we can, in advance, the days on which the Finance Bill will be taken, so as to enable him to consult the convenience of Members as to the days on which the Committee shall sit. With reference to the other question put by the right hon. Gentleman, when we have finished the Licensing Clauses to-night we shall not take any controversial business; certainly nothing without consent.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee—[27th Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.
  PART II—DUTIES or LIQUOR LICENCES.

    CLAUSE 34.—(Duty on Statements of Receipts from Intoxicating Liquor Supplied in a Club.)
    (1) It shall be the duty of the secretary of every registered club to deliver to the Commissioner's, in the month of January in every year or within such further time as the Commissioners may in any case allow, a statement of the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied in the club during the preceding calendar year, in such form And containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Commissioners, and every such statement shall be charged with an Excise Duty of threepence for every pound of the receipts shown in the statement.
    (2) If the secretary of a club fails to de liver a statement in accordance with this Section, or if he delivers a statement which is in any material particular untrue, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both imprisonment and fine.
    (3) The receipts of a club from intoxicating liquor shall be deemed to include, where any intoxicating liquor is supplied in the club gratis, the value of the liquor so supplied at cost price, with an addition of ten per cent., and where any intoxicating liquor is supplied in the club at less than cost price, with the addition of ten per cent., any additional sum which would have been received if the intoxicating liquor had been sold at cost price with an addition of ten per cent.
    (4) If any duty under this Section re mains unpaid after the first day of March in any year, the duty may be levied by distress on the premises of the club in respect of which the duty is due, and the collector of Customs and Excise may, for that purpose, by warrant signed by him, authorize any person to distrain upon the premises, and to sell any distress levied by public auction, after giving six days' previous-notice of the sale:
    The proceeds of the sale shall be applied in or towards payment of the costs and expenses of the distress and sale, and the payment of the duty due, and the surplus, if any, shall be paid to the secretary of the club, and treated by him as part of the funds of the club.
    (5) If any duty payable under this Section on the receipts from intoxicating liquor in a club remains unpaid after the first day of March in any year, or if the secretary of a club fails in any year to deliver a statement as required by this Section, the supply of any intoxicating liquor in the club shall, so long as the duty remains unpaid, or the failure continues, as the case may be, be deemed to be a sale of intoxicating liquor without a licence.
    (6) The Commissioners may make regulations for adapting the provisions of this Section to the case of a club which is discontinued as a registered club during any calendar year, and for procuring a statement under this Section of the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied in the club up to the date of the discontinuance of the club as a registered club, and for charging the duty under this Section in respect of that statement.
    (7) The clerk by whom any register of clubs is kept shall send notice to the Commissioners of the entry of any new club, and of any case in which a club ceases to be registered, upon the register kept by him.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Would you allow me, Mr. Emmott, with reference to what occurred last night, when the Attorney-General for Ireland challenged the statement I made when we were discussing surrender licences, to read a few lines from the evidence of the late Recorder of Dublin, before the Select Committee on Sunday Closing Acts (Ireland) which sat in 1888:—
    "As a rule I never give a new licence without What I call a quid pro quo; I make it a removal. If a man shows really very strong grounds for getting a new licence I say to him, 'Well, you are asking me with a. stroke of my pen to give you what you show me is worth t2.000 or £3,000, just as if I wrote a cheque for you for that amount; I cannot do it unless you close somewhat like a commensurate quantity of drink consumption. If you buy up one or two licences and suppress them I will give yon the removals from those houses to the new one that you want.' When this was done once or twice a great many of the less solvent publicans became at once most anxious that they might get a couple of hundred pounds, or whatever it was that would be given for the house that was to be closed, and from which a removal was to be made."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDmoved, in Sub-section (1) to omit the words, "a statement of the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied in the club during the preceding calendar year, in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Commissioners, "and to insert the words, "particulars of all intoxicating liquors in and brought into the club as follows, namely:—

    (a)the stocks of all intoxicating liquors in the club on the first day of January of the preceding year in the form of ordinary stock sheets specifying the separate articles and the quantities, and in the case of spirits the strengths;

    (b)all the deliveries of intoxicating liquors to such club during the calendar year with the like details, and the prices actually charged or paid for the items;

    (c)the stocks on the first day of January of the current year with the like details."

    The Clause we are now considering is a very important one; it creates the tax on the turnover on alcohol in all clubs of the United Kingdom. As the Clause now reads it imposes a tax on the amount realised each year on the retail sales in each club, and it provides that
    1490
    a statement of such sales and the amounts realised by such sales should be furnished to the Commissioners of Inland' Revenue. I confess I am scarcely favourable, personally, to taxing clubs at all, but we are bound by the second reading of the Bill and by the financial Resolutions, and. therefore we are committed to the principle of taxing clubs, and we are committed to the principle, I take it, that that tax should be on the poundage principle. The only question, therefore, which really is of any importance upon the Clause is raised by the Amendment as to the method in which this proposed taxation should be carried out. I think it will be agreed that that method should have four distinct characteristics. First, it should be simple in principle; second, it should be just as between one kind of club and another; third, it should be incapable of evasion;, and, fourth, it should be carried out with the minimum of trouble and inconvenience to the clubs themselves. If clubs are to be taxed, and the poundage system adopted, it will be generally admitted that these four principles should, as far as possible, be incorporated in the method. I also think it will be agreed that the system in the Bill, as drawn, of a tax of 3d. in the £ on the aggregate sum realised from all the sales in clubs during the year is impracticable.
    There is no doubt that to insist on every club keeping and rendering an account of every detail of the sale of liquor during the year and furnishing that account at the end of the year to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, would, in practice, break down altogether and could not effectively be carried out. That is the position in which we find ourselves with regard to this Clause as it stands. What would it involve? There are thousands of transactions in every ordinary club in alcoholic liquors, and it would mean bookkeeping entries with regard to each. Everybody in the Committee is familiar with the expression "whisky and Polly," and if everyone is not personally acquainted with it, he knows it by name. There are also such phrases as "gin and seltzer," and I am informed that beer and" ginger-beer makes a mixture which is called "shandygaff." In every case where a fluid of that kind is ordered there would require to be two entries in order to comply with the Clause as it stands; part of the money would require to be carried to-the alcohol department and part to the-mineral water department. It is obvious that such a system as that would be

    1491
    impractical and would break down altogether. For the purpose of this taxation it would be impossible to accept mere estimates. You would require to have the actual figures; entries would be essential. In West End clubs with which some of us are acquainted, perhaps this system would not be impossible, because a staff of clerks could be kept and these entries could be made; but in the working men's clubs, of which there are thousands, to insist upon accounts of this kind being kept and rendered to the Commissioners would be absolutely impracticable, and the system would break down before many weeks were over. I think all parties are agreed that if clubs are to be taxed upon a poundage system that taxation will have to be calculated on their turnover. How is that to be carried out in a practical way? I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice of certain Amendments, and the effect of these Amendments is simply to alter the word "sale" into" purchase," and to substitute "sixpence" for "three-pence." I think this would be as unjust and unfair, as the other system, which I propose, would be just and fair; it might be practical, but it would be unjust. I hope to show that it will be essential if you are to get at the turnover for the purposes of taxation, either on one system or the other, you must adopt, either in substance or the actual words, the Amendment I propose. That Amendment provides that, instead of sending in every year to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue a mere statement of the sale as provided by the Bill, there should be some method such as this: The stock at the beginning of the year should be furnished. It is quite simple. There are only a few items. The amount of that stock can be stated, and there is not a well-conducted club in the Kingdom that does not take stock at least once a year. Therefore, there would be no difficulty in clubs furnishing a statement of their stock at the commencement of a given period. If you add to the stock at the beginning the amount of the deliveries into the clubs, and then take the stock at the end of the period, you have all the particulars you need, and you know what the purchases and the sales have been. One of the items will not be necessary except on the first occasion, namely, the stock at the beginning, because that would be the same as the stock at the end of the
    1492
    previous year. Therefore, in subsequent years two items only require to be furnished, namely, the amount of the purchases and the stock at the end of the year.
    What is the result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments if you do not adopt my Amendment? You would entirely ignore all existing stocks. There are plenty of clubs in London with thousands of pounds of stocks consisting of wines and spirits. The effect of this Clause with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments, will be that members of West End clubs in London will go on for 20 or 30 years to come consuming the fluids which were in the cellars of the clubs last year without having paid a halfpenny of tax, whereas the working men's clubs, which have practically no stocks at all, would be paying a tax upon every gallon they get into their club. I cannot imagine a more unjust thing than the Clause as it will stand with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. Someone may say, "Oh! We can get over that perhaps by slightly amending this Clause, and taxing only existing stocks." That would be equally unfair, because those stocks are not for immediate consumption, and to call upon a club with a large wine stock to pay down this extra sixpence would be quite as unjust as leaving the stocks without being taken into consideration. That being the case, we ask ourselves what would be a reasonable solution of the difficulty? There is only one method to adopt, and that is to treat it as a business man would treat an affair of this sort, that is, in a businesslike way. I put it to the Government that they are bound to adopt my Amendment if they are going to have the tax upon the purchases either in the words I have put down, or, as they often prefer, some other more complicated and difficult words drawn up by themselves. It is provided that every club shall send to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue what every club has got, namely, its last stock account. They have to furnish a list of the purchases, and give the amount of the stock at the end of the year. That is not an extra item because it is the same as the stock at the end of the previous year. Therefore, there is only one item extra. When you have that information you are in a position to make your taxation either on sales, which the Government thought at first they would do, or on purchases, which you like. You can take it upon the sales because you know exactly how much whisky and wine has been sold. The differ-

    1493
    ence between the stock at the beginning plus the amount of the purchases and the stock at the end of the year will give you the exact information you require, and from that any clerk could make out the statement. The Government are in this position: They can drop the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments, or some of them, which I think are utterly wrong; they should drop the Amendment putting the tax merely upon purchases, and go back to the just and proper suggestion of putting it on the sales, but not on the detailed sales. It should be placed upon the total amount of the sales. The whole matter should be arranged either on the sales or purchases as soon as you have got this information which I suggest you should ask for.
    Then there is this further point. If you have the two stocks taken at the beginning and the end of the year you could easily detect any evasion or humbug. You could also see whether the business was being done in the regular way. You could detect any attempt to deceive, and you could put the tax either upon the sales or upon the purchases. I think those Members of the Government who are present to-day, and who have been present during most of the proceedings on this Bill will do me the justice of admitting that every Amendment which I have proposed down to the present moment has been a bonâ fide attempt to try and make workable the somewhat crude and difficult clauses in this Bill, and I put this Amendment forward in the same spirit. We are going to tax the clubs on the poundage system, but let us do it in a just and businesslike way, and in a way which is going to give the minimum of inconvenience and in a manner which cannot be evaded. Do not let us make one law for one class, and another law for another class, but let us do the thing in a proper, businesslike way. It is in that spirit, and without admitting that I am in favour of taxing clubs at all, that I propose this Amendment to insert the words "Particulars of all intoxicating liquors in and brought into the club." Why do I use those words? There are cases where large quantities of wine have been left by will, and where a considerable amount of liquors have been given. If you are only going to use the word "purchases" you are not going to get your tax upon what has been left under a will, or upon what is given to the club. Therefore I think you ought to get your tax upon all the alcohol that is brought into the club.
    4.0 P.M.
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Herbert Samuel): On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member proposes to levy the tax on the stocks now in the cellars of the clubs as they are being used up?
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: As they are being used up, certainly.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is really a comparatively small point, but is that within the terms of the Resolution?
    The CHAIRMAN: The terms of the Resolution are: "That in the year beginning the 1st day of January, nineteen hundred and ten, and in every subsequent year, a statement shall be made or the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied in every club, and of the purchases of intoxicating liquor by the club during the preceding year, and an Excise Duty shall be charged at the rate of threepence for every pound of those receipts, or, at a rate not exceeding sixpence on every pound of those purchases." As I read the hon. Member's series of Amendments to this Clause, all that he seeks to tax is what he puts under item B of this Amendment, and, as far as I can see, that is within the terms of the Resolution. I do not know whether he is really seeking to do something more.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: When I first saw the financial Resolution I got up and raised this very point, and I think the observations I made bad same effect upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it was in consequence of those observations that he altered the form of the Resolution and put in the alternative. When I saw the Clause, I put down Amendments in the same happy-go-lucky, haphazard way as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put them down, namely, simply to alter "sales" into "purchases"; but, when I came to consider it from a businesslike point of view, I found that would not be right, and I therefore put this Amendment down, so that you should have stocks plus purchases. You will then have all the material before you, and the Government can please itself in what form it puts the tax. You have got your alternative in. the financial Resolution, and you can now put the tax either upon the sales, from a gross point of view, taking the prices at which they are supplied in the club, and that would relieve you of the difficulty of book-keeping entries of every transaction,

    1495
    which, I believe, is the best way, or you can in the alternative put it upon the actual sales. If you insist upon putting it upon purchases, you wall not get a tax upon the whole of the stocks, or any part of the stocks of the wealthy clubs of England, which have enormous stocks of valuable wines and spirits. The Kitchen Committee of this House has very large stocks. All those would escape. It is not for me to finish off the Government's Clause. I am doing my duty by proposing this first Amendment, and leaving the Government to get out of the difficulty as best they can. The Government must decide which way they do it. For the present I merely propose that the Government should place itself in the position of having the material before it which is essential for dealing with this subject in an intelligible and businesslike way on either system, and it is upon that basis that I propose the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not seem to propose to alter the basis, and therefore I do not see that this Amendment is outside the Resolution.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the hon. Member adheres to sales, then his Amendment is clearly within the terms of the Resolution, for you can impose the tax upon sales, no matter when the goods may be purchased. They may be purchased ten or five years ago, to-day or to-morrow, but if the proposals of the Government are accepted, and we change the basis from sales to purchases, then the hon. Member's proposal appears to be outside the Resolution.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: No doubt.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It would be outside the Resolution, because you would not be taxing purchases, but goods which had been in the cellars of clubs perhaps for some years. Therefore one preliminary objection to this Amendment is that we do propose, I think with the general approval of the House, to go upon the basis of purchases and not sales. When the Resolutions were before the House there was a general feeling—almost a unanimous feeling—expressed that purchases were very much better as a basis than sales, and I should be greatly surprised if hon. Members would wish to-day to go back upon that opinion and to take a basis of sales instead of a basis of purchases. If that is so, then the hon. Member's Amendment
    1496
    clearly cannot be accepted now, for he would prevent us later on in the afternoon carrying out what is evidently desired by the House. Now, to turn to the merits of his proposal, he clearly wishes to get at the stocks, and no doubt in theory there is much to be said for that proposal. If it was a matter of very large importance, possibly some effort ought to be made in order to meet his view, but I suggest to-him that in practice none of these clubs live on their stocks. The stock at the beginning of one year is very much the same as the stock at the beginning of the last year. It has been replenished during the 12 months in proportion to the amount by which it has been diminished. The Amendment, therefore, is really not necessary, and, apart from the objection with which I began, if it were adopted it would mean that every club would have to value its stock of wine every year.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It does.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I dare say many clubs do, but it would be imposing upon a great number of smaller clubs—workmen's clubs—
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: They have got no stocks.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They must have some stock to carry on from week to week. It would be imposing upon a large number of clubs not accustomed to valuing their stocks a great deal of clerical labour for which there is no necessity, and it would bring in no real return. We propose that the Commissioners shall be able to require such information to be supplied as they think necessary to ascertain what has been the purchases within the year, and for all practical purposes that is sufficient for the purposes of this tax.
    Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: I think the object of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) will be clear to everyone, although he may claim to take a high-minded action in connection with this Budget. He might have told us that during-the last four years there has been an increase in the number of clubs in Liverpool. There are 100 clubs now, against only 80 four years ago. There is a continual increase in the number of clubs in Liverpool in the number of unlicensed premises, unlicensed drinking shops. The hon. Member did not tell the House that all clubs buy a large stock when wine is cheap. The Kitchen Committee of this House does the same. They bought large stocks of

    1497
    whisky just before the Budget was introduced. The point the hon. Member made was merely one to gain favour with the workmen's clubs. It was purely an appeal to the working men to get their support on this club question. Hon. Members opposite are going to their constituencies to say, "Here is a Liberal Government bringing in a Budget which is going to allow the rich clubs to have no taxation at all on their large stocks of wine." The hon. Member knows that is, I will not say misrepresentation, but purely an electioneering cry. Even if these clubs do not have to pay on their stocks at the present time, the hon. Member is perfectly well aware that when there is a cheap lot of wine of a particular brand which the members of a club like that brand will be bought, and the stock of every club is maintained year by year. In most of the large clubs whose balance-sheets I have been able to get hold of the stock is maintained identically within a few pounds year by year. This is an Amendment merely for political purposes, and I hope the House will reject it.
    Mr. J. D. REES: I would say a word against this Amendment on its merits. The hon. Gentleman said that the stocks of the clubs ought to be taxed, and I understood the Chancellor of the Duchy to say the same. I submit it is not fair that those stocks should be taxed. They were bought out and out under the taxation in force at the time. They are not in the clubs as if they were in bond subject to any further taxation that may be brought in. They are the out and out property of the club, and it would be ex poste facto legislation to take the step which I understand the hon. Member's Amendment would take, and that is to give the tax a retrospective effect, and to levy it upon the liquor bought before. It is all very well to say the stuff is bought, and should subsequently be taxed, but the stocks belonged to given members at a given time, and belong to present members at the present time, and you may not be able at the present day to buy such good wine at the same price. If a club has better wine than it can now afford to buy because it has been handed over as a legacy to the present members, so much the better. It is in the nature of a windfall, but not a windfall of the character which ought to be taxed. I cannot see any argument in favour of the Amendment. Besides, I dispute there are large stocks of wine in the clubs. I believe in London that is contrary to the fact. If
    1498
    there is any good wine in a club, the members find it out and drink it, and it is not the case that they have large stocks. Is this does not affect the working men's clubs, which I do not think it does, I cannot quite see the object of the Amendment at all. Therefore, for my part, I mean to vote against it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order. Is it in order for any Gentleman, not a Member of the Government, to propose an Amendment involving any extra charge upon the public?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have looked into the hon. Member's Amendments, and I cannot see that they do involve any extra-charge upon the public. Whether he has in his mind something which will involve an extra charge upon the public is another matter. As far as I read his Amendment, he only wishes to tax under item B, which is in order. What he is not in order in doing is to tax both receipts and sales. I do not think he can do that, because the Resolution says either one or the other.
    Mr. G. L. COURTHOPE: I want to point out the only reasonable ground of opposition which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made to the Amendment is based on an entire mistake. Surely every club must not only have its stock taken once a year, but it must also have a value put on that stock? I am not aware of any club in which that is not done.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily, and, although the hon. Member below the Gangway opposite (Mr. Markham) has blamed me for not mentioning a particular subject, I believe I did in fact refer to it; at any rate, if there was any failure to do so on my part it has been through my desire to shorten the proceedings. With regard to the question of stocks, under the Clause as it stands, all existing stocks will be taxed, because they will be taxed on sale, and, therefore, there is nothing novel in the Motion I am putting forward. I think the Committee will agree that the discussion has not been altogether thrown away, because it has cast a light on the whole subject as to how this matter will require to be dealt with. It is no business of mine to attempt to make the proposals of the Government more sensible. I have simply done my duty, as a Member of this Com-

    1499
    mittee, in endeavouring to point out that if they are going to tax either purchases or sales in a club you must have stocks taken; you must know what comes into the club, and what goes out, and if you do not take the precaution of getting that information you will lay yourselves open, in the future, to all kinds of evasion and deception. You must have information which will enable you to check these matters. But, as the Government do not see their way to adopt my Amendment, it is not my affair, and I, therefore, respectfully ask leave to withdraw it, feeling I have simply done my duty in bringing it forward.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELmoved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "receipts from" ["a statement of the receipts from"], and to insert instead thereof the words "purchases during the preceding calendar year of" ["intoxicating liquor supplied in the club."]
    This is an Amendment to transfer the tax from receipts to purchases. It has been brought in in deference to an opinion expressed in all parts of the House. There are three reasons which make it preferable to put the tax on purchases instead of on sales. In the first place, it avoids bookkeeping—at any rate, it simplifies it very much, because it will not be necessary to keep an account of every penny received. Secondly, it will avoid the possibility of trying to evade the tax by manipulating prices—by selling at cost price, or possibly below, and raising the members' subscriptions proportionately in order that the club may get off with a lighter duty. This Amendment will enable us to dispense with Sub-section (3) altogether. The third reason appeals more particularly to working men's clubs, and it has been emphasised by the Club and Institute Union. They say that if you tax purchases you are penalising the club, which has excellent premises, and charges high prices for its liquors in order to meet the cost of keeping up the premises. Some working men's clubs are small and inconvenient, and charge very low prices. The idea is that the clubs, with commodious premises, charging high prices on their liquors, shall not be penalised as compared with the smaller clubs.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the decision the Government have come to is a wise one. My hon. Friend the
    1500
    Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) raised this point in the discussion on the Resolution, and what he then said commended itself to Gentlemen sitting in all quarters of the House. I made a suggestion at the same time, which I was not fortunate enough to get the Government to accept; and I suppose it is too late now to put it into the Ball. I made it as a personal suggestion, speaking for myself only, and it certainly met with a good deal of support in different quarters of the House at the time. I think it is a matter for regret the Government cannot see their way in connection with this Club Tax to make the poundage proportionate to the ratio between the receipts in the club from liquor and those from other sources, in the same way as they have apportioned their tax on hotels. However, I recognise that I am put out of court by the form which the Committee gave to the Resolution on which this Bill is founded, and I do not propose to say anything more on the subject. I only declare myself impenitent, and regret that the experiment was not tried. I think the Chancellor of the Duchy has a peculiar tenderness for the more palatial clubs—the clubs which give large accommodation to their members and recoup themselves by high prices. He sees it would be very unjust to tax these clubs more highly than other clubs where perhaps quite as much liquor is sold, but where it is sold at lower prices because the club accommodation is altogether of a poorer character. I wish he had given full weight to that consideration when we were discussing the cases of hotels and public-houses. I think the Government have not shown so much tenderness for hotels and public-houses as they are displaying towards the better class of clubs under this Clause. Still, they are on right lines now, and perhaps when we get to the Report stage we may persuade them to go a little further and apply the principle generally to all licences.
    Mr. E. A. GOULDING: I consider that the ordinary trade, taxed as it has been enormously and further impeded in its work by the high assessments to which it is subjected, has been most unfairly handicapped in its competition in legitimate trade by these clubs. I think the time has come when the clubs should be brought under some supervision and made to bear their fair contribution towards the burdens of the State. I have always compared

    1501
    the position of clubs with regard to public- houses with that of a beer barrel. The beer barrel has two holes; in one a plug is placed, in the other a tap. The public house has always been the tap, and it has always been regulated with undue severity, while, for political reasons, the club has been treated as the bung-hole—the plug has been taken out and the contents have been poured out without any restrictions whatsoever when the barrel arrives at the club. Whatever grievances the licensed trade had before in regard to this question are now multiplied tenfold by the enormous duties put on the trade. The competition to which it is subjected will be all the keener, and men will be driven into clubs, which are nothing more than unlicensed public-houses. I favour this scheme of raising money by a tax on purchases instead of on sales, and I do not see how it is going to work unjustly on the workmen's clubs. There is no doubt the commodities which are bought by the bigger clubs, consisting of expensive wines, and luxuries of that character, would never be included in the purchase-list of a working men's club. Therefore, the contribution to be raised from the large clubs will be quite in proportion to that borne by the working men's clubs. I think the House should bear in mind, in their action in regard to the licensing trade, the extraordinary growth which has taken place in the number of clubs throughout the country. If this taxation will in any way check that, and do some thing to alter the position which exists to-day in connection with these innumerable unlicensed public-houses, which are under no regulations and no limitations, then some good may result. I will only trouble the House with a very few figures. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has, over and over again, willingly or un willingly, -tried to persuade the House and the country that the danger of the increase of clubs is not as great as it is—
    The CHAIRMAN: I hardly think that point arises on this Amendment. It would be more appropriate to the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. GOULDING: Very well; I will only say I much prefer this system of taxation on purchases, and the only regret I have is that the tax is not one shilling or more instead of the proposed amount, because that would be more commensurate with the charges imposed on licensed premises.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Wherever drink is sold it ought to bear the same amount of taxation. Whether it is sold by a publican or by the secretary of a club the-tax ought to be the same. We have now, for the first time, given us by the Government a method of fair appraisement of the nature of the tax on the sale of drink. The Government have laid down what they say is a fair charge. They suggest that, in the case of clubs, it is 3d. in the pound on the receipts.
    The CHAIRMAN: This argument does not arise on this Amendment.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I submit that the right hon. Gentleman is changing the nature of the tax from a charge on receipts to a charge on purchases? Would it not be in order to say that that method, if adopted in the case of clubs, is also a proper one to adopt in the case of hotels and other premises Of course if I am told I should reserve my argument I will do so.
    The CHAIRMAN: We can hardly say, on this Amendment, what ought to be done in regard to hotels. When we come to discuss the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill it may be in order to say that the clubs are being let off too lightly, but I cannot see that the argument the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to raise now comes properly on this Amendment.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I want to make sure that the clubs are not being let off too lightly, and I, therefore, ask the Government to tell me upon what ground they fix the tax for clubs at 3d. in the £
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that question will come, so far as it is relevant to the details of the Clause, on the question of amount, whether it should be 3d. or 6d.
    Colonel WALKER: I wish to point out that possibly there may be confusion if we adhere to the word "purchases" in the Amendment when we come to deal with, some of the large transactions which take place in clubs in London and elsewhere. These clubs, when there is a favourable year for champagne, purchase something like 300 or 400 dozen at a time, and do not take delivery of them, but keep them in bond. The invoice is registered in the club as a purchase, but it will not be paid for, and will not be used for a number of years. I think on wide grounds, although, no doubt, the large clubs will be well able to contribute to the revenue, that it would

    1503
    be better to have the Amendment in something like a businesslike form, and I should like to add after the word "purchases" the words "and delivery," so that it would read "purchases and delivery." If that is done you get rid of a certain amount of confusion, because a club does not order always the same quantity of wine every year, and if they are well advised by their committee they will only purchase when special vintages are very good, and, therefore, it is wise to buy, so that they may lay down the wines for some years. They would only buy, therefore, when the wines were ripe for that purpose. I may explain, for the benefit of those who do not indulge in this class of liquor, that the champagne vintage, even in a favourable year, is not fit to be drank by a connoisseur for a long period sometimes. Another vintage may he fit to drink at an earlier period than that of the favourable year, and therefore although clubs may order these wines they may not have to pay for them for five, six, or seven years. In the case of port, it may have to be kept for 30 or 40 years.
    Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: May I ask the hon. Member whether the club would not get the wines at a considerably reduced price on account of their buying these raw wines, for which, when they came to sell, they would get a much enhanced figure?
    Colonel WALKER: The hon. Member is a business man, and must know that the wine must be charged with interest at the value that it is in these cases. I, therefore, beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add, after the word "purchases," the words "and delivery."
    The CHAIRMAN: If that is going to be done we had better leave out the words of the Bill first, and then I can take the hon. Member's Amendment.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That the words 'purchases during the preceding calendar year of be there inserted."
    Colonel WALKER: I move that the words I mentioned be there added, but I have not had time to ascertain whether they will read properly with the Clause. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will therefore deal merely with the substance of my Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: Are the words to be "purchases and delivery" during the preceding calendar year? I think it would be better to insert after the word "purchases" the word "delivered."
    Colonel WALKERmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after the word "purchases" the word "delivered."
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am advised that, in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member, it would be a purchase if a club orders, or pays for, wine; it does not matter whether it is delivered in the cellars or not, it would be a purchase, and there would be a tax upon it; but, in any case, it does not matter at all. They would be taxed upon it, sooner or later, and whether it comes in one year, or another year, for the purposes of revenue makes no difference.
    Mr. JOHN GRETTON: It is not at all clear as the Clause stands what it is that the Government mean by the word "purchases "—whether the tax will be on the actual price paid, or a standard price; or do they mean the price subject to a discount?
    The CHAIRMAN: We have the Amendment to the proposed Amendment before us, and we had better get that settled.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. GRETTON: I think the Government should give us a little further elucidation as to what the word "purchases" may mean. Of course, if goods are purchased and paid for at the time, or within a few days, the discount would be very much larger than if they are paid for in twelve months, and it is not quite clear whether the Government mean the actual money paid or some other price, because wine, like other goods, is subject to a varying discount.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The wine would be taxed on the actual amount which they paid on delivery.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment made: After the word "liquor" ["purchases during the preceding calendar year of intoxicating liquor supplied"] to insert the words "to be."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    Mr. RAWLINSONmoved, after the word "club" ["supplied to the club"] to insert the words "or to members thereof."

    1505
    The Bill, as it is drawn, is drafted somewhat peculiarly, and I do not know whether it has been mentioned or not as it is drafted now it only applies to wine which has been purchased and supplied in the club, and therefore it does not touch other sales to members off the club premises. There is at the present moment an off-trade in connection with clubs in the country, and after the provisions of this Finance Bill it will become very much larger, because when clubs are taxed it will be the object of club members to patronise their clubs rather than to go for supplies of whisky, etc., to the local publicans or grocers. Supposing during a club football match they want refreshment by the way, the members would probably buy from their club and would get the advantage which the club would get of buying the article at trade price. The article would be delivered at the railway station, the club would get a small profit upon it, and the members would get it at the reduced price. I venture to think that if you tax clubs at all this off-trade should be taxed in the same way as trade done inside the club. They are in direct competition with the local publican and the local grocer, and after the passing of this Act that competition will be greater than it was before. Therefore I think that to limit the taxation simply to the liquor supplied in the clubs h an unduly narrow provision, and the tax ought to apply to off-sales as well as to sales on the premises.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government, of course, are in entire agreement with the hon. Member in the purpose which he has in view. Undoubtedly the goods supplied for off-consumption to clubs ought to be taxed just as much as those supplied for consumption inside. We disapprove of the off-consumption in regard to clubs at all, and it is regrettable that it is permitted under the Act of 1902. In our Licensing Bill of last year we proposed to prohibit the sale off the premises. The point, however, is covered by the Bill as it stands, as it does not apply to liquors supplied in clubs and consumed in clubs, but to all liquors supplied by the club, although it may be for off-consumption. Clause 27 of the Act of 1902 regulates the off-sale of liquors by clubs, and says it is to be limited to members, and must not be sold to persons other than members. These are the words: "Intoxicating liquor shall not be supplied in a club for consumption
    1506
    off the premises, except to a member of the club, and if any person supplies," and so forth, there is a penalty, so that the words of our Clause closely follow the present law, and I think the words "supplied in" cover the supplies of liquor off the premises.
    Mr. MARKHAM: I should like to know if the Solicitor-General agrees with that interpretation. Take a case which frequently happens in my part of the world, where a club take a barrel of beer and bring it Into a field. Is that barrel of beer consumed in the club? It will be perfectly easy for that barrel of beer not to pass through the club receipts. Or take the case in Cardiff, where they formed a club which had no premises at all. That is a club within the meaning of the Act of 1902, which covers any club, wherever it is formed and whether it has premises or not. Is it quite clear that the Bill as it stands would cover a case where beer was sold in a field, which may be a mile away from the club? I only want to make it clear, as the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment is a learned counsel, and I want to know how the law stands. In case these clubs should escape, I ask if the Attorney-General will confirm what the Chancellor of the Duchy has said on the point?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The ordinary publican is compelled to keep a stock-book and a number of other particulars, and I cannot see why, under this Amendment, the same harassing restrictions which are put upon the publican should not be placed upon clubs. There is no other means that I can see of meeting the case. The Chancellor of the Duchy said the point is covered. It is not, because you are going to take a statement from the club manager, whereas there is a right of entry by the Excise man and a right to apply measuring instruments to every cask upon the publican's premises. The object of the Bill is equality. You ought to have equality of tax, equality of admission, equality of regulation, and equality of restriction. A most excellent point has been made that the ordinary publican may, by this club system, be prevented from getting his ordinary business profits, because a furtive system of dealing may be instituted; but the only way to prevent a furtive system of dealing is to put the clubs under the same restrictions as the publican. I do no see why we should not go the full length in this matter. The

    1507
    gauger ought to have a right of admission to the club. In the case of the publican the local gauger knows to an ounce how much liquor the publican has on his premises. He can go in and examine his stock-book, and the furtive dealing struck at by this Amendment in the case of a club will only be detectable on the mere ipse dixit of the manager of the club himself. The Chancellor of the Duchy says this point is covered. How is it covered? Is it covered by any other method than taking the statement of the secretary?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the matter is covered by the word "purchases." Whether they are consumed off the premises or not, they are supplied in the club and sold at the club.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: The Solicitor-General has not met the point. The tax is to be levied on purchases during the preceding calendar year. The end of the year comes, and the secretary has to make a return of the amount which is to be paid over to the Exchequer. We will say, for example, that £900 worth of drink has been bought and consumed on the premises, and £100 worth has been bought and consumed in the way that the hon. and learned Member describes. When the Exchequer officer demands his 3d. in the £ on the whole £l,000, might not the secretary answer, "No, it is true that £1,000 worth of liquor has been purchased during the year, but only £900 worth has been supplied, in the words of the Clause, in the club. The other £100 worth has been supplied direct to members not in the club, or through the club, but outside." On the form of the Clause it appears to me that the hypothetical case I have taken will escape the 3d. altogether.
    Mr. HART-DAVIES: If it was not bought in the club it would be an illegal sale. All this liquor which is supplied to the Members on the off-system is really liquor which is bought in the club and afterwards taken by them out of the club.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: It is not an illegal sale if it passes from the secretary to members outside the club, and has never been in the premises of the club at all.
    Mr. HART-DAVIES: But all the liquor has been sold in the club.
    Mr. YOUNGER: We had evidence about this before Lord Peel's Commission, and
    1508
    there were certain clubs in Wales which had sundry drinks in fields quite removed from the club altogether, and which ordered supplies of liquor to be sent by the brewers to those fields, and they assembled there and drank them, and thus evaded the Sunday Closing Law. Would that be-liquor supplied in a club? I say, "Certainly not."
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That would not be a club before 1902. But the matter might be put beyond any question, though I do not think there is any reasonable doubt about it now, by adding the words "in or to a club."
    Captain FABER: Suppose you have beer supplied direct to a railway station. It might have been ordered by the club or by some member of the club, but the beer would never get beyond the railway station, and it would be delivered from the railway station to the purchaser.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That would certainly be covered by inserting the words "in or to the club."
    Mr. MARKHAM: I contend that there is no obligation on the part of the secretary to make a return where the liquor is not consumed in the club. The Clause reads:—
    "It shall be the duty of the secretary of every registered club to deliver to the Commissioners in the month of January in every year, or within such further time as the Commissioners may in any case allow, a statement of the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied to the club during the preceding calendar year."
    Clearly the secretary is under no obligation, as far as I can see, to make any return of any liquor which is not sold in the club itself. The Solicitor-General may-say it may be an illegal sale, but it may be supplied to football matches and cricket grounds which are situated a mile away. It wall make the matter clear if he will insert after the words "supplied in the club," "or on behalf of the club, or in, or to the club."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: That would be a club in its corporate capacity, whereas the position taken up by the hon. Member (Mr. Markham) is quite different. The liquor supplied in the case put by him is-liquor supplied for a cricket match. That is not supplied to the club; it is not "in the club" or "to the club." Some one

    1509
    says to the secretary of the club, "You are in the habit of getting liquor from such a brewer. What do you charge for a wholesale order?" He says, "I get it on the same terms as for the club." That is not for the club, and yet it is because of the existence of the secretary of the club that the whole thing is arranged. It is an injustice to the local vendor of liquor, who has to pay a very large Licence Duty.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I really do not think my point is appreciated. There is nothing illegal whatsoever in the club purchasing beer to be consumed in a field under the existing law. The Section which the Chancellor of the Duchy relies upon in the Licensing Act does not apply to sales in fields or at a railway station. It deals only with proceedings which occur on the club premises, and is limited to goods supplied in the club. Therefore, the illustration which I gave of a club coming up to London to see a football final, and desiring refreshment on the way, and having a gallon of whisky sent to the station, does not come under the present law. In that case they would probably patronise a club in preference to the local vendor, and it is such purchases as those, which are perfectly legal at present, but which redound to the profit of the club as distinguished from the profit of the grocer or beer dealer, that are not touched by the Bill in its present form. My Amendment would deal with all those cases. The Solicitor-General's Amendment would not, I think, hi perfectly clear upon the point. It would be difficult to construe what it meant—whether a barrel of beer sent to a football field was liquor supplied "to" or "in the club." The majority of us would say such a case did not fall within the Clause.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think the hon. and learned Member's Amendment is too wide. It would cover a sale to any member of the club. What we want to secure is that the duty shall be paid in respect of all the purchases by the club, for consumption either in the club or off the club—of liquor supplied, in some form or other, to any of their members by the club.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I think there is some substance in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gen-man. The word "club" is used in two senses by the Solicitor-General. The words "in the club," I take it, mean in the club premises, and the words "to the club" mean to the club members.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The words in the Section should mean the club in its corporate capacity.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I think some such words as "on behalf of the club" should be inserted.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish to put a point to the Solicitor-General. I am a member of a club in which a very considerable quantity of wine and spirits is consumed, and yet that club does not buy a single bottle of wine or spirits. They have an arrangement with a wine merchant under which his list of wines and spirits is placed on the table. The liquor is ordered by the members as required, and it comes in in small quantities with the consent of the club. It is sent upstairs and consumed. The club makes a charge for it on the bill to the members, but the club as a matter of fact in its corporate capacity does not buy a single drop of that liquor. I simply throw out the suggestion that the Clause as proposed by the Government, together with all the Amendments put down on the Paper, including the Amendment now before the Commitee, does not deal with that case at all. I venture to suggest that before long you will find that you have got into inextricable confusion on the question of this taxation.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do think when we are going into the Pharisee business we ought to enlarge our phylacteries. We should say that all liquor sold in a club, directly or indirectly, should be treated in exactly the same way as the liquor sold by a publican. That is what we should do, unless we mean to play the part of hypocrites. Hon. Members above the Gangway say that the Clause is too wide. Are we not engaged in getting revenue? Do you not want "Dreadnoughts"? If you do, the wider the Clause the better, because the more revenue you will get from it. This Amendment says that a statement is to be made of all intoxicants supplied to members of the club. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not the Amendment."] That is substantially the Amendment. It is to secure, at all events, that liquor indirectly sold to members of the club shall be subject to duty. What we want is a tax on all this liquor. The local publican will have to pay an enormous duty, and I want the club put in exactly the same position as a public-house, so that a member of the club will be in the same position as the man who goes in to

    1511
    the "George Inn" and buys liquor. The Revenue should receive the same amount from the man who consumes liquor in a club as from the man who receives liquor in a public-house.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: If the Clause stands as it is drawn, even with the Amendment which the Solicitor-General proposes to insert, it will give opportunity for evasion. Say that a club consists of 100 members, and suppose that 50 of them arrange to go out and see a cricket match, and these 50 members go to the brewer or distiller who ordinarily supplies liquor to the club, and say to him, "Will you send down to the place where the cricket match is to take place liquor such as you send usually to the club? We are going to the match, and intend to have a jollification in the evening." That would not be liquor supplied "to the club." The Solicitor-General says it would; but I say no, because 50 members of the club are not the "club." Nor would liquor supplied to one member of the club be liquor supplied to the club. It would never go to the club at all, and the secretary would know-nothing about it. It is perfectly clear that evasion on the largest possible scale would ensue under the Clause even when amended in the way the Solicitor-General proposes. If the Government desire equality between these clubs and public-houses, manifestly they ought to accept the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend. They have totally failed to show what possible objection there can be to the Amendment.
    The PRIME MINISTER: This is not a question of sincerity or insincerity. Let me point out to my hon. and learned Friend what would happen if we were to accept the words he proposes. It is his intention to apply the Section to liquor supplied to members of a club. How do you get out of the difficulty in regard to liquor supplied to a member of a club, who quite independently of his being a member of a club buys the liquor from a wine and spirit merchant? Very likely he goes to a particular wine and spirit merchant because that person does supply the club of which he is a member. Surely it is not suggested that a private transaction of that kind should be put down to the account of the club and taxed, and yet it appears to me that the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend would cover a case of that kind.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The Sub-section says: "It shall be the duty of the secretary of every registered club to deliver to the Commissioners, in the month of January in every year or within such further time as the Commissioners may in any case allow, a statement of the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied in the club during the preceding calendar year" The object of my Amendment is that the club should pay the tax on all liquor bought in the way I have already indicated. The Government intend to limit the tax by saying that the return is only to show the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied "in the club." A private transaction like that referred to by the Prime Minister would never be returned by the secretary at all. I say that all liquor supplied in the club or to members thereof during the preceding calendar year should be taxed.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that is what my hon. and learned Friend means, but it is not carried out by his Amendment. I will take the case put by the hon. and learned Member of the 20, 30, or 40 members of a club who for their own private convenience get a gallon of whisky supplied by the person who ordinarily supplies their club. Is that a transaction which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to include in the tax?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Two things could be done. The members of the club might buy the liquor through the club secretary, and in that case it would be included in the club's accounts, or they might purchase direct and not through the club.
    The PRIME MINISTER: In the first case it would be liquor supplied to the club, that is to say, on the credit of the club. If the secretary ordered the liquor it would be charged to the club. If, on the other hand, the members on their own account bought a gallon of whisky and the secretary knew nothing about it, would the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member make it liable to duty? I have no objection to the insertion of the word "to" or the words "on behalf of."
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I would suggest, further, that the Clause should read "intoxicating liquor supplied in or to the club, or on behalf of the club, to members thereof."
    Colonel WILLIAMS: May I suggest that the case would be met by putting the word "by" instead of the word "in."
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Do the words the Government propose to put in meet the case of my hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford)? He may be satisfied, but I do not think the case is met. He may well be satisfied, because he has pointed out that the club to which he belongs does not pay on the liquor consumed there. There is no sale to the club in that case. I think it may be a matter for argument, but it appears to me that if you do not cover that case, you open wide the door to evasion and fraud henceforth, not only in the case of a few clubs which have wine merchants' lists on the table, but in the case of every club. You may have not merely wine merchants but brewers making arrangements by which they will supply their liquor to clubs. If the Government is satisfied that the case is covered, I am satisfied. It is really for them to say.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I would suggest to the Solicitor-General that he ought to add the words "or through the club" to those which he has suggested. If those words were put in, they would cover every conceivable case.
    Mr. MARKHAM: We have had a very illuminating example of the differences between the views held by learned counsel. The Solicitor-General, in his answer, said that the words of the Amendment are totally unnecessary, and the legal Gentlemen on the other side say that the case is not covered without these words. It is, therefore, difficult for a layman to say whether the case is covered or not.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am perfectly willing to accept the suggestion of the Solicitor-General.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "in" ["supplied in the club "] to insert the words "or to."
    After the word "club" to insert the words "or on behalf of the club to members thereof."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
    After the word "club" to omit the words "during the preceding calendar year."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELmoved, after the word "Duty" ["Excise Duty of"], to
    1514
    omit the words "three pence," and to insert instead thereof the words "six pence."
    It is true that 6d. is not an exact equivalent of the profits, which, as a rule, are under 100 per cent., but there was a general expression of opinion at an earlier stage in the Committee that it was advisable to raise this sum to 6d., and for that reason the Government have introduced the Amendment which they now move.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I would expect the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what the effect will be of this Amendment and what are the comparative terms given to persons who occupy those premises and to publicans. I think we have now struck for the first time what I may call a datum level, from which you may appreciate the exact justice of the Government's proposal in regard to hotels and public-houses. A club has no monopoly. Any number of persons can start a club. Therefore they can sell liquor. That being so, I think we ought to be informed whether the proposal of the Government is more favourable to the persons who form clubs than it is to the persons who start hotels or who pay money for public-houses. They are all engaged in the sale of liquor, and hotels, in addition to that, very often are conducted at an enormous cost, and give very valuable entertainment and accommodation to strangers. But the essence of the club is selfishness, because as a rule it confines its accommodation and entertainment to individual members. It is a sort of cooperative society, whose members are engaged in enjoyment for their own selfish purposes Why can the person in the club sell liquor on the terms that are proposed if hotel people cannot do the same and when the publican cannot do the same, especially as publicans and hotel people are subjected to very savage restrictions at times and to domiciliary visits from the police? They are bound to keep stock books. A gauger can come in at any moment and put his rod into their vats, and test how much they have got in the shape of wine or whisky, and whether they have grogged the casks or watered the liquor, and there are a whole lot of things in the shape of requisitions which are not allowed in the case of clubs. Therefore, the least we can do is to deal with the sale of liquor on a similar basis all round. It is all very fine for Members of this House to say that clubs are great political institutions, and that the Carlton, the Reform, and the National Liberal Clubs are great political

    1515
    institutional I do not see why political institutions should be allowed to sell liquor on more favourable terms than the common hotel-keeper or the ordinary publican, especially under a Government which is so strongly in favour of Free Trade. I do not see why restrictions should be put on the trading of a publican or hotel-keeper who has embarked large sums in his business. Some of these hotels recently erected in London have cost a million of money, and they are in the hands of a receiver. That is because they are endeavouring to gain upon the public. A club is a most selfish institution; it is for nobody but its own members. Therefore I do think the fact that so many Members of this House are Members of clubs ought not to make them any more lenient, but should rather make them stiffer in dealing with clubs than with hotels and public-houses. And this must be remembered. There are a great many teetotalers who are members of the clubs, and, although these clubs sell liquor, they look with horror on the idea of anybody entering a public-house, when, in fact, the club of which they are distinguished members draws its chief revenue from this very sale of liquor which they so much abominate when sold by the common publican, who pays an enormous Licence Duty to the State.
    Therefore, in this case, speaking for the common publican, I wish to ask is there any system of differential treatment being extended to clubs by this Amendment? I have no figures and no information. I have no means of forming an opinion, but hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are engaged in raising revenue, of course must have formed estimates, because we know very well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer when dealing with this system is only considering the revenue of the country; his great cry is, "I want to raise money. Here is another hen-roost, the club. I will go in and take a certain amount of revenue from that club." Let us have an estimate, which up to the present, as far as I know, nobody has received, from the official responsible for giving it to this House. Let us treat the clubs on exactly the same basis as the publican or the hotel-keeper. Therefore I ask for information as to how many clubs there are in the country, and what is the amount of revenue that is proposed to be derived from them? And now let me say a word in favour of the clubs. It may be that this is unjust to the clubs
    1516
    and charging them too much. If so, there ought to be a minimum. The words of the Schedule enable a minimum duty to be proposed, which will be found on page 50 of the Bill—minimum duty payable for publicans' and beer-house licences. It may be that the proposal of the Government to impose sixpence on purchases will involve them in a far higher charge than, for instance, would be charged to the publican or hotel-keeper. That possible injustice must be guarded against, because, with a democratic Assembly like this desiring to mete out justice with an even hand and to deal with the publican fairly, we must see that we deal with clubs with an equal amount of impartiality. Therefore I think there should be a minimum scale of Club Duty, and we should see that no club in the United Kingdom is allowed to be taxed a shilling more than a hotel or public-house. The Government Amendment, so far as I can understand it, is only a rule of thumb. What I would suggest in order to avoid that is this. We have a Bill promised us for next year on the question of valuation, and I would suggest that there ought to be a register of clubs, just as there is a register of public-houses under Clause 30, that very valuable Clause on which we have spent such a large amount of time. The Commissioners are to keep a register of all fully licensed premises and beer-houses, but they are not to keep a register of clubs. I want to know why not?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: There is one.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Not for this purpose. There is a register of clubs for a wholly different purpose, and if this register is properly and adequately kept by the Commissioners of Valuation we shall then have struck a very valuable additional source of revenue, and the Bill of next year, I am quite sure, will be able to extract from the Reform Club at least as high a taxation as you propose to get from the Carlton Hotel, the Hotel Cecil, the Savoy, or any other of the great caravanseries of London. Let us then create this register in the promised Bill for next year, and we shall have it put in proper, active operation. My last recommendation is this. There is really more necessity for dealing with this matter in the case of clubs than in any other case, because it is the one instance in which the teetotaler is open to temptation. In the case of a public-house nobody frequents these premises except, I suppose, the hardened sinner, but in the case of the club

    1517
    we know very well that a great many persons of innocent mind. Liberal and Conservative, frequent these institutions where drink is sold, and are therefore open to its demoralising seduction; and that makes it all the more necessary that this register should be provided in the future. Up to the present we have no information of any kind. If the suggestion I make be adopted we shall have in the proposed Bill of next year adequate means of applying rigidly that system of fairness and equality all round which I recommend. Therefore for the present my attitude is one of a person who is seeking for information and who is asking the Government on what basis this 6d. is to be imposed.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. Healy) in one part of his speech appeared to contend that clubs were not sufficiently taxed compared with hotels and public-houses, while in another part he seemed to suggest that there was considerable doubt as to whether any case was made out for taxing them at ail. In regard to his proposal to have a register, I can very shortly state that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not appear to be aware that a register is kept in all the three kingdoms of clubs which would be subject to this taxation.
    Under the Licensing Act of 1902 in England, in Scotland under the Act of 1903, and in Ireland under the Act of 1904—in all these cases clubs which supply intoxicating liquors require to be registered, and, therefore, the materials are at hand. As regards the numbers, according to the latest Return for 1908, the numbers are in England, 7,133; Scotland, 636; Ireland, 225—roughly speaking, 8,000 registered clubs. It is from those 8,000 clubs that the revenue to be derived from the taxes will be received. As to the amount of the proceeds of the tax, of course it is extremely difficult until we have had experience to make anything but the roughest possible calculation, whether you base it on sales, which was the original proposal, or whether you base your estimate upon purchases, which is the form the Clause now assumes. It is really a conjectural matter, and the best estimate we can form—and it is highly conjectural—is that the proceeds of the tax will be something like £100,000 this year. I do not pledge myself, nor do I pledge the officers who have assisted us in this matter, to that as being in any sense a binding or arithmetically accurate calculation. As regards the scale of the tax—6d.—there
    1518
    are two points which, of course, arise. First of all, how does it compare with the original proposal of 3d. on sales, and how far is it a lower scale of taxation than that which is imposed on public-houses and on hotels? On the first point the 6d. is admittedly—and here again we are to a large extent in the region of conjecture—likely to produce more than 3d. on sales, and which, I think, is more in consonance with the very general expression of opinion in all quarters of the House at the time of the original proposal. There are Amendments on the Paper to reduce the 6d. to 2 per cent. I think 6d. is 2½ per cent., but there are-Amendments to reduce it to 2 per cent., which will be something like equivalent to 4¾d; but the Government, after consideration, and after looking into the arguments, think that 6d. is not too high a tax. I come to the more important point, how you differentiate this duty from that on hotels and public-houses. Let me point out first of all that this is the first time any proposal has ever been made to tax clubs. Hitherto they have escaped scot-free, although they supply on a considerable scale liquor to members. In such a matter we must proceed, at any rate, with caution. There is a clear distinction between clubs and hotels and public-houses, and I do not think the representatives of clubs themselves will deny that they ought to be taxed, and that they ought to make some contribution to the necessities of the State. That, I believe, is common ground; but there is, obviously, a distinction between the case of a club and the case of a licensed house. In the case of a club there is no monopoly value; anyone can set up a club under certain regulations contained in the Act of 1902, and in the analogous Acts for Scotland and Ireland. In the second place, the transactions which take place are not in point of law sales at all. The liquor can only be lawfully supplied in a club to those who are members of the club itself. It follows that the liquor transactions of a club are not carried on like those of an hotel or a public-house, which necessarily are for the sake of private profit. All those circumstances must be taken into account when you are trying to arrive at some rough rule of thumb as to the relative proportion of taxation to be borne by the club as compared with licensed houses. We think that in regard to all those circumstances we are not asking an excessive

    1519
    sum by any means in asking 6d. and we are asking for a sum which for the first time will bring a substantial contribution to the necessities of the State.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: We all agree with what the Prime Minister has said, though we are left in the dark as to the statistics of actual consumption in clubs. We cannot ask the Government or the Prime Minister, we cannot justly claim on this new departure in taxation, and we cannot expect him to give us those full and accurate details which we may reasonably ask from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is dealing with some old source of revenue. That I do not gather is the real difficulty before the Committee, nor is it the difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) had in his mind when he initiated this Debate. We want to know from the Government what is their precise policy, what they are aiming at, and on that the Prime Minister, if he will allow me to say so, has thrown no light at all. He has used arguments which, if he will forgive me for saying so, rather darkened our counsels than illuminated them, and they were of rather a technical than of a substantial character. He referred to two arguments, to two peculiarities, which, he said, differentiated the club from the hotel or public-house. One was that in the club there were no sales for private profit, and the other was that they had absolutely no monopoly value. Surely we may dismiss these two propositions entirely from our minds. I believe clubs do make profits out of their sales. It is quite useless to draw a distinction. If I go into a club to which I belong and have my dinner and pay for it there is really no difference, as far as I understand, between that and my going into an hotel and having my dinner and paying for it. It is exactly the same thing. There is a profit made by the club as there is a profit made by the hotel. In the one case the profit goes to the members of the club, and I assume it is divided among the members. The real, the relevant point, however, is the question of monopoly value. The Prime Minister said these clubs have no monopoly value because they can be started by anyone. That, of course, is perfectly true. What we want to know is, how does he justify taxing people who have a monopoly value when he allows that monopoly value to be interfered with by any number of persons who have got no monopoly value. The
    1520
    whole case, I ought to mention, becomes-greatly aggravated when you increase the scale of taxation. You are now making the scale of taxation on licence holders enormous—you are enormously adding to-their burdens.
    Therefore, the very thing which might only be a slight injustice before, becomes magnified to a point of great injustice, and if you are going to tax people heavily solely on the ground that they have a monopoly, ought you not to prevent that monopoly from being interfered with, or ought you not to tax those who do interfere on a scale corresponding with that imposed on other people who have got a monopoly value? I think you are throwing burdens that are quite absurd on the trade, but if that is your policy, if your policy is to throw an exhausting burden on the trade, I do want to press the Government to be perfectly clear and to elicit an answer to this question: Is the policy that the clubs shall pay on the same rate and scale as the licensed premises, so far as the sale of intoxicating liquors is concerned? If not, why not? I think it is quite possible that it would be thought intolerable to put clubs on a corresponding scale of taxation to that of public-houses. I can well believe that you will not do that for electoral reasons. What is your view of the equities of the case? For my own part, looking at this matter, I think we are now stirring up the whole question of licensed houses and clubs, and you are bringing to mind the operation of these enormous burdens on the licensed trade. I think when we have reached that stage in our legislation we have a right to require from the Government a clear statement of what it is they are aiming at by this Clause. Is this Clause merely a sop thrown to the critics of the Government, without any principle behind it at all, or is it a serious attempt to put the same burden on clubs that you put on licensed premises? I am not acquainted any more than the hon. and learned Gentlemen below the Gangway sufficiently with the details of the trade to know how, supposing this taxation become law, a club will stand compared with the public-house in respect of burdens thrown upon the dealing in intoxicating liquor. My conjecture would be that you are dealing with them on a very different scale, and that you are throwing a burden on licensed premises which you do not throw on clubs. I am not criticising the specific proposals of the Government, I am only begging them to give me what

    1521
    surely we have a right to ask for, namely, a clear and definite statement of the ideals at which they are aiming—the policy which is underlying their proposal; and to make my question even more precise and specific, do they accept these proposals to throw an equal burden on public-houses, or do they intend, supposing they are proved unequal, at the earliest moment, when that becomes clear, to modify their proposals so as to equalise the burdens between the two classes? If they intend to differentiate, on what principle do they mean to have that differentiation, and how, if they allow a monopoly to one class, do they intend to prevent that monopoly from being interfered with to an unlimited extent by institutions which, though admirable and of benefit to the community, undoubtedly do interfere with that very monopoly which is the basis of the whole taxation on licences? I should be grateful to the Prime Minister after the excellent speech he has already given us, if he will make a specific statement as to the policy of this Clause.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I thought I had made it clear already, and I can only repeat what I have already said. I pointed out that the Government do realise that these clubs stand on a different footing, in respects which I clearly indicated, from licensed houses. They have no monopoly value. It is perfectly true that some clubs will compete with publicans and may take from them customers. That is perfectly true up to a certain point, but to say that they stand on the same footing as public-houses, where anybody can go in when he likes, and order liquor to any extent that he likes—to say that an institution of that kind, which is open to all members of the public, which is carried on entirely for the private profit of the licence holder, stands on the same footing as an institution which can only supply those who are bonâfide members of it, and where no profits can be made which do not go back to them in one form or another, appears to me to be a patent absurdity. It is not the basis of an equitable system of taxation. What the precise amount of the burden is proposed by this Clause upon the clubs as compared with that which will fall on public-houses, we have not yet got information to form an accurate judgment. It is a very great step in advance to have 'brought clubs for the first time within the ambit of taxation—a proposal never made, as far as I know, by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. These glaring inequalities,
    1522
    which they now regard as so monstrous, never struck them until now. Let me point out it is only a question of degree. Because we have increased the taxation of public-houses that would not justify the pre-existing state of things, in which clubs, pay nothing at all, although the public-houses and hotels pay not so much as is-now proposed. The inequality would have been greater if this Clause had not been amended. As I said, it is impossible to estimate anything in the nature of the-precise and relative amount of the burden which would be borne by the clubs from, the charges we are now making.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I am sure the Committee will feel very much indebted to (the Prime Minister for having responded to. the appeal made to him by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) for an explanation. I must confess, after listening with considerable attention to the explanation given by him, I am still largely in the dark as to the principles which have induced the Government to come to what is their final conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman in the first place said that we who sit on this side never dreamt of a Licence Duty to be paid by clubs at all. I daresay that is quite true, but it does not appear to me to be remotely relevant to the discussion, and that it has nothing whatever to do with it. The point is whether the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman as to this proposal is an adequate one or not. The right hon. Gentleman was asked a plain, simple question by my right hon. Friend, and the question is this: "Have you made up your minds that clubs ought to pay less than public-houses, or have you not?" As I understand it, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to that is this: "We have made up our minds that clubs ought to pay less than public-houses, but we have not made up our minds how much less they ought to pay, and we do-not, in fact, know at the present time how much less they will pay under this duty as compared with public-houses." The Prime Minister gives two reasons why clubs ought to pay less than public-chouses. The first of the reasons is that they do not enjoy any monopoly value. The right hon. Gentleman supports that argument by saying that in the case of public-houses anybody who wants can go and drink, but that nothing of the kind takes place in clubs. I can only, say that the right hon. Gentleman must be deplorably ignorant—I do not use the words in any offensive sense—of the whole affiliated system of clubs-Hon. Members on the other side of the

    1523
    House have frequently explained the extent to which the affiliated system applies at the present time, and I would ask the Prime Minister to bear it in mind. At the present time a working man who belongs to any affiliated club in any town in England can go to any other town and go to any one of probably half a dozen clubs, and in that club he can obtain drink at any hour of the day or night and on forbidden hours on Sunday. The Prime Minister made an argument which could not have been put forward from a knowledge of these facts, which are universally admitted in the case of the affiliated clubs.
    Then he says that public-houses are given a monopoly value, and that clubs are not given a monopoly value, and that, therefore, it is reasonable that public-houses should pay on a larger scale than clubs. I never heard such an argument before. What has that argument come to? Take the case of a small village with, say, 20 or 30 people who desire alcoholic refreshment every evening. Assume that there is no club or public-house there, and that these people obtain the grant of a licence for a public-house. They start that public- house, they go to it, and they have the monopoly for which the right hon. Gentleman says it is right they should pay on a higher scale than the clubs. In that particular village, with that limited trade, 15 other people start a club, which not only encroaches upon, but destroys the monopoly, and yet that is put forward as an excuse for differentiation. I am astonished that anyone of the forensic equipment of the right hon. Gentleman should even think he has addressed an adequate reply to the charge of disparity which has been made. What is the second argument that the Prime Minister advances to the House, which is very familiar with these questions? It is that because, in the technical phraseology of our licensing laws, when drink is obtained in a club it is technically called "distributed," and when it is obtained in an hotel it is "sold"; therefore that is some reason for exacting a lower rate of duty in the club. Would anyone but a lawyer use such an argument as that? and I am astonished that even a lawyer should choose an assembly of laymen to address it to. I could understand it being employed in a technical assembly. Let us suppose the Solicitor - General is leaving these Debates, in which he plays so able a part, if he will permit me to say so, and that he wishes to refresh
    1524
    himself on the way home. Supposing two hotels are open to him and that he would desire to have, say, half a bottle of champagne. Now suppose he can have that either at the National Liberal Club or the Metropole Hotel. Now observe the emulating discovery that is made by the Prime Minister. If he happens to obtain the drink in a club it is only "distributed," while if he obtains it in an hotel it is "sold," and because of that reason the Hotel Metropole is to pay a much higher rate than the National Liberal Club. I cannot help thinking that the Prime Minister has somewhat underrated both the sources of information which are open to him and the sources of information which have already been opened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy will be able to inform the Prime Minister that a comparison has been made, not perhaps with absolute precision, but with considerable precision, of the effect of this new burden which is proposed for clubs in relation to the new and existing burdens on publichouses. I very much doubt whether the Chancellor of the Duchy will say that no such comparison has been made, because no more complete condemnation of the methods by which these Budget proposals have been formulated could be advanced than to tell us that no data existed for such a comparison. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech said:—
    "Clubs in which liquor is supplied at present compete to a very large extent directly with the ordinary public-house, and this competition of an alternative and untaxed method of distribution is not only unfair to the holders of publicans' licences, but likely, in the long run, seriously to encroach on the revenue derived from Licence Duties."
    6.0 P.M.
    I venture to think that the "long run" of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks is not likely to be a very long one with this taxation on clubs which relatively is insignificant, and which is to exist side by side with the vastly increased taxation on public-houses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated the revenue from the clubs as £80,000, and it is now estimated the yield of this tax will be £100,000. That would mean about six million pounds of takings to produce that, and I want to compare that with the analogous state of affairs existing in public-houses. I give a calculation made by an expert authority who has been repeatedly quoted in this House, and always on both sides with respect; I mean Mr., Buxton. What he says is: suppose a club pays on the new basis £30, that means that it has received £2,400 upon the sale of

    1525
    liquor. Then what is the sum paid by an ordinary public-house which receives £2,400. The premises are rated at £325, and the Licence Duty is £162 10s., or five and a half times more than that paid by the club. I desire to present the argument moderately, and I am willing to suppose some material considerations have been overlooked. As I wish to put the case with studied moderation, I will take it that the incidence of this burden will be at least three times as high as in the case of licensed victuallers as it is in the case of clubs. If that be true, what conceivable justification which will commend itself to the country or to hon. Members opposite can be put forward for this differentiation? No justification has been put forward, except that tentatively sketched rather than argued by the Prime Minister with regard to sale and monopoly value. While disclaiming any desire to reflect in any way on the fairness or reasonableness of the Government, I confess that I can only arrive at one possible solution of the problem, namely, that the Government conceive themselves to be injured by the licensed victuallers' trade. In other words, they know that the licensed victuallers' trade consists of their political enemies. But the case is notoriously different when you come to the clubs. I have said before in these Debates that there is hardly a London Member sitting on the other side of the House who could hope to keep his seat if it were not for the efforts of clubs in which alcohol is sold. It is because of the pressure which in the sight of all of us was brought to bear on London Members by their own clubs last year the Government make this discrimination by which they endeavour to injure their enemies by destroying their trade, while they benefit their friends by retaining a relatively small duty. Only the other night much heat was manifested because it was suggested that the Sugar Duty was taken off for election purposes in Dundee. I say plainly here, as I shall say plainly in the country, that the one and only reason for this discrimination is that the Government hope to obtain an electioneering advantage by helping their political friends.
    Mr. HART-DAVIES: I think that all clubs owe a debt of gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having altered the tax from sales to purchases. But when this was done it was not understood that there was to be any additional burden put upon clubs. I thought the object was to
    1526
    avoid the bother of finding out what the sales actually were. The clubs believe, and I think they are right, that 6d. is a little high. A large club to which I belong has made a calculation from which it appears that the real difference between 3d. on sales and the amount they ought to pay on purchases is only a penny. Other clubs estimate it at l½d; but they all agree that 6d. is rather too high. I hope, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see his way to reduce the amount, if not to 4d., at all events to 5d. If they would do that they would remove what the clubs feel to be a very substantial grievance.
    This Debate has dealt, not with the actual merits of the sum proposed, but with the difference between public-houses and clubs, and with the question why they should be treated differently. I cannot speak for the policy of the Government, but my policy will be to encourage clubs as much as possible at the expense of public-houses. There is all the difference in the world, from the point of view of the social reformer, between a club and a public-house. If you could show that public-houses have libraries and reading-rooms, that they are connected with all sorts of charitable institutions, that they form centres of really civilised social life, then I should say that public-houses and clubs ought to be treated in the same way. I have always admitted that there is a difference between clubs. Some clubs are moat admirable institutions. They are centres of great social, civilised movements; they have connected with them orphanages, friendly societies, charitable societies, rifle ranges, rifle corps, and football clubs; they do a very great work in the way of social improvement. On the other hand, there are small clubs which are mainly drinking clubs. There ought to be some way of defining the difference between these two sorts of clubs. The club which is a real club, a real centre of social improvement, ought to be taxed altogether differently from the club which is a mere drinking shop. In the Licensing Bill of last year we tried to draw a definition of the difference between these two classes of clubs, but when that Bill went the definition went also. The policy of any Government towards clubs ought to be to differentiate between the good, respectable, and useful club and the club that is only a substitute for the public-house. I should like to see the latter kind of club treated and taxed in exactly the same way as a public-house.

    1527
    This discussion has rambled over a very wide field. I have often observed that when a matter gets into the hands of lawyers a somewhat circumscribed view, or at any rate not altogether a wide social view, is taken of the problem under consideration. There are many drawbacks to sitting in the month of September. Personally, I object to it strongly. One of the drawbacks is that in September the courts are closed, and all the lawyers can be present, as they have nothing else to do. Of course, I value their co-operation, and I hope they will not be offended by the observation I have made. I had hoped that after the discussions of last year the old argument that public-houses and clubs ought to be treated on exactly the same footing would have vanished. The two are not in the least on the same plane. They are totally different things. Legally and socially they are altogether different. Why they should be treated and taxed in the same way I have never been able to understand. I do not know whether the Chancellor will favour my application for a reduction of the tax. I am afraid he will not; but I wish he would, because the working men's clubs do a very great work. The Budget, after all, has a certain number of enemies, and we do not wish to add to their number.
    Colonel WALKER: The Prime Minister has told us that there are 8,000 clubs. We must compare that number with 120,000 licensed houses. There are 15 times as many licensed houses as clubs; therefore, if the taxation on the clubs is to b ring in £100,000, to be on equal terms the public-houses ought to contribute £1,500,000. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer reckons on obtaining £2,600,000.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not after the concessions. The hon. and gallant Member has provided us with a most excellent argument. The revenue at present proposed to be derived from places of retail sale, apart from the manufacturers, is about £1,600,000, or almost precisely the figure which the hon. Member says would be just in comparison with the taxation on clubs.
    Colonel WALKER: I wish the calculation of the right hon. Gentleman was a correct one. I am sure that the contribution from the trade in respect of the Licence Duty will be very much more than appears from his speech. If we had to make a bargain in that way we should be
    1528
    quite willing to accept a figure in the same-ratio that the number of clubs bears-to the number of public-houses. In the meantime, according to the terms of the Bill, the amount is unlimited, and we do not know what it will come to. It will certainly be very much larger than 15 times the amount paid by the clubs. The clubs ought to pay a shilling instead of 6d. to bring them up to the same ratio.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: We on these Benches have not troubled the Committee with many Amendments or speeches in the-course of the Budget discussions, but we desire to put forward our view upon this-Clause. We do not agree with the remarks which have been made that the duty paid by clubs should be higher than was originally proposed. This is the only Budget proposal which has been increased. Concessions have been made to all other interests; therefore I hope the Government will agree to reduce the 6d. to either 4½d. or 2 per cent. Now, I think that almost everybody will agree that there is a great difference between clubs and public-houses. There has always been, and there always will be. But what is the reason of the opposition to the proposals of the Government? I did not quite understand whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) was in favour of increasing the charges upon clubs, or of reducing the charges upon public-houses. I take it he wants to treat them equally all round. He pointed out the harsher burden that the publican was asked to bear. But who is it that is asking the publican to bear the heavy burden? It is the brewer! The one reason why the party above the Gangway are in favour of the taxing of clubs still higher is because clubs are in a position to refuse to pay the increased price for beer asked by the brewers. That is why the brewers and their friends-are in favour of taxing the clubs higher. We know the clubs have refused to pay the increased prices the brewers wanted to charge. The brewers are meantime asking publicans and all friends of freedom in the country to sympathise with them. They ask for that sympathy plus 6s. per barrel on beer! I do not see why we as working-men should concern ourselves very much with the complaints that they are making. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Hart-Davies) that there is a great difference between clubs and public-houses, for the simple reason

    1529
    that clubs provide means of recreation and public-houses do not. I also want to point out that clubs do a certain amount of educational work—at least I am speaking now for working men's clubs that I know. I am not speaking for rich men's dubs. The membership of clubs in my Division would never affect an election whenever it took place, and I am not speaking, therefore, from a tactical point of view. But the working men's clubs that I know do a certain amount of educational work. They run a series of lectures during the winter months, and they also provide—some of them, at any rate—a fairly good library for their members. That being so, I say there is a great difference between the club and the public-house. I hope that the Government will recognise that the profits made by working men's clubs are used in a manner which is beneficial to the member's. The educational advantages gained by members of the clubs are spread over a larger area than the membership of the club. There is a value attached to a club—I would not like to say a monopoly value, but a value which enables members of clubs to buy their liquor on better terms than the landlords of tied houses. I think that this proves, or, at least, it suggests itself to me as an argument in favour of co-operation and Free Trade. If the members of the clubs can resist the unjust demands of the brewers and obtain liquor without the extra tax the brewers are putting on the publicans I say that is an object-lesson in favour of co-operation and Free Trade on the part of the workmen of the country. But I got up for the object of appealing to the Government to only exact an equivalent-duty from clubs to what they originally proposed in the Finance Bill and Budget Resolution. I know objections were raised against the proposal. It was said that a tax on sales would be difficult to collect. But if you collect an equivalent on the purchases it would not be difficult to collect. It would be an easy matter to obtain the amount of duty to be paid by clubs. That being so, we are in favour of a tax on the purchases, but we believe that tax should only be the equivalent of the original proposition in the Budget Resolution. I therefore appeal to the Solicitor-General to favourably consider the Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member for Hackney or the Amendments down in my name or other Members of the party.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I sincerely hope that the Government will not give way to the appeal of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Hart-Davies) and the hon. Member who has just spoken. They have both argued that because clubs are different from public-houses therefore this tax should be lower. But there is a missing link in their argument. I do not deny that clubs are very different from public-houses, and that there are good clubs and bad clubs. But that is no reason why the drink sold in clubs should be taxed less than the drink sold in public-houses.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: The drink sold by clubs is taxed exactly on the same footing as the drink sold in public-houses.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I for my part welcome the addition of more taxation at any rate upon clubs as a counterbalance to the extra tax which is to be put upon public-houses. I should like to see it an equal tax. Of course there are inequalities. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool drew a picture for the benefit of the Solicitor-General of the difference between the Hotel Metropole and the National Liberal Club. But he did not mention that in the National Liberal Club the Solicitor-General, if he buys his drink there, has already paid a considerable tax in the shape of his subscription to the club. If the hon. and learned Member considers what the subscription to London clubs is he will allow that it does constitute a tax on the drink—light, of course, on a moderate drinker like my hon. and learned Friend. But when all these allowances are made, I myself am of opinion that the tax of 6d. is not certainly a higher tax than ought to be put on a club. I, therefore, strongly support the Government. At the same time it is useless to pretend that the 6d. now proposed is anything like the equivalent of the taxation which it is proposed to put either upon hotels or public-houses. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why should it be?"] Let us see what this tax is which the defenders of clubs are complaining about. It is an exceedingly light tax. A deputation from the clubs waited upon the Prime Minister last November. Representatives of some 2,500 clubs with a membership of 910,000, with Mr. Hall, of the Club and Institute Union, and Mr. Salbe, representing the Association of Conservative Working Men's Clubs, represented between them really about one-third of the clubs in the United Kingdom. Mr. Hall estimated that the consumption of drink

    1531
    per member in his clubs amounted to 10d. per week. Mr. Salbe's estimate was 8d. per week in the country clubs, and 10d. to 1s. in the town clubs. So that I shall not be far wrong if I take 10d. per head per member as representing the consumption of drink in these 2,500 clubs. That works out at £2 3s. 4d. per year each. On the membership of 910,000 it amounts to about £2,000,000. Let us assume for a moment that the profit on the sale is about 50 per cent—it is very often higher. I have here the report of the Mildmay Radical Club for the year ending December, 1907. The purchases of beer, spirits, and wines was £1,500, and the sales of the same were £2,914. That includes mineral waters. They had practically the same stock at the end as at the beginning of the year. In a word, liquor is sold in this club at about twice what it costs to buy. The gross profit is over 100 per cent. on the purchases in this club that I am dealing with. So that I am not taking an excessive estimate when I take 50 per cent. as the ordinary profit made in the clubs. The £2,000,000 therefore represents purchases of £1,333,333. The tax of 6d. on this sum will be £33,000. That is the total that will be paid by these 2,500 clubs with their membership of 910,000. That works out at a tax of 8½d. per member per year. I say that is a very small tax indeed to inflict upon the members of these clubs. I do not think any reasonable member of a club will resist the proposal that he should contribute his share to the Budget, which they all say they support. It does not seem to me to be a heavy tax, this 8½d. per head. I must point out that this tax is very much less than the tax which we are now proposing to put on the best hotels, and still more is it less than the tax we are proposing to put on public-houses. I have tried to work out what the compensation value will be if we apply it to clubs, and I find that the estimate of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool of three times is about the mark. In view of this, the taxation that is now being proposed for the clubs is not at all unreasonable. It does seem to me that the members of clubs may very well accept what the Government propose.
    Mr. E. H. PICKERSGILL: It is urged that clubs should be placed upon the same footing as public-houses, and that the publican is unfairly handicapped by the proposals which the Government are submitting. In considering this question it
    1532
    seems to me that we must distinguish between a proprietary club on the one hand and a co-operative club on the other. So far as a proprietary club is concerned, I can conceive, with the hon. Member opposite, that it would only be just that it should be put upon the same footing as a public-house. I regret very much that the Government have not seen their way to-distinguish between proprietary and cooperative clubs. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy told us in the earlier stages that this distinction was impracticable. For my part, I cannot for the life of me see why it is impracticable, and I think the Government have missed a great opportunity by not differentiating between proprietary and co-operative clubs. To suggest for a moment that a co-operative club is identical with the case of a public-house is an astounding proposition. There is no parity between the two cases; I will not refer to the absence of monopoly in the case of the club. A distinguishing feature—and one that is vital in regard to the question we are now considering—is this: that a sale in a public-house is for the benefit of a particular individual, whereas the sale in a club is not for the benefit of any individual. It is no more justifiable to put a special tax upon the consumption of intoxicating liquor in a cooperative club than it is to put a special tax upon the consumption of liquor in a, man's own house. The Peel Commission distinctly recommended against putting a tax upon clubs. When hon. Gentlemen opposite challenge the Government to say what is their principle in taxing co-operative clubs, I say there is no principle, and there is no principle in regard to the particular amount at which that tax is fixed. But we have passed from that stage; the House has agreed to put a tax upon clubs, and, therefore, it is not open to me to argue that clubs should not be taxed.
    I think, however, that some of us have a little reason to complain of the Government in this matter, having regard to what passed when this question was under discussion before. I certainly understood that the only change was to be in the basis of the taxation, and that it was admitted that whilst the Government were about to change the basis, they desired only to take, under that new basis the equivalent of what they would have taken under the old basis. I think that was understood; indeed, as far as my memory goes—I may be wrong—something amounting to a pledge was given by the

    1533
    right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that should be done. It is agreed that under this new proposal you are getting more than under the old proposal. We have had some figures given by my hon. Friend behind me with regard to a particular club. I am disposed to think there must have been some mistake or misapprehension with regard to that club. At all events, if these figures are accurate it is an exceptional case. I hold in my hand a statement forwarded to me by the secretary of the Clubs Union, and it appears from that statement that the equivalent of 3d. on the sales would be 4.46d. upon the purchasers. I think the Government ought to have adhered to their undertaking that in altering the basis no change in the amount would have taken place. I do not join in the condemnation which has been expressed from both sides of the House with regard to clubs. You have, of course, to distinguish between clubs. Undoubtedly there are many clubs, and a very large number of clubs which are doing a good educational and social work. If you bring forward in this House proposals to put down bogus clubs I will go with you to the utmost extent, but I protest against the attempts which are made not only from this side of the House, but from the other side to discourage the genuine bonâ fide working men's clubs.
    I said they did a great deal of social work. May I remind hon. Members of one good piece of work? They are already maintaining one convalescent home, and the right hon. Gentleman is to open, on behalf of the Clubs' Union, a new convalescent home at Saltford. That is only an illustration of the excellent work, social and improving, which has been carried out by these clubs, and I do not think the Government ought to do anything to discourage good, genuine, bonâ fide clubs. My object in rising was to remind the Government of something which I described as approaching near a pledge; that in changing the basis they desired only to exact the equivalent of the tax they had already outlined, and I hope therefore the Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. REMNANT: I would not have risen but for the remarks made by the hon. Member below the Gangway, when he referred to the raising of the prices on the clubs by the brewing trade of this country. He said if the clubs were in a position to refuse the brewers that would not happen. In saying that I do not think he appreciated all that his words meant, and I do not believe there are many hon.
    1534
    Members of this House who really appreciate what the effect of the taxation which, the Government are proposing is having in. this country, especially in reference to these clubs. Hon. Members may be surprised to know that these great clubs are themselves starting breweries in different parts of the country.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does the hon. Member mean convalescent homes?
    Mr. REMNANT: They are starting breweries with which to supply their clubs and to supply affiliated clubs throughout the country.
    Mr. JOWETT: Good co-operation.
    Mr. WALSH: Encouraging native industry.
    Mr. REMNANT: This is the first time I have heard the brewing industry of England described as native industry. The effect of this is that by the heavy taxation which the Government are proposing the public-houses will be crushed out and licensed premises will be diminished, while these clubs with their own breweries will flourish. Others are arranging to open new clubs where licensed premises were before. In these clubs liquor will be sold' under conditions that would be impossible if the Government intended to deal fairly and squarely with various classes of the community instead of crushing those they believe to be their political opponents, and favouring those whose votes they expect at the next General Election. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated that sales in clubs are not for the benefit of anyone. I should like him to tell me how in his Constituency the entertainments which are given by clubs are paid for?
    Mr. PICKERSGILL: I did not say there-was no profit upon the sales. I said it did not go into the pocket of any individual.
    Mr. REMNANT: Yes, that no individual got any benefit out of the profit of the clubs. Are the entertainments that are given no benefit? If not, why are they held? Of course they are of benefit. They are paid for out of the intoxicating liquor which is sold in the club under more favourable circumstances, so far as making profit goes, than on licensed premises. The Government are pretending to deal fairly with this question, but they are dealing with it most unfairly, and they are driving the sale of drink from licensed premises which are under control into

    1535
    premises which are not licensed and are uncontrolled. If the Government wish to raise taxation equally and fairly they know the simple way of doing it. But this is part of the reactionary scheme of the Government, and we know perfectly well what it is done for. They are driven into a corner to find a cry with which to go to the electors, and they think this will afford them one.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I think it is somewhat unfortunate in the general opinion of the Committee that a discussion upon this particular proposal should turn chiefly upon a comparison of the relative social merits and respective social functions served by clubs and public-houses. It is said that the club performs social and educational functions, and the public-house does not. But the obvious retort is that in the case of the publican he is not free by the laws of this House to perform these social and educational functions. I am not questioning for the moment the wisdom or propriety of that particular legislative arrangement, but it does seem to me that it is well to remember it when drawing a distinction between public-houses and clubs. The real question before the Committee is not one of the comparative merits of clubs and public-house, but it is strictly, as the Leader of the Opposition put it, one of fiscal equity. This House has for a considerable period decided that the privilege of the selling of a particular commodity is a fit and proper subject for taxation. If that principle be universally applied, and it is universally applied in every other form of distribution of liquor except that of clubs' distribution, I see no reason, in strict fiscal equity, for failing to apply precisely the same principle to the distribution of liquor in clubs. I certainly hope that whatever the ultimate decision of the Government, that decision will not take the form of submitting to the plea advanced on this side of the House towards modifying the proposals in the Bill. It seems that while the case for the taxation of clubs has always been unanswerable and logical in equity, it must appeal to this Committee much more strongly now when we are revising the whole scale of taxation on this commodity, and in increasing the taxation of the publican and other licensed traders you must have some regard to the competitive forces ranged against him. I hold, as the Committee knows, very
    1536
    strong views as to the fiscal justification for the proposed taxes, but on the same ground on which I am prepared to advocate a substantial increase in licensed publicans' taxation, on that identical ground I am prepared to put in a plea for the application of the same fiscal principle to the sale of liquor in clubs. It is perfectly true that the present proposal differs somewhat in strength from the original proposal as introduced in the Finance Bill, but I do not think the actual effect will be substantial. It cannot for a moment be claimed that a taxation of 2½ per cent. on the purchase cost of liquor representing something like l½ per cent. on the actual takings from the sale of liquor is an excessive taxation to apply to clubs. The hon. and learned Member for Louth asked for some suggestions as to the relative incidence of taxation as between the publicans and the clubs. It is obviously impossible to give anything like an answer to that question, and I do not intend to submit to the Committee anything like a final figure. I have, however, analysed the balance-sheets of something like 600 clubs in various parts of the United Kingdom, spread over 40 or 50 separate towns and cities, and on the basis of the returns of those clubs I have calculated that the original proposal of the Government would have yielded a revenue of £80,000, and that the present proposal will bring in about £100,000. That calculation is based on the assumption that the 600 clubs I have investigated—and they were thoroughly representative—are typical of the clubs which exist to-day in the United Kingdom. So far as the relative incidence of taxation is concerned one cannot pretend to offer a final or exact figure. There is no figure ascertainable which would show the proportion to the total consumption of alcohol in the country sold over the bars and counters of public-houses.
    I will take another figure which has never been questioned by the representatives of the trade, and about which I have been assured it is as near as it is possible to arrive at. I calculate that under the new system the ordinary publican will pay something like 6 per cent. on the total cost of his liquors, as compared with 2½ per cent. in the case of clubs. I know there is a distinction to be drawn between the club and the public-house, but I submit that that distinction tends substantially to decline so long as you allow the privilege of sale for consumption off the club premises. So long as clubs have the privilege of selling not only for consumption on the premises

    1537
    but for consumption elsewhere, it is very difficult to see where the actual or substantial difference between the club and the public-house comes in. It is perfectly true there is a distinction, but it is one of degree. Anyone is allowed to enter a public-house, but only a member can obtain liquor from a club. The clientele, although different in the case of the club, is secure, and so long as there is sale allowed off the premises I submit that the managers and the committees of clubs have no right to appeal to us for any radical or revolutionary departure in the application of a fiscal principle as compared with other licensed traders. For these reasons I hope the Government will not whittle down their proposal.
    Earl WINTERTON: We have just heard a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, and I find myself, for the first time, in agreement with him. I will not touch upon the question whether clubs are, or are not, too heavily taxed. I want, however, to take up a point which has not been fully dealt with, namely, whether or not there is any fiscal equity in raising the tax under this Clause upon clubs in this way in face of the larger tax proposed in other part of the Bill on public-houses. Do the Government want to improve morals or raise money?
    Mr. VERNEY: Both.
    Earl WINTERTON: That is the hon. and gallant Member's view, but his opinion is not always in accord with has own party.
    Mr. VERNEY: On this point I am quite in accord with the Government.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am now speaking of licensing legislation as a whole. You have to consider this Clause in conjunction with other proposals affecting public-houses which are made in the earlier part of this measure, but in spite of what the hon. Member has just said, the two main principles in regard to this part of the Bill are not consistently carried out. We have never yet had an answer to that argument. The hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool put the same question earlier in our Debates, but we have never had any answer to it. The real issue could not have been given in a better or more concentrated form than that in which it has been put by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. What is the fiscal equity of placing a much smaller taxation upon clubs than upon public-houses? Already the
    1538
    taxation upon liquor as a whole in this country is larger than it should foe, and under this Bill it will be much larger than in any other civilised country. I do not want to see heavier taxation upon clubs, but we have had no answer from the Government as to their real attitude in this matter. How they can consistently propose this duty after what they have done in the earlier clauses of the Bill I cannot understand. This Debate will be a very useful one, because no one who reads the proceedings in the country can for a moment doubt what has been said that the reason for the Government's attitude on this matter is to be found in the fact that while they know that those who own and manage public-houses are against them, those who belong to clubs are divided, and they are afraid of losing their own supporters in the clubs. The Government believe that by attacking public-houses they will be doing themselves no harm, but if they put the same taxation on clubs as upon public-houses they would lose every seat in London, and probably every seat in every large town in the country.
    Mr. BARNARD: I hope the Government will adhere to their proposal because the tax upon clubs in my opinion is barely enough. I think it would have been a good thing if all distributors of liquor had been charged upon some regulated system, and I have risen to try and find out why the Government have chosen this particular figure in connection with clubs. We have heard what relation 2½ per cent. is supposed to bear to the taxation which is imposed upon the ordinary licensed victualler. It seems to me there are a few other considerations to be taken into account. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Government whether they drew any distinction in this matter upon the question of monopoly. We need not argue the question of monopoly at all in this case, because the licensed victualler is called upon to pay a compensation levy, which safeguards his rights, whatever they may be; and, further than that, if we come to look at the particular position as it is, we also find that the licensed victualler and the hotel is called upon to pay at a higher assessable value; he is also called upon to pay Income Tax, whereas the people in the clubs escape all those contributions. That brings the position to this, that the Bill will make the competition greater through the clubs with the licensed victuallers and the large hotels, because many of these big clubs have bedrooms

    1539
    and trade enormously in that respect. I should have preferred it if the Government could have adopted some scale on what we will call annual value and treated (these clubs more or less on the lines they are treating the hotels.
    Let me for a moment point out the relation between what these clubs will pay it comparison with other distributors of liquor. From the figures which have been given it will be imagined they will pay on £4,000,000 worth of alcoholic liquors. We have been told that the ordinary licensed victualler is paying something in the nature of three times as much as the clubs. I have made a calculation which I think is worth mentioning. It so happens that in the part of the country where I live I am chairman of the rating committee, and we have valued all the public-houses in our district within the last month. That valuation has been made not by one valuer only, because there were two valuers representing the county council, one representing my own union assessment committee, and one representing the browers, and they all agreed upon the valuation of these licensed premises. I took the trouble to get the figures and the quantity of the trade done in those particular houses, and I find that the figures of 7½ per cent. versus 2½ per cent. is a very moderate figure indeed. I will not go any further into that question. We heard last night, in answer to a question, that 1,000 more clubs have come into existence since the passing of the Compensation Act of 1904. We also know that the number of licensed houses in the country has gone down by 4,000 during the same period. Under these conditions I think the Government would have been acting a great deal more wisely if they could have put a larger charge upon these people in view of the increasing competition in the distribution of liquor which undoubtedly is arising. Under these circumstances I hope the Government will adhere rigidly to the position of their own Amendment.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. SUMMERBELL: I intend to resist the Amendment which has been put forward by the Government. A good deal has been said with regard to working-men's clubs. I assert that if there ought to be modesty of language in regard to anything, it certainly ought to be in regard to the question of clubs, so far as this House is concerned. Clubs are no new things in this country, and we have had them for many years. We have had
    1540
    political clubs, gentlemen's clubs, and many others. We never heard anything about the evil appertaining to clubs till a year or two ago, and now a certain section of this House have discovered that clubs are an evil, and must be grappled with and dealt with as hardly as possible. Some hon. Members say this is a sop given to the working men, and that it is an election dodge. I defy hon. Members above the Gangway to go into a working-class constituency and make the statements they are making here to-night.
    Mr. MARKHAM: I have made them in every speech I have made in my Constituency.
    Mr. SUMMERBELL: I would remind the hon. Member he is not an hon. Member above the Gangway. I am talking about hon. Members above the Gangway, and we have had declarations from them that this is a political dodge and a sop to the working men.
    Mr. MARKHAM: I agree.
    Mr. SUMMERBELL: I am very glad to know the hon. Gentleman agrees with those on this side of the House above the Gangway. I would not defend a working men's club which is merely a drinking club, but I know that the clubs in the county I come from, and the clubs I have sampled in various parts of the country, are respectably, intelligently, and fairly carried on. If there be a black one here and there, it is not right or proper to take it as a sample, and upon that basis legislate for the whole. I am not prepared to say the present taxation of public-houses is the fairest possible, but there is a great difference between the ordinary public-house and the working men's club. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Barnard) pointed out that 1,000 clubs have come into existence whilst there has been a decrease of 4,000 public-houses. We have, however, to realise that many clubs have been started by the very men who have lost the supply of drink by reason of the 4,000 public-houses being abolished. They have been started by the brewers themselves, and if you want to find a bad club, and one which is purely used for drinking purposes, it will more often be a club started by a brewer and adjoining the place from which the licence has been taken away. By all means let us legislate against a club of that character, but do not

    1541
    let us make the same legislation apply to clubs in general. When the Bill was first introduced it was fully discussed, and the Government decided to adhere to the original proposition of a tax of 3d. It is perfectly true that certain Members argued that 3d. was not enough, but the Government knew perfectly well the amount of revenue they were going to get, and they made no attempt to alter it in any way. What justification is there for the change from 3d. to 6d. now proposed? We have an Amendment down suggesting 2 per cent. That would give them more than they originally asked for, and I venture to think it is a fair proposition.
    We ought to try to be as fair as we possibly can, and to remember that working men in various parts of the country have by reason of the tied-house system been compelled to commence clubs. I am not here to defend the liquor trade in any shape or form, but if men like a good glass of beer they have a right to get it if they possibly can, and if they live in a district where the public-houses are tied and they cannot get the class of beer palatable to them, then, I say, they have a perfect right to form a club in order to get the beer they prefer, and get the best they can. If working men by forming clubs are going to introduce certain desirable things into the social life of the country it ought to be commended and not condemned by Members of this House. I was in a club not so long ago. I am prepared to give the name and to have the fullest investigation. It was in a small place in the county of Durham, where they have a club with something like 2,350 members, of whom 700 are teetotalers. They have the usual billiards, a large reading room. & splendid library, a grand concert room, a string band; they have spent something like £30 in getting a cinematograph and are also making a separate entrance into the concert hall, and they are going to give during the winter entertainments to their wives and children. If we can encourage that kind of thing we ought to do so by all means in our power. If there are clubs used solely for the purposes of drinking, and not for the purposes I have enumerated, then by all means let us pass a law that will make them do the proper things, hut do not let us have a condemnation of clubs as a whole. I think clubs as a rule are respectably and well conducted, and, if hon. Members want to be fair to them, I would advise them to go into the districts
    1542
    where working men's clubs exist and tell them frankly, as they have told the Committee to-night, what they 'will do as regards workmen's clubs.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member is under a very great misapprehension as to the attitude of my hon. Friends. None of us deny that there are a great many working men's clubs, as there are other people's clubs, which are in every respect admirable institutions. Such a club, as the hon. Member described a moment ago, will command the respect, and, I think, if we had the opportunity in our districts, the support of any one amongst, us. We have not the least desire to put down that club, or to put any unduly severe restrictions upon it; but the hon. Member must recollect there are, I do not know whether in his part of the country, but in other parts of the country, institutions masquerading under the name of clubs which are of a totally different character from those of which he spoke.
    Mr. SUMMERBELL: They ought to be dealt with under separate legislation.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I agree they ought to be dealt with under separate legislation. I think it is due to the fact that clubs vary very much, perhaps according to the district in many cases, that we hear such different accounts of them in this House. One hon. Member comes from a district where there is not a real demand for real clubs, and the genuine clubs are few and far between, though there may be a considerable number of unlicensed drinking shops masquerading under the name of clubs. Another hon. Member comes from a district where there is a need for clubs, and where they meet the wants of the people and have been developed on desirable lines. I do not wish the hon. Member to go away under a misapprehension as to our attitude. I regret, and cannot help regretting, that our licensing laws make it impossible to develop a public-house of the character of the club which the hon. Member described. We refuse by our licensing laws the publican the opportunity of making his house a really fit meeting-place for the working-man with his wife and family for an evening's amusement. We refuse him the opportunity to make it that as well as a mere place where he can get drink or food. The more I think of the subject the more I am sure that much of the evil connected with

    1543
    our public-house system comes from the restrictions on the entertainment which they can offer, and that we should do more for temperance by a reform which would enable working men and induce them to go not alone but with their families to the place where they spend their evening than by any other single legislative Act. The other observation I have to make is perhaps of a more contentious character, but it is germane to what we are discussing. These institutions, whether bad or good, do directly compete with the public-house. That is the point put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and to it the hon. Member (Mr. Barnard) made no reference. When we were dealing with the public-house the Committee, at the instigation of the Government, proceeded upon the assumption that the public-house has a monopoly, and it has taxed him for that monopoly because it was a monopoly. Yes, but when you have clubs, whether good or bad clubs it does not matter, which compete directly with the public-house and which do the same kind of trade as the public-house, you destroy that monopoly.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN (Barrow-in-Furness): The public-house is a public concern for the public. The club is not; it is private.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That does not affect my argument. Are they supplying the same class of thing? Are
    they supplying liquor which otherwise would be supplied by the public-house?
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Not necessarily.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: They are to a very large extent. Does the hon. Member suggest that, if you have not the clubs, there would be so much less drinking, that it would not be in the public-house and would not be done at all? I do not know whether he sees the whole bearing of that argument and where it will lead him? It is an argument that the clubs are promoting the extension of the drink traffic. Speaking of the better class of club, I do not think that is true, but it is true that they are doing the trade which was previously done in the public-house, and the public-house, therefore, has no longer the monopoly that it used to have. Under those circumstances, although you may think it a good thing, and it may be your policy to encourage clubs, it is no longer true to talk of the monopoly of the publican and no longer fair to tax him as if he had a monopoly when you have allowed other people to share his trade.
    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, 162; Noes, 105.

    Division No. 624.]

    AYES.

    [7.15. p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Clough, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Agnew, George William

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Harwood, George

    Alden, Percy

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

    Hpslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

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

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A

    Higham, John Sharp

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Barker, Sir John

    Crossley, William J.

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Barnard, E. B.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Beale, W. P.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Beauchamp, E.

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

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

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

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Bethell, T. R.(Essex, Maldon)

    Erskine, David C.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Branch, James

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Falconer, J.

    Lambert, George

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

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lamont, Norman

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Byles, William Pollard

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Lupton, Arnold

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gulland, John W.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Chaining, Sir Francis Allston

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Maclean, Donald

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    M'Callum, John M.

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Rees, J. D.

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Tomkinson, James

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Toulmin, George

    Massie, J.

    Robinson, S.

    Verney, F. W.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Walters, John Tudor

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Waring, Walter

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Morse, L. L.

    Rowlands, J.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter

    Watt, Henry A.

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

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

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

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

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Myer, Horatio

    Seely, Colonel

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wiles, Thomas

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Partington, Oswald

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Soares, Ernest J.

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Winfrey, R.

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Radford, G. H.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fell, Arthur

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Foster, P. S.

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gardner, Ernest

    Percy, Earl

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

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Renton, Leslie

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

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Renwick, George

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Healy. Timothy Michael

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Salter, Arthur Claveil

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

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

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hills, J. W.

    Stanier, Beville

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hudson, Walter

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Starkey, John R.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Lord R (Marylebone, E.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Summerbell, T.

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

    Kerry, Earl of

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

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Keswick, William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Crooks, William

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Moore, William

    Winterton, Earl

    Doughty, Sir George

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Younger, George

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Question, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That 'six' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 625.]

    AYES.

    [7.25 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Beauchamp, E.

    Agnew, George William

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Alden, Percy

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Alien, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Barker, Sir John

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Barnard, E. B.

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

    Branch, James

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Beale, W. P.

    Brodie, M, C.

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

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

    Rees, J. D.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Higham, John Sharp

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Robinson, S.

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

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cleland, J. W.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Clough, William

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Laidlaw, Robert

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

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

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Lambert, George

    Seely, Colonel

    Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lamont, Norman

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Stanier, Beville

    Crossley, William J.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

    Maclean, Donald

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

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    M'Micking, Major G.

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

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Maddison, Frederick

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Erskine, David C.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Tomkinson, James

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Toulmin, George

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Massie, J.

    Verney, F. W.

    Falconer, J.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Walters, John Tudor

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Waring, Walter

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Moore, William

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Morse, L. L.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Gulland, John W.

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Myer, Horatio

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendalc)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

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

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Harwood, George

    Partington, Oswald

    Winfrey, R.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hudson. Walter

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Jowett, F. W.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Summerbell, T.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Keswick, William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Walsh, Stephen

    Clyde, J. Avon

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

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

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Crooks, William

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Winterton, Earl

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Radford, G. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Rowlands, J.

    C. Duncan and Mr. W. Tyson Wilson.

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

    Amendment made, in Subjection (1), to leave out the word "receipts" ["for every pound of the receipts"] and to insert the word "purchases."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNTmoved to leave out Sub-section (2).
    The reason I want to leave this Subsection out is, that I think it will be very hard upon the secretaries of working

    1549
    men's clubs that they should be liable to such very heavy fines. Some of them are not very well educated, and if they make a mistake it will be quite easy to understand why it is. I think they are fined under this Sub-section very heavily, and certainly more heavily than ought to be the case.
    The CHAIRMAN: As there are Amendments dealing with the amount, I would suggest that it would be better to take the discussion upon them rather than on a motion to leave out the Sub-section.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDmoved, in Subjection (2), after the word "club" ["If the secretary of a club"], to insert the word "wilfully."
    This Subjection provides that if a secretary of a club fails to deliver a statement in accordance with it within a stipulated time, and he may not have taken the precaution of applying for an extension, then he is to become liable, on summary conviction before the magistrates, to both imprisonment and fine. He can be fined in a sum not exceeding £50, or be sent to three months' imprisonment, or be both fined and imprisoned. In a previous clause in this same Bill we bad an exactly analogous case, and the Government were good enough to accept the word "wilfully" or "knowingly," and it is a matter of indifference which, as a qualifying word. This punishment is inflicted merely with regard to the failure to send in a statement, and I do suggest that to make the secretary of some clubs liable to these penalties is undesirable. Of course there are clubs which have plenty of means, and they have secretaries who have a good education, and they can employ people and are able to pay them salaries to attend to this business, but there are in this country a considerable number of clubs who cannot afford to pay for skilled assistance. My point, therefore, Is that we ought not to enforce a penal clause and make a man responsible, who happens to occupy the position of the secretary of a club, for a fine of £50, or three months' imprisonment, unless he wilfully omits to send in a statement. If he wilfully omits to do so, of course he ought to be liable for a substantial penalty, but in the case of those who do not act wilfully, I do not think this very heavy penalty should be put upon the Statute Book, and, as the Government have previously allowed such a word to be
    1550
    inserted, I now propose this Amendment in order to mitigate the severity of the penalty.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: There are two matters dealt with in this Sub-section. The first is omission to make a return altogether, and the next is to make a return which is untrue in a material particular. It must be borne in mind that there are two things. I am dealing now with the omission, because that is the part of the Sub-section in which the Amendment will come in. The amount depending upon this return to the revenue is a very considerable sum, and we must either do one of two things. We must either make it compulsory upon the secretary of a club to make a return which would enable the revenue to be collected, or else we must allow the fullest possible right of entry to the Excise officers into the premises of the club. This latter power was not one which was desired by both sides of the House, and we had some experience of that last year. I therefore think we ought not to insert the word "wilfully" here at all, but when we come to the second part of the Section, which deals with the making of a return which is false in any particular, it is a very different matter, and I shall be disposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter) and to insert the word "knowingly." I do not know what the precedents are; I have not got them in my mind, but I am told the hon. Member was not quite accurate in saying that the word "wilfully" was inserted. The word "knowingly" was. There is a precedent here to which I would call his attention, in the Act of 1902, in the portion dealing with clubs. It says, "If the secretary of any registered club, or any Club which is required to be registered, omits to make any return required by this Act, he shall be liable, on summary conviction. to a fine not exceeding £20, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding one month, or a fine not exceeding £50, or both." That is a case which is exactly in point. He is there required to make returns of various kinds, and the Committee will see that the word "wilfully" does not occur there at all, land I think the omission to make a return ought to be punished very severely. There are many clubs which are not of a very respectable character, not clubs in the higher walk of life, nor bonâ fide clubs, and it is

    1551
    very important if these clubs do sell intoxicating liquors to any extent that we should have recourse to remedies of this kind. I am not now on the exact amount, and there is not much difference between the penalty we are going to impose here and the penalty imposed under the Act of 1902. In either case the penalty is only a maximum one, and it is a matter for the justices whether they inflict the fine or imprisonment or not. Therefore, in regard to this particular Amendment, I have to say that in the interests of the Revenue, and in strict conformity with the Act of 1902, I must give a negative to it.
    Lord BALCARRES: It is not quite in conformity with the Act of 1902, because in this case it is for a first, and in that case it is for the second offence, that imprisonment is given. The chief objection which my hon. Friend takes to this Sub-section is, firstly, that the penalty is equal in the case of both classes of offence, and then ha wishes to put in the word "wilfully" or knowingly before any offence can be committed. We ought to differentiate on this subject between the two offences. If a man fails, whether wilfully or not, whether by accident or not, to send in a return, he is, as the Clause stands now, liable to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. I think that is an excessive punishment. There are two offences, and there is one maximum for both offences. If he returns a fraudulent statement to the Exchequer, and by doing that defrauds the Exchequer of money, it is no doubt arguable that three months' hard labour is not a very great penalty.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is a question whether the word "wilfully" is to be put in. The question of what penalty should be inflicted arises on a subsequent Amendment.
    Lord BALCARRES: I quite appreciate that, but by putting in the word "lawfully" we shall at any rate protect the secretary of the club from a too drastic penalty for what may after all be a perfectly venial offence. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he objects to the word "wilfully," will accept "knowingly" in this connection.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I think to an expert with a legal mind this Clause would not appear very drastic because he would read into it the practice of the law, and, as he would understand it, in very few cases would it be put into practice, and
    1552
    if it was this is a maximum penalty. I should like the Solicitor-General to bear in mind that this is a Clause which the working man has to carry out. He reads this not with a trained mind, and he says this is a very heavy penalty to put upon a working man. A return must be made in January, or within such further time as the Commissioners may in any case allow. That, of course, means that the secretary will be duly warned by the Commissioners, and that he will be given time. This secretary of the working men's club does not read over the various clauses, and to my mind this would strike him as very harsh and drastic in the form in which it now appears in the Clause. I have been wondering whether it would meet the difficulty at all, if, seeing that the Commissioners would have to give notice and give time, the word "refuses" should be substituted for the word "fails." He would understand that a very heavy penalty might fall upon him if he refused to make a return, and it might be rather harsh and drastic if he failed to make a return.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has quite appreciated the legal position because the Commissioners would not have to give any such notice. It is true the Commissioners may order such further time, but they need not, and the unfortunate secretary is in the position of being liable to a savage penalty if on 1st February, without any notice, he has not made a return.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It is the same as the Act of 1902.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think it is. I understand the penalty of imprisonment is for the second offence.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I was not talking of the amount of the penalty. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the figures being given on a particular date. That is the same as in the Act of 1902.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, it is not the same. The whole difference is in the penalty. If a man fails to carry out a certain duty and the penalty for such failure is 40s., that does not matter particularly. You need not necessarily put in the word "knowingly," but if the penalty is fine plus imprisonment you have no right to leave it to an accidental omission. It is all very well to say the magistrates would not inflict it; there is the penalty, which could be put in force.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I cannot accept "wilfully" here at all. But I will accept "knowingly" in the second part, and I will recast this Sub-section in order to make it correspond exactly with the section of the Act of 1902.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to Clause 9 of this Bill, Sub-section (3), where we had a similar case, and the Government agreed to accept the word "knowingly" there? The word would apply equally here, and would meet the case. I understand the Solicitor-General agrees to do that. But would it not be clearer, and would it not meet the hon. Gentleman who spoke on the other side, if we put in after "fails" the words "after due notice," because after all there is no reason why a club should not be served with notice.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think we ought to be obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he has promptly met what is undoubtedly a very serious difficulty. We are not legislating for the clubs in Pall Mall altogether. If we impose any duties upon these clubs, they must and they would carry them out within the time. But we have to deal with a very considerable number of clubs which have no paid servants as secretaries at all, and whose secretaries in nine cases out of ten are members of the clubs, and they are more or less able to prepare the statement and send it in. To suggest that one of these men, whose attention has not been specifically called to the matter by receiving a notice, should be liable on 1st February to hard labour, or a £50 fine is, of course, a very savage penalty. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to accept the word "knowingly," I hope in both sections of these words, for failure to deliver the statement, and for making a statement that is untrue, and to put in the words of the Act of 1902, it would satisfy us all as being a very reasonable solution of this difficulty; and, if I understand that is the offer which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, I would ask leave to withdraw. But if there is any doubt about that being the offer, we should have to insist upon this Amendment, or something similar to it—either the word "wilfully" or the word "knowingly." When we come to the word "knowingly," we shall be quite willing to accept the penalty of the Act of 1902. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will
    1554
    accept the word "knowingly" or whether he refuses, because our attitude in regard to the matter will depend on his reply?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We cannot accept the word here at all. There is no reason why the penalty should be less severe here than in the Act of 1902. If anything, there is some reason why it should be more severe. I am willing to follow exactly the reference to both classes of offence, namely, omission or failure to return, or sending a return which is false in any material particular.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am sorry that is not satisfactory.
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: In Clause 16, where the owner of land is required to make returns, if he fails to make a return, he shall be liable to a penalty under Section 55 of the Income Tax Act, 1842. So, in the same way, under Clause 20, where any person who pays rent is bound to make a return to the Commissioners if asked, and even there, if he fails after he has been asked to comply with the provisions, he is to be subject to the penalties of the Income Tax Act. The penalty is thus expressed: "If any person who is by this Act to deliver any list, declaration, or statement as aforesaid shall refuse or neglect to do so, or shall under any pretence wilfully delay the delivery thereof, he shall be liable," etc. The penalty is only to be £20 and treble the duty. There is no imprisonment. The hon. and learned Gentleman might consider the analogy taken from this very Bill itself, and not from the Act of 1902. The same word here would come in with much greater force and justification.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. RENWICK: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will meet us in regard to this matter. It is much more serious than probably many Members think it is. I have to do with certain working men's political clubs, and one of the greatest difficulties we have is to get respectable men to accept the position of secretary. There is a large amount of work and there is no pay. If we do not meet this in some way, it will be utterly impossible to get a respectable man, whom we cannot afford to give a salary, to accept a position involving such great responsibility. I suggest that we might insert some words to this effect, that after having received notice that he has neglected to send in a return he shall be liable to a penalty. But we cannot, if we are to maintain the respect-

    1555
    ability of the club, as we are all anxious to do, allow the Clause to remain as it is at the present time. Everyone knows the efforts which are made by the owners of licensed premises to get a respectable tenant. The position is rather different there. He either shares in the profit or gets the whole of it. Here is a case where the unfortunate secretary, who accepts all the responsibilities and does all the work, is not going to get anything for it, and, in addition, has to have these heavy penalties. There is another point to which I would call attention, speaking from the point of view of the justices. I maintain that if the justices were to see that the Government considered this such a serious offence as to require such penalties as are set out in the section, they would be almost certain to inflict a severe penalty in cases of this description. I think that is an additional reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman should meet us fairly and equitably in this matter.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would point out to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) that his argument falls to the ground in one respect. He says that clubs are almost unable to get respectable men to undertake honorary secretaryships, and that if the provisions of this Bill were to become law, it will be impossible to obtain such men. Clubs are now liable to precisely the penalties which we propose to make them liable for in the Sub-section as amended. A secretary is required at present to make certain returns as to the number of members and other details under the Act of 1902, and if he omits to make any returns—the word "knowingly" is not used in the statute—he is liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding £20, and for the second and subsequent offences he is liable to a term of imprisonment. We propose to remodel this Clause so as to make it absolutely identical with the Section in the Act of 1902. If there is any difficulty in getting a secretary for a club now, what is here proposed will not make the difficulty greater in future. Under the second part of the Sub-section if a man makes a false return for the purpose of defrauding the Revenue, he will be liable to the same penalty as under the Act of 1902. Therefore, I think my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Samuel Evans) has fairly met the case put by the hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members must remember that there are a certain
    1556
    number of clubs which are really drinking clubs. We would have suppressed them under the Bill of last year if we had been allowed to pass it into law. We cannot suppress them with the existing powers, because the Act of 1902 does not give powers to suppress them. There are from 50 to 70 of them suppressed each year for various reasons, but a considerable number of drinking clubs still survive. They are not very much better than shebeens.
    Sir E. CARSON: I cannot understand why the Government object to put in the word "knowingly." The late Lord Advocate (Mr. Scott Dickson) has pointed out that even under the Income Tax Act of 1842, which is much more analogous to the-present case than the Registration of Clubs Act of 1902, the offence arises when the failure to make a return is done wilfully. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy mean to lay down here that a man who by inadvertence forgets at the right moment to make a return of those purchases ought to be liable to prosecution? I really cannot understand why the Solicitor-General—whose urbanity in these discussions we so willingly acknowledge—can think it worth his while to hold out on the point whether a man is to be convicted for an inadvertence or for having "knowingly" failed to carry out what the Act requires. There has been an able argument submitted by the late Lord Advocate that the failure to make the returns under other parts of this Bill by "dukes and blackmailers" does not involve such penalties. Surely if the secretaries of clubs omit to make returns they should receive as much consideration as you give to dukes and blackmailers It really would be worth while to consider them when you are making these class distinctions and putting secretaries of working men's clubs in a lower grade than blackmailers or dukes. If a man is purposely evading an Act of Parliament you ought certainly to punish him, but if he is guilty of inadvertence in a matter which can be remedied—because you can always get these returns—I say you ought not to punish him. If the Solicitor-General will agree to insert the word "knowingly" we will be quite satisfied.
    Mr. F. MADDISON: I think we ought to be very careful how we deal with a question of this sort. While it is true that the great majority of club secretaries will have no difficulty in making the returns, there are small clubs where the secretaries are only poor men, and they Inlay inadvertently fail to send in the return

    1557
    The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) has stated that it is almost impossible to get a respectable man to act as a secretary of a Tory club. I did not think it was so bad as that; still, the hon. Member knows his own party better than I do, and I take his word for it. What I say is that it is important that you should have these returns, and the sort of man that we all want to protect is the man who cannot be got to understand that he has to do a certain thing by a certain time. The real protection for such a man is to have a notice sent to him stating plainly that he has a certain thing to do. I gather from the Section that there is no statutory obligation on the Commissioners to send any such notice. If the Solicitor-General could possibly give us an assurance that on the Report stage he would introduce words providing for such a statutory obligation on the part of the Commissioners, then the most ignorant of men would have no trouble at all. I certainly think that would protect the sort of man who is liable to make the omission from no desire whatever to defraud the revenue. I have a good deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool. There are a number of men, I hope a decreasing number, who do, if I may use the term, get "mixed" and flurried, and if they were secretaries of small clubs the imposition of such penalties as are provided for under the Act of 1902 would be a very serious thing.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: I cannot imagine why the Government do not accept the Amendment. The Solicitor-General proposes to remodel the Clause in accordance with the provisions in the Act of 1902. I agree that the word "knowingly" is not in that Act, but I would point out that it is not a taxing Act. It is an Act for the regulation of clubs. The late Lord Advocate (Mr. Scott Dickson) has called attention to the true precedent in the Income Tax Act of 1842, where the words "knowingly" and "wilfully" occur. We must not forget that this is an entirely new matter. Secretaries of clubs have never been called upon to do anything of this kind before. In the large West End clubs there are men of high education and paid servants to attend to the making of these returns, but the case is different in regard to small working men's clubs. I have half a dozen of them in my own Constituency. The secretaries perform the duties of their offices almost gratuitously. They are not
    1558
    skilled in accounts, and at the end of this year, within a month, they are to be called on to make this entirely novel return. If the secretary fails to make a return he is subject to a grave penalty, not so serious as in the Clause as it stands, but still a serious penalty if you are going to adopt the procedure of the Act of 1902. The Government having gone three-quarters of the way should now go the remainder of the way, and put the matter on a fairer, a juster, and a surer basis. There will be a great deal of dissatisfaction in workmen's clubs throughout the country, especially in the smaller clubs, if the Government do not conform to this request; and in addition great injustice will done.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I wish to point out that the secretaries of these clubs very often are sent away from the town in which the club is for a month or two months, as the case may be, to work in other parts of the country, and a secretary is put in for the time being who knows practically nothing whatever of what is required of a secretary. In such, a case it would be extremely hard if the real secretary was prosecuted. I quite admit that it might be a dangerous thing to adopt the words "wilfully" or "knowingly," because you would find that nobody would wilfully and knowingly omit to send in the returns. At the same time I think that the Government ought to promise that no prosecution will take place until the secretary who has not sent in a statement has been notified to this effect.
    Mr. G. A. GIBBS: If the secretary of a club fails to deliver the necessary statement there must be some reason, and it will probably be that he does not know about the internal arrangements of the club. If he does happen to omit the return knowingly the fact of putting "knowingly" in the Bill will make him liable to the penalty. I would, therefore, ask the Government to reconsider this question.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Another reason why the secretary may fail to send in a return is because he deliberately does not want to pay the tax. Cases may sometimes happen, and how are you to prove that it is a case of that kind and net a case of casual neglect? There is one consideration which was not present to the mind of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison), and that is that these returns must be in such a form and

    1559
    contain such particulars as may be described by the Commissioners. That involves that the Commissioners will send out the forms as they send the forms for other taxes, and I give an assurance that, as a matter of fact, these forms will be sent.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: To get over the whole difficulty, I would suggest that the Government consent, after the word "fail," to put in the words "after receiving notice from the Commissioners," and as the Solicitor-General has already said he would accept the word "knowingly" in the second part of the offence—"in any material particular untrue "—and further agreed to substitute for the penalty the Clause in the 1902 Act, there I think we should be all satisfied with regard to this Clause. But at the present moment we are stuck on the Amendment proposed to insert the word "wilfully," and I should ask permission if we have to go to a Division upon this to withdraw the word "wilfully" and propose in its place the word "knowingly," because it is that word really which we have been discussing, and the word "knowingly" involves a notice if a man has received a notice and does not comply with it then he has knowingly failed because he has got notice. All we want to do in this matter is to do what we consider to be right with regard to this Clause. We will not argue this from a political point of view. There is nothing of that in it. But we are face to face with a penalty Clause. We ought not to make a lot of these poor people responsible under these penalties in a savage or ill-considered manner. It seems to me the most reasonable thing in the world either to put in the word "knowingly" or, as suggested by the hon. Member for Burnley—and I think he means exactly what we mean—"after receiving notice from the Commissioners." It has been pointed out that in the first part of this Sub-section there is to be a prescribed form. Let that form be sent to each club on the register, with an intimation on the back of it that the return has got to be in by a certain date or otherwise there will be a penalty. Let that be addressed to the secretary, probably by a registered letter or in a proper manner. If that is going to be done the Government should not object to insert the words "after receiving notice from the Commissioners." We feel very anxious on this point. We know there is a large number of clubs which are
    1560
    placed in a difficulty. I may say at once that this does not apply to workmen's Conservative clubs in Liverpool. They are all teetotal clubs, but there is a number of respectable workmen's clubs that are not teetotal, and we have no right to impose on these people, who have done the duties of secretary without pay or reward, penalties of this savage description which will prevent these respectable men from taking the position of secretary. We have made a very reasonable demand and a very reasonable offer to the Government, and I shall be very sorry to go in the Division Lobby about it. We will meet the Government in any reasonable way in regard to this Clause. The alternative I suggest is that they might agree to put in the words "after receiving notice from the Commissioners," or "after the prescribed form had been sent to the club," or any equivalent words of that sort. If the Government will not accept that suggestion, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment with regard to the word "willfully" and be allowed to propose the word "knowingly," and then I think we shall go to a Division.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is really no difference of intention between us and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and we are apparently splitting hairs. I have already said that as a matter of fact these people will receive notice every year.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is not in the Bill.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is implied by the words in the Bill. They are required to give information "in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Commissioners." The reason why it was not inserted in the Bill in terms was that such a notice might be used as a precedent in the case of other taxing Acts, such as the Income Tax Act. The point is really comparatively a small one, and this case is sufficiently distinguished from the Income Tax case, because the people are all registered. There is a register of these clubs and of their secretaries, so that they are all known, and I do not think that if words were put in here requiring notice to be given that they could really be used effectively as a precedent in other cases. As a matter of fact, there is no precedent in any Act requiring notice to be served in circumstances such as these, but I do not think that need necessarily bind this Committee. Therefore I accept the suggestion of the

    1561
    hon. Member that the Clause should state explicitly what it already states explicity. It might, however, be more convenient to put the necessary words in the first Sub-section rather than in the second Sub-section, as a matter of drafting. Perhaps for that reason it would be better if the words were more carefully considered, and I will give an undertaking that on the Report stage words to the effect that notice shall be served shall be inserted.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think we ought to accept at once the frank and kindly offer which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Of course, I can see that the proper place would be in the first Subsection, which we have already passed, and therefore, after the promise which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Committee, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: There is no time like the present, and, having used the interval since the matter was under discussion to consider the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, I propose, therefore, to move to leave out the word "or" ["or if he delivers a statement"], and to insert the words "he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence to imprisonment without hard labour for a term not exceeding one month, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both, and."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to enter a mild protest against this proposal. I think it would be perfectly impossible for a secretary of a workman's club to meet all these requirements. He may receive his notice, he may go into all the figures, he may fill up his return, making it all right, but he may leave it in the parlour on the mantel-piece, and his wife may light the fire with it next morning. Should the unfortunate man be convicted and made liable to this fine in such circumstances? I think the word "wilfully" ought to be kept in.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman undertook to put in the word "knowingly."
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That will come later.
    Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: As this is my Amendment, I may be allowed to say that
    1562
    what is proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman only differs from mine by the-insertion of the words "without hard labour."
    Question, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Clause, put, and negatived.
    Amendments made: After the word "he" ["he delivers a statement"], to insert the word "knowingly."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
    Leave out Sub-section (3)—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
    Mr. CLAVELL SALTERmoved, in Subsection (4), after the word "distress" ("the duty may be levied by distress"], to insert the words "on any goods being the property of the club found."
    This Amendment relates to the right of distress which is given by this Bill in the case of clubs. I am not prepared to contest the necessity of some such provision. The object of the Amendment is to limit the distress to the-property of the club. Unless such words are inserted, under the ordinary common law of distraint there is the right to take whatever is there, whoever it belongs to. It is an exceedingly drastic right, and unless some such words are put in the Treasury officers could take the hats, coats, and umbrellas not merely of members, but of their guests or visitors—indeed, any persons' property which for any reason whatever is on the premises of the club. I do suggest that if this drastic power is to be given it should be limited to the property of the club, and I hope that the Committee will see that the Amendment is a reasonable one.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: There is no precedent for this Amendment. We have not now in mind the perfectly respectable club but those clubs which are furnished, not by the members, but by people who may be described as really the proprietors. In the case of such a club, when these taxes are being incurred under this Act of Parliament, there is no reason why the distraint should not apply to all the goods. Therefore I am afraid that the Government must refuse this Amendment.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It seems to me this should be dealt with by some central authority.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is done is the Clause.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Let us take the case of a hasty man, or a man of different political leanings from that of a club in the district in which he served as collector. I think we might have some information as to who is to be the collector and to issue this warrant.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: We have been passing heaps of duties under this Bill, and if they are not paid the Revenue Authorities have to proceed against those who are liable to pay. Here, because it is a working men's club, no proceedings whatever are to be taken, and no notice is to be given. It may be that by inadvertence the duty is not paid, and one evening the members may come down and find the collector in possession, and all the goods to be sold. It seems to me to be a most extraordinary provision in any taxing statute. I venture to suggest that the Clause should not merely be modified, as suggested, but that there is no reason or right whatever why this extraordinary power of distress should be placed in the hands of the Government for this particular tax, and this tax alone. Large numbers of people are gradually coming to the opinion that the landlord's right of distress is not desirable in the interests of the community. From the other side we frequently hear that urged that the landlord ought to have the same remedy as any other person. Yet the party that is opposed to the landlord's right of distress are introducing this power of distress into this particular Clause only.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): We passed the word "distress," and the Amendment is "on any goods being the property of the club found."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would it be possible after disposing of this Amendment to propose an Amendment to the effect "after proceedings taken before a magistrate."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I hope when we come to that point there will be a suggestion that some sort of proceedings at all events should be taken to recover the duty. The Amendment is to insert the words, "on any goods, being the property of the club, found." I am bound to say quite candidly and frankly I cannot see how this Amendment can possibly be accepted, because we all know that in the great majority of clubs the furniture and
    1564
    other things in the club do not belong to the club at all. There is mostly a limited company, and in a very large number of cases the club, as a club, own nothing at all on the premises. In other cases there are proprietary clubs of all sorts and descriptions, and it would be a very stupid position for the Inland Revenue authorities to find themselves in that their only practical remedy was against the furniture of the club, and to find when they got there that there was not a single stick they could touch. Therefore I do not think, in the shape the Amendment is proposed, that it could be seriously pressed to a Division. I am afraid I really cannot see anything very much in favour of it. The other point which has been referred to, and which I think you rightly held to be out of Order now, as to whether the power of distress should not come after the taking out of a summons, is, I think, a very serious one.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSmoved, in Subsection (4), after the word "distress" ["may be levied by distress"] to insert the words, "after proceedings taken before a court of summary jurisdiction."
    I desire to have some words inserted which will impose on the Crown the duty of taking some kind of proceedings before they come down in the way proposed. I have never heard of the Crown or anybody whatever having such a right. In every other case where the duty is not paid provision is made that proceedings shall be taken before the distress can take place. Whether it is a working men's club or any other club, I do not see why in should be put in a different position from an ordinary individual. The authorities should proceed in exactly the same way as local authorities have to do in regard to rates. Proceedings have to be taken before a court of summary jurisdiction, the magistrates then make an order, and the man in default has an opportunity of explaining why he has not paid. Surely a club should not be treated worse than an individual. I hope the Solicitor-General will accept the Amendment or one similar to it, so that it will be necessary, before a bailiff goes into a club, at lease to give the club some notice and an opportunity of explaining why it has not paid.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The hon. Member has made a speech without being able

    1565
    to look into the matter, and the less the has looked into the matter the more positive he is in making his statement. So far from its being the case that there are no precedents for this proposal, it is common form in Excise Acts. I have not them all here, but I have looked at the Inland Revenue Act of 1880, and there Section 17, Sub-section (1), provides that if any duty payable by a brewer remains unpaid after the time within which it is payable the collector may by warrant signed by him empower any person to distrain upon the beer, malt, or other materials for brewing or utensils belonging to the brewer, and so forth, and sell the same by public auction. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise some kind of similarity?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite a different thing.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: We all know that for the purposes of Income Tax and of Customs and Excise the authorities have very wide powers; but the case with which we are now dealing is rather an exceptional one. You are imposing upon clubs a new duty in the nature of an annual payment almost in the same category as rates. For a good many years I have been a member of the Finance Committee of the city of Liverpool, and regularly before that committee, especially at certain times of the year, there comes a list of people who are in arrear with their rates. We then have to decide whether they shall be summoned or allowed time or permitted to pay by instalments. Rates are a serious burden to a considerable number of people, and there is no doubt that the new duty will be a serious matter to a considerable number of clubs. I think the Government might look upon this matter in a somewhat similar way to that adopted by urban authorities in the matter of rates. I can understand that the Commissioners, who would have the onus of collecting these duties, would in many cases where it was-pointed out that the sum was rather heavy and that a little time was wanted, probably give time to pay. After all, in the collection of taxes, as in the collection of rates, it does not do to be too arbitrary. To leave this particular duty in the same category as that to which the Solicitor-General referred, is not quite fair, because in the case of the brewer he and his predecessors before him have known perhaps for generations that they have to pay the duty in respect of the beer they
    1566
    brew. It is common knowledge to everybody who has to pay Excise and Customs Duties that they have to make these payments, and they make them at a time when they are able to do so, having regard to the commodities with which they are dealing. But here you have a new tax imposed upon clubs, and it is a reasonable suggestion that they should be treated as considerately as a local authority treats its citizens in respect of rates. The procedure suggested has the additional advantage that in regard to rates, and I am sure it would be the same in regard to clubs, on the hearing of the summons in nine cases out of ten the person concerned finds means to pay the duty and costs, and thus saves the distress. It is a serious matter to put the bailiffs into a club. There ought to be some reasonable opportunity for explanation and payment allowed, such as is afforded by the issue of a summons. If the Amendment is not accepted I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
    Mr. JOHN GRETTON: There is great force in what my hon. Friend has said. The case of clubs is very different from the case of those who have been habituated by long custom to the Excise laws. There have been long interviews between the representatives of clubs and Members of the Government, and I should like to ask whether it has been clearly represented to those who put forward the case of the clubs that clubs were subjecting themselves to the risk of these very onerous penalties if they agreed to these duties being placed upon them. Are clubs thoroughly aware of what an infringement of the regulations in this Bill will entail upon them and their Members? This occurs to me to be an entirely new case. The Amendment now under the consideration of the Committee is, I think, a reasonable and just one, framed with a view of the mitigation of the penalty. I am sure these people will require to be warned of what is impending under these new and stringent regulations.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am very ready, as hon. Members know, to meet them as much as possible, but this Amendment is one which the Government cannot possibly accept. We should be departing from every precedent that has been set by Parliament, both in past times and in more recent years, if we were to accept an Amendment of this character. I sincerely hope that hon. Members opposite will not seek to press it. We accepted their last

    1567
    Amendments because they made out an effective case for them. No respectable club would refuse to pay this duty to which it is liable. Distraint would only be taken by the Department of Excise in the very last resort. You cannot imagine the Customs and Excise, because the duty happens to be a day or two in arrear, going in and seizing the property of the club. We have been getting along very amicably this evening, but I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Amendment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am exceedingly sorry for the terms that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General thought fit to adopt with regard to myself. I certainly did not intend to willfully mislead the Committee—
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I did not suggest that. What I complained of was that the hon. and learned Member quoted an Act that did not apply.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Solicitor-General is very kind to bring against me a charge of wilful ignorance or of unwilful ignorance. When he referred to the Act of Parliament relating to brewers I knew enough about it to know that he was as equally ignorant as he suggested I was. I have now got the Act of Parliament, and I find that the power to distrain upon the brewer for non-payment of his duty under the Act of 1880, Section 17, is a totally different power to the power which is given to the Revenue under the provisions of this Bill. Under the Act of 1880 distraint may be made upon, "all beer, malt,…vessels, utensils, …or on his furniture."
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Go on.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: "Or any premises in the use or possession of the brewer, or in possession on his behalf…by warrant." That is not nearly so wide a power as the power of distress given by this Ball. And the brewer is a man who may be expected to know the law, and know what the duties payable are. That is not so nearly wide a Section as the Clause which the Government propose in this Bill. When the Solicitor-General casts an aspersion upon my legal knowledge, wilfully or not, all I do venture to suggest to him is that he did put before the Committee the Section, and stated it was on "all fours," and that it is not on "all fours" with the provisions of
    1568
    this Bill. The power of distraint in this Bill is a far wider power. It refers to all property found in the club, to every kind and every description of property belonging to the club, a member, or a stranger. All can be distrained upon and taken away under the provisions of this Clause.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: It might be well to consider what are the duties of a club secretary. He has to submit in the month of January a statement, and it is certain—human nature being what it is—that he will not furnish it at an earlier date, but will take his time about it. Therefore, he will furnish that statement at the end of January. That statement will go to the Commissioners. He will not know whether that statement is accepted till perhaps the end of February, for it has to be considered by the Commissioners. Obviously, the duty cannot be paid by that club secretary until he knows that the Commissioners have accepted his statement. If there has been any misunderstanding in the correspondence or inadvertence, it is very likely the duty will not be paid until March. What happens in March? We know very well that the Inland Revenue always tighten up the screw in March, so as to get all the revenue they can by the end of March, in view of the end of the financial year. The upshot of it is that the club secretary may. be come down upon on 1st March and have the bailiff put in, whereas at that time really he will not know about having done anything wrong whatever, and will indeed, have no desire to evade payment of the tax. But the time is very short, for all these negotiations. I say that that secretary ought to have notice as to the exact period of time within which the tax is to be paid. There is no provision whatever in this Subsection for that, and the result may be that the secretary will find he is distrained upon really when he has no wish to evade payment of the tax. In the case of working men's clubs there is an additional hardship, because as a matter of fact the control over the secretary is rather slight in these cases, from the necessity of the case. They have no efficient control over their secretary, and the secretary has consequently a free hand. It is surely very hard lines that the club should suffer from the default of the secretary, whet0her through the wilful disturbance, or wilful evasion, or whether by simple carelessness. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that some formal steps should be taken before distrain takes place such as my hon. and

    1569
    learned Friend has suggested. If the procedure suggested be adopted, and if the summons is taken out, then it will become known, and the whole body of members will take care that the duty is paid. Otherwise they may find the bailiffs in possession. Even if they pay then they find themselves involved in something which casts a stigma on the club that ought to have been avoided. Therefore, I suggest that some official notice should be given, and if the Government do not find some better words I think my hon. Friend should adhere to the Amendment.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am in somewhat of a difficulty. I belong to those old-fashioned people who try to pay their 'debts, and having not very great sympathy with the people who do not pay their debts. It is rather an incongruous state of affairs to find protests coming from the Conservative Benches and not from the Liberal and Radical Benches against this power of distraint. What is the ordinary power of a private person who has recovered judgment against another particular person? He can seize the goods of the debtor, and the goods of the debtor only. That is the ordinary power which every subject has.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: What is the power of the landlord?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: There is the exceptional power which is given to the landlord to distrain or take the goods of other people who happen to be on the premises in respect of which the debt is due. The Solicitor-General reminded me of that power, but that is the power which has often been spoken against in this House from the Benches opposite, and last year a Bill was brought in with the object of whittling down the power of the landlord, and we heard speech after speech about the injustice which was alleged to have been caused by the seizing of one people's goods for another's debts. That is what the Government propose to do in this Clause, if the club has not paid its duty before the end of March. The Government give power to the local collector to issue a warrant of distress and to seize any goods he can find in the club. He has power to issue this warrant without any demand, and to seize the goods not only of the club, but of anyone on the premises. For instance, he could seize the goods of the caretaker. I think that is giving an extremely large power to the person to whom the money is owing. The Solicitor-
    1570
    General and the Chancellor of Duchy said we cannot accept this Amendment because it would be flying in the face of all precedent. I was amazed to hear that. The Amendment is to provide that the proceedings should be taken before a magistrate before the distress can be put in. What is the case of the Income Tax? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that if he did not pay his Income Tax after he had made his return that the local collector has power to put in a bailiff into his house in the West End of London without any further demand, and if not, is not that a perfectly good precedent? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman referred to when he talked of precedent.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Excise laws.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Is there any difference between Excise and Income Tax? The limits are made in one case as well as in the other. The Solicitor-General said there were a large number of precedents I am not so familiar as he is with Government statutes, but I am bound to admit I know no such precedents. The one he has referred to is a perfectly well-known precedent, but it is certainly no precedent for this. He quoted from the exceptional power given in dealing with brewers. I will tell the Committee what the power is. Under the statute to which the Solicitor-General referred when the brewer has not paid his duty, the collector can issue a warrant and seize the brewing utensils. There is now no power given to seize other people's goods. The landlord's power is not given in that case. There is no power to seize the hat or cloak of anyone on the brewery. That is no precedent for distress, and further than that the precedent which the Solicitor-General gave was not even a precedent for distraining the brewers' goods, because there is no sort of power to distrain the goods of the brewery other than the utensils of the brewery.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The hon. Member has not got the section before him. It is not only the brewers' utensils that can be seized, but the materials.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The power which the sub-section gives is to distrain upon the goods of the brewer which he uses in. connection with the brewery trade. The words are beer, vessels, and utensils. There is no power to seize the private goods of the brewer, and further than that

    1571
    there is not power to seize all the goods used in connection with the brewery. For instance, there is no power to seize the horses and carts. The power of distraint is on the malt and other materials, and the vessels and utensils belonging to the brewery. That is not the precedent for giving full powers of distress which this Section gives: power not only to seize the goods of the club, but the goods of anybody else who happened to be upon the club, whether he be caretaker or otherwise. The Solicitor-General said there were other precedents, but I am not aware of them, but if there are precedents, and they are not more to the point than the one he has given, I am very much inclined to join my friends in objecting to the powers given under this Clause. I am very strongly in favour of the speedy recovery of debts, and of giving a very wide power of distress to persons to whom debts are due, but power in this Clause is stronger than we are accustomed to in this country.
    Mr. MARKHAM: I am not quite clear what is the meaning of these words. I would like to put this case to the Solicitor-General. There is a club in Yorkshire rented at £250 a year, but the furniture does not belong to the club. In the event of the members not paying the Excise Duty, could the furniture be seized on those premises, although it does not belong to the members, and was, in fact, a free gift?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Certainly.
    Mr. MARKHAM: What objection is there to accepting the words of the hon. Member for Basingstoke?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am afraid I must press my point. When is the secretary to be told how and when he has to pay this duty?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That does not arise here.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think some notice should be given to the secretary as to the form of the summons, and surely it is not reasonable when no notice has been given to the secretary as to how much the amount is, and when he should pay, that the bailiff should be allowed to come in straight away.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Does the hon. Member really think that the Excise officer would take the trouble to take out a warrant of distress in that way?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Then why should we provide for them having power to make this demand? There is no precedent whatever for a distraint where there has been no demand for payment.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No such power is given.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I believe this is the first occasion upon which an attempt has been made to put into an Act of Parliament a drastic power enabling the authorities of any Department to go and issue a distress upon the goods of people who are not responsible for the debt, and do it without notice. The ordinary case that will happen is this. The furniture does not belong to the club at all, but it belongs to the landlord or to a club company. That club is in default in regard to the payment of this particular duty, and the distress takes place. Whose goods are taken? Not the goods belonging to the club. The Solicitor-General has just stated that the goods of the landlord or the donor of the club could be seized, and they will be in every case. That is the object of the Clause, and this can be done without a summons and without notice. Surely this is entirely unprecedented. The power to distrain upon the goods of other people for somebody else's default is absolutely without precedent. We ought to make that protest perfectly clear.
    Mr. GRETTON: There is one matter which has not hitherto received the attention of the Committee. This process of proceeding by summons will give, in fact, an appeal against the assessment of the Commissioners. The proceeding proposed, of having a court of summary jurisdiction is an appeal into the investigations of the claim made against the club. On that ground there is very great force in this Amendment, and I think this fact ought to receive the careful attention of the Committee. There is no doubt that the whole proceedings intended are absolutely without precedent, and the Solicitor-General has entirely failed to make out the case. I am convinced that the Government are totally wrong on this question, and it is a matter upon which they ought to make a concession and allow some form of appeal and investigation, and have a proper legal notice enshrined in the Bill before they proceed to carry this Clause into law.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: There is no precedent in law for the proceedings the Government propose to take under this Clause, and I am sure there is no precedent in justice. I am in one way glad that the Government have stiffened their backs on this point, and are not going to give way because they could not do a more unpopular thing if they have any regard for political popularity [An HON. MEMBER: "We have no regard for popularity."] I will make one last appeal to the Government, because I do not want them to lose their popularity. I ask in view of the fact that these clubs are in many cases small working men's clubs that this breathing space be allowed before permitting the drastic remedy of distress to take place. All we ask for is that not till after proceedings taken before a court of summary jurisdiction shall distress take place. There is no precedent for this Bill or for what we are asked to do under this Clause. It is no good putting precedent to me; you have swept away all precedents, and you are proceeding in a new course in a new land. We want justice. The working men of this country in this particular matter ask for justice. It will go forth in all the newspapers to-morrow that the Government have refused the request that notice shall be given in the manner I have described before the distress is enforced.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Let me say, in answer to the hon. Member, that I wish I could respond to his appeal, but for once I must be adamant. We will run the risk of losing such popularity as remains to us. It would be a poor return for his great political benevolence if I were to deny him the chance of perhaps succeeding to our popularity.
    Mr. J. S. ARKWRIGHT: It seems to me only one precedent remains, and that is the precedent he will find for giving way after he has said he is determined not to do so. We have had various precedents within the last half-hour. We were told on a previous Amendment that there was no precedent for the course suggested, and that therefore it could not be accepted by the Government. The Chancellor of the Duchy, however, in answer to our further request, said, "There is no precedent for this course; but it does not matter, and so we will concede your request." I do not know whether we are to understand that the learned Solicitor-General still adheres to his statement that there is no precedent, and that he still bases his refusal on that statement. I should have
    1574
    thought he would have to give up that position. There is no precedent for this Bill and the course the Government are taking, but there is a precedent for giving way, and I hope the genial and kindly heart of the Solicitor-General will make him think better of the course he proposes to take.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I appeal to the Chancellor of the Duchy to help us in this matter? There is a growing disposition throughout the country to assist in the formation of common-sense clubs which are not limited to any narrow-minded sect, but are places in which the members may be allowed to exercise their free, unfettered, and sensible discretion. If we allow this Clause to pass as the Government have framed it, we shall do the whole club system a grievous harm. I am anxious also to assist the Government and their followers throughout the country in this matter. A considerable sum of money is spent in spreading the gospel of so-called Free Trade—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): That has nothing to do with the Amendment, which is whether the procedure shall be by a court of summary jurisdiction or as proposed in this Section.
    Mr. REMNANT: If this distress is allowed to go without notice—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of distress has already been determined, and it is a question now of how it shall be recovered.
    Mr. REMNANT: I am anxious that notice shall be given to the clubs.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only point is whether the procedure shall be by a court of summary jurisdiction or as in this Section.
    Mr. REMNANT: I am only following the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in giving illustrations of the hardship which necessitates the alteration of this Clause as we advocate. Being most desirous of promoting the proceedings of this Bill, and knowing how anxious the people in the country are to come to a decision in the matter, I will not prolong the Debate any further. I will only say that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will help us, and agree to the Amendment we suggest.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 151.

    Division No. 626.]

    AYES.

    [9.35 p.m.

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fell, Arthur

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Gretton, John

    Renwick, George

    Beech, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Roberts, S (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hills, J. W.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Walker. Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Keswick. William

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Younger, George

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Goulding and Mr. Lane-Fox.

    Doughty, Sir George

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Agnew, George William

    Harwood, George

    Radford, G. H.

    Alden, Percy

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rees, J. D.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hogan, Michael

    Fidsdale, E. A.

    Barker, Sir John

    Hudson, Walter

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Beale, W. P.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Robinson, S.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Rowlands, J.

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Bright, J. A.

    Jowett, F. W.

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

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

    King, Albert John (Knutsford)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Laidlaw, Robert

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Lambert, George

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Byles, William Pollard

    Lamont, Norman

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Clough, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Stanger, H. Y.

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

    Lupton, Arnold

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Summerbell, T.

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Maclean, Donald

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

    Crooks, William

    M'Callum, John M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Crossley, William J.

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

    Tomkinson. James

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Maddison, Frederick

    Toulmin, George

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Verney, F. W.

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

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Walters, John Tudor

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

    Micklem. Nathaniel

    Waring, Walter

    Dillon, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Morse, L. L.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Elibank, Master of

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

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Myer, Horatio

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Nuttall, Harry

    Winfrey, R.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Grayson, Albert Victor

    Partington, Oswald

    Gulland, John W.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELmoved, in Sub-section (5), to omit the words "on the receipts from intoxicating liquor in a club."
    This Amendment is in a slightly different form to that on the Paper because of the Amendment made in the Bill earlier in this sitting with regard to intoxicating liquors supplied for consumption off the club premises. We think the most effective plan of dealing with these drafting Amendments is to leave out the words I have mentioned, and then the Sub-section will read, "If any duty payable under this Section remains unpaid after the 1st day of March in any year," and so on.
    Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Mr. CLAVELL SALTERmoved, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words "sale of intoxicating liquor without a licence," and instead thereof to insert the words "supply or sale of intoxicating liquor on the premises of an unregistered club within the meaning of Section twenty-six of the Licensing Act, 1902."
    I hope the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment. In a case where the annual payment is not made it is proposed by this Sub-section to put pressure on the club by treating the continued sale of drink as if it were a sale on unlicensed premises. That seems to me to be a rather unworkable way of bringing the pressure. It would bring the clubs under the Licensing Acts, whereas they have been kept entirely outside them up to the present. They have their own code of regulations set forth in the Act of 1902. It appears to me to be unreasonable to say that the sale of drink in a club shall be treated as if it were on unlicensed premises. I suggest the substitution of the penalty of treating the continued sale as a sale upon an unregistered club. You will thereby deprive the club of the protection of registration, and that certainly is a more symmetrical and reasonable way of dealing with the matter. I cannot help thinking that under the Bill as it stands there may be considerable difficulty as to the person to be proceeded against. Of course, the proceedings would have to be taken against the vendor of the drink, and there might be some difficulty in putting one's hand on the person who may be described as the actual and technical seller of the drink. If you deal with it in the way I suggest, as a sale in an unregistered club, then you have in the Act of 1902 the machinery for enforcing the law. and there
    1578
    is no question about the person who is liable. This is a technical matter, and I do not wish to occupy the attention of the Committee for long, but on these grounds I suggest this is a very reasonable Amendment.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The hon. and learned Member put this as a matter of facility and convenience. I can assure him that it has been carefully considered, and this Amendment would involve considerable alteration in other sections. There is a further difficulty in the way of adopting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, and it is, that we should have to make it apply to Scotland and Ireland. The Section of the Act of 1902 to which he refers, and under which he appears to have proceeded, does not apply either to Scotland or Ireland, and therefore there would have to be an Amendment, not in this Clause, but further on, making the Bill applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. GOULDINGmoved to leave out Sub-section (6), and to insert instead thereof:—
    "(6) In the case of any registered club contemplating its voluntary discontinuance as a registered club during any calendar year, the secretary of the club shall, before the sending of any notice to the members of the club of any meeting to be held for considering the question of the discontinuance of the club as a registered club, give notice to the Commissioners of the intention to consider the question of discontinuance and of the date or dates fixed for its consideration and determination, and shall, at the time of giving such notice to the Commissioners, pay to them a sum bearing the same proportion to the duty paid by the club in respect of the preceding year, as the period between the first day of January and the date of the determination of the question of discontinuance bears to a whole calendar year; and if the said sum is not paid it may be levied by distress in the same way as unpaid duty under Subsection four of this Section; and credit shall be given to the club for any sum so paid to or retained by the Commissioners, in respect of any duty that may thereafter appear to be payable by the club in respect of the calendar year in which the said sum was so paid or retained."
    I move this Amendment with a view of eliciting a statement from the Government as to what is their intention as to the

    1579
    payment of this duty. Is it to be paid in advance or at the end of the year? I maintain, if it is to be paid in advance, the machinery laid down in the Clause is unworkable, because in the case of the dissolution of a club, voluntarily or otherwise, it would be necessary to pay them back a sum and not to receive a sum from them. The Amendment which I propose sets up the machinery of recovering the duty from the clubs, in such an event, in the proper way. Suppose a club voluntarily dissolves, say in the month of January—unless you have some such proposal as is contained in the Sub-section suggested, you have no way of recovering any part of the debt from the dissolved club. Under this proposal it is laid down that the secretary, before proceeding to take the steps necessary for the dissolution of the club, should notify the Commissioners and put himself in a position to effect a payment. I cannot see why the Government always adhere to this policy of theirs, of delegating all duties to the Commissioners. Why cannot this House state clearly in the Bill what they propose to do, and put it down in black and white?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to call the hon. Member's attention to the opening words of the Clause: "It shall be the duty of the secretary of every registered club to deliver to the Commissioners in the month of January of every year, or within such further time as the Commissioners may in any case allow, a statement of the purchases during the preceding calendar year of intoxicating liquor supplied to the club." He will see from that that the duty is to be levied for the preceding calendar year, with which the statement will deal. Consequently, the duty is not levied in advance, but is always, so to speak, in arrear, and his point is met. If a club were to dissolve in the course of the year then the procedure adopted, in Sub-section (6), is well adapted to the circumstances of the case, and so much duty is made to be payable in respect of the liquor which has been consumed in that particular club in the year. I would point out to him also that his proposal, in the first place, is unnecessary, and in the second place would impose a very onerous obligation on the secretary of the club which might be dissolving. These clubs often fade away, and it is very hard upon a secretary, when he is harassed by the winding up of his club, to impose upon him the obligation of sending a notice of
    1580
    this character, or else rendering himself liable to penalties.
    Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I should be glad if the Chancellor of the Duchy could give us some idea of the meaning of the Sub-section and the kind of rules which are to be made under it. The unvarying resource in this Bill, whenever you come against a difficulty, is for the Government to solve it by saying some authority shall make rules which shall deal with it. Let us take the case of a club which is dissolved or suppressed in November. It has done 10 months of trade on which it has paid no duty. How is that 10 months duty to be recovered when January comes? There will be no secretary of the club, no one whose duty it will be to make a return on which the taxation is to be founded, no secretary to prosecute, and no possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the club in the way in which you can punish an existing club by punishing them for continued sale. There will be no club in existence, and no premises on which you can distrain. I should be glad if the Chancellor of the Duchy or the Solicitor-General would indicate to us not in detail but in outline in what kind of way the Commissioners' rules are destined to deal with such cases as that, and in what way they intend to recover the 10 months' duty.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The rules will have to deal with one or two very obvious points. One of the rules would be to say that the duty payable should be in proportion to the length of time the club has been in actual existence. The second is, that the person who is liable should be the person who was the secretary when it dissolved. I only sketch these out as they have to be considered by the authorities, and I cannot bind their subsequent discretion, but in all probability rules such as that would be made, and there are similar points more or less obvious of that character. There would be a certain risk that in cases of that kind the duty properly payable would not be recovered; that always happens when you are not charging a duty in advance but in arrear, and that is a risk from which the revenue must suffer, because the only alternative would be to charge the duty in advance and before a new club had been opened or before an old club had made any sales, and that would be obviously unjust.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made does illustrate the extent to which the Government are

    1581
    carrying this system of regulations. He says that the first and most obvious point that a regulation would lay down would be that the duty should be payable for the number of months in the year for which the club has remained open. That would naturally be the only thing to say. And why should we not say it now? Why should we leave it to the discretion of the Commissioners to say whether the duty should be proportionate or disproportionate? Why give them the absolute task of saying in this case as in others the taxes which people are to pay—not to devise regulations for the collection of the tax, but to determine the amount of the tax payable by the taxpayer? I think that is a misuse of regulations, and a point of that kind ought to have been provided in the Bill, and not to have been left to the discretion of anybody but permanent officials. The other point was that they would provide who was to be responsible, and the Chancellor of the Duchy said the natural person to be responsible would be the secretary. I think in the case of a club that is being wound up you may really be putting on the secretary an obligation which he has no power to discharge. If there is to be a duty of this kind, and I am one of those who desire to see such a duty imposed, I do not want to have it evaded, but I am not at all certain that it is fair, in the case of a club which is being wound up, to hold the secretary personally responsible for the payment of any duty which may have accrued, but which the club may be wholly unable to pay.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: May I point out the extraordinary position the Government have got into over this Section. This duty is to be payable on the amount of purchases made by a club during the previous calendar year, but no one is made liable to pay it. There is a power to distrain upon the club premises, and to seize other people's goods who have nothing to do with the club at all, but no one in the first instance is liable to pay the duty. The Chancellor of the Duchy, in dealing with the question of the rules and regulations to be made in the event of a club being wound up after ten months, says doubtless one of these regulations will be to make the secretary liable.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The person who was the secretary at the time of the dissolution of the club should be regarded as their secretary for the purposes of the Clause.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the secretary was liable. If he is not liable then no one is liable, and the Government have not any chance of getting anything out of anyone, because they have to wait until the following January, and the Secretary has then to make his statement of the amount of the purchase of the previous year. The Chancellor of the Duchy then gave another of the regulations which will be an obvious one to make, and that is that the amount of duty shall be proportionate to the number of months during which the club has been open. What has that got to do with anything connected with this Clause in its present form? That might have been applied when we were taxing the receipts, as we were in the original form of the Bill, but now we are taxing purchases.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It was a slip of the tongue. I said receipts instead of purchases.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: It was more than a slip of the tongue, because the tax is simply on the amount of purchases as proportioned to the number of months. It is the literal amount of beer, wine, or spirits which have been bought during the previous year. Whether it is sold or not is quite immaterial. It may be all on the premises, and may be distrained upon if it is left there. Under the Bill it is immaterial what becomes of it afterwards. Once a club has purchased the liquor it has to pay the duty. There is no question of the proportion of 12 months. Making allowance for the slip of the tongue, the first regulation the right hon. Gentleman gave us is absolutely unnecessary, because it does not arise at all. As regards the second, the liability of the secretary, no regulation ought to make him liable if he is not liable already under this Bill, and no one is made liable to pay this sum at all. I hope the Government will consider this before the Report stage and make this Section effective.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Clause-provides that it shall be the duty of the secretary of every club to deliver to the Commissioners in the month of January in every year a statement of the purchases during the preceding year. The club that we are considering has not reached the month of January at all, and this Clause will not apply at all. It is obviously desirable that a club which has been carry-

    1583
    ing on business until November shall not escape scot free of duties for the whole year. What more reasonable than to say regulations are to be made for enabling the amount of duty to be assessed in such a case? Obviously, unless some provision is made, the Clause will not apply at all. Clearly you cannot make it apply to purchases during the preceding calendar year because it is not a whole year. That, again, has to be considered, during what period are you going to consider the purchases? Furthermore, the hon. Member says there may be accumulated stocks in hand which the club may wish to sell. The Treasury may say that is a very fair thing. You do not propose to charge for stocks which are unused, and deductions may be made in that respect. The Acts passed by the late Government are full of regulations of this character. In the Licensing Act of 1904 there were over 70 different rules covering 40 or 50 pages. This is in the nature of procedure. Really it is an excessively small point for the Opposition to ask the Committee to spend its time upon, to say precisely in what way is a great Government Department to adapt a Clause to fit the particular case of a club which does not last for a year.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman, I understand, says that in the event of a club dissolving in November the question might arise as to how it is to be taxed for the ten months which have elapsed, and he has also said that it might be that they had a stock which they wished to sell, and the Treasury might decide whether or not they would be charged upon those stocks. We have arrived at this, that the House of Commons is not to fix the amount of the tax, but the Treasury officials are to fix it according to the circumstances which in their opinion may arise. That is what we have always been contending against. We do not think the power of taxing an individual, whether he is a brewer or a teetotaler or whoever he is, should be allowed to remain in the hands of an official of the Treasury. We think it should be imposed by Parliament, and that Parliament should know what it is doing when it imposes the charge. The right hon. Gentleman says the Opposition are wasting the time of the House of Commons in discussing these points. I ask hon. Members to look back to their election addresses when they said they were going to restore the control of the House of Commons over the finances of the
    1584
    nation. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] This is the restoration of the control of the House of Commons over finance. Not only are we not allowed to decide what the tax is to be, but when we venture to protest we are howled down or met with derisive cheers by hon. Gentlemen opposite who want to go to bed? Not being Conservative publicans, they do not care what happens to these unfortunate people. I should not have risen to speak if it had not been that I think the public ought to know what they have to submit to under what is called a democratic Government. A power which has been preserved to the House of Commons for 300 or 400 years, and which the House of Commons in former times fought for, is to be taken away from them if the right hon. Gentleman comes down and says this is a matter which is to be left to an official of the Treasury. I think when the electorate know that the idea of the Government is that the imposition of taxes should be left to officials, when the election comes, whenever it may be, they will not return people possessed of those ideas.
    Sir E. CARSON: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Commissioners, under the last words of this Sub-section, would have power to regulate who was to pay the duty? The words are, "and for charging the duty under this Section in respect of that statement." I think the right hon. Gentleman said that they would have power of saying whether the secretary or some other person was to pay the duty. I do not know whether I am right in that?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Of course, the Commissioners will have no power to decide. All that the Clause gives them is power to make regulations for adapting the Section to the case of a club which is discontinued during the year.
    Sir E. CARSON: That is a very cryptic answer. What I want to know is whether the Commissioners will have the power of saying who is to pay the duty? That is a. very specific question.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No more than they would have in the case of a club under the other Sub-section.
    Sir E. CARSON: That is not an answer to my question. The Commissioners are not given power under the other Subsection. I want an answer, yes or no, to a. very simple question. Will the Commis-

    1585
    sioners have power under these words to say that the secretary, the chairman, or somebody else, or the committee, will have to pay? Can they select some person to be liable to pay the tax?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should certainly answer that in the negative.
    Sir E. CARSON: Then I am satisfied.
    Mr. FELL: When I first read this Clause I realised that there was great danger of encouraging bogus clubs, which ought to be hampered and destroyed. This Bill will exactly suit them, while it will press heavily on well-conducted clubs. The clubs that I refer to will dissolve in December. There will be no secretary or anybody else in January. You may have the name of the registered secretary, but the police of London will not be able to find him. This will be a premium on clubs of that description. I do not personally believe that you will get returns from any of the bogus clubs unless you require that the returns shall be made more frequently than once a year. Are the Government going to run the risk of losing revenue in that way? This provision in regard to
    clubs will tend to encourage the growth of bogus clubs, which will remain in existence until December. Then they will be dead for the purposes of revenue, and the people connected with these clubs will start under another name in February, and the Government will never get any return from them.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask what machinery is contemplated for supervising clubs and seeing that the taxation is levied in accordance with the returns sent in? Will there be any means of checking the statements? Is it contemplated that an Excise officer should have the right to enter a club and examine the accounts?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That question does not arise on this Sub-section.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Otherwise those provisions could not be put in operation. That is a very pertinent question.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 77.

    Division No. 627.]

    AYES.

    [10.15 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Elibank, Master of

    Lynch, H. B.

    Agnew, George William

    Erskine, David C.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Alden, Percy

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Maclean, Donald

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    M'Callum, John M.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Findlay, Alexander

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

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

    Barker, Sir John

    Fullerton, Hugh

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Gullanel, John W.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Beale, W. P.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Massie, J

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

    Harwood, George

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bright, J. A.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Morrell, Philip

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    Morse, L. L.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henry, Charles S.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hogan, Michael

    Myer, Horatio

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hudson, Walter

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cleland, J. W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Clough, William

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Partington, Oswald

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jowett, F. w.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Priestley, Arthur Grantham

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Radford, G. H.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Crossley, William J.

    Lambert, George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Lamont, Norman

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Rees, J. D.

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

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Dillon, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lupton, Arnold

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Robinson, S.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Rowlands, J.

    Summerbell, T.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

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

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Tomkinson, James

    Winfrey, R.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Toulmin, George

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Verney, F. W.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Walters, John Tudor

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Waring, Walter

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    NOES.

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

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Fell, Arthur

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Foster, P. S.

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gardner, Ernest

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gretton, John

    Renton, Leslie

    Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

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

    Renwick, George

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

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hills, J. W.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordhsire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Hunt, Rowland

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

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

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon, Sir John H.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Keswick, William

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lane-Fox, G R.

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lowe. Sir Francis William

    Doughty, Sir George

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Moore, William

    Salter and Mr. Goulding.

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Amendments made: To leave out receipts from" in Sub-section (6) ["receipts from intoxicating liquor"], and insert "purchases of."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    To leave out the words "supplied in the club" ["liquor supplied in the club."]—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONmoved, to leave out, at the end of the same Subjection, the words, "and for charging the duty under this Section in respect of that statement." I confess frankly I do not understand what those words mean. So far as the Sub-section appears to go, the only way the duty can be recovered is by distress under Sub-section (4), and so far as I see, there is no individual or personal liability for the duty. I am unable to understand why the Commissioners, after a club has been dissolved some months before and the property sold, should be entitled to say who are to be liable for the duty. Accordingly, I move the omission of those words for the purpose of ascertaining whether they have the meaning I have placed upon them, and to ask the judgment of the Committee
    1588
    whether it is reasonable that the Commissioners should have the power to say who is to pay the duty. If the words have not that meaning, then I ask the Government to say what meaning they give them.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: There is a little misapprehension about those words which is perhaps not unnatural. The duty, in the case of a club, is chargeable on the statement made at the beginning of the year. In the case of a club which comes to an end on 30th August the Commissioners are to make regulations for procuring under this Sub-section that the statement is made, and the duty will be charged on that statement.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If I understand the Solicitor-General rightly, he states that these words do not give the Commissioners power to charge duty against any particular person. So far that is satisfactory, but then what is to happen in the case of one of those clubs, and who is responsible for the duty? If the club is closed the Government cannot levy distress, and has then no recourse.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Not except the one suggested.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No recourse against the committee or any of the officers of the club? It would be a very serious position in regard to some of these matters if, failing satisfaction on the club premises of a club which had been closed, every member of the club were to become personally liable. I do not know what hon. Members, who were defending clubs, below the Gangway would say to this subject. If it is perfectly clear that the recourse is against the club and not against the individuals, then I am satisfied.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: After the explanation of the Solicitor-General I beg to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. YOUNGER: I should like to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Duchy. I noticed, in the course of his remarks on the Licence Duty on clubs, he said the Licence Duty in January of each year was to be assumed to be "permanently in arrear," and under those circumstances the duty paid in January was the duty paid for the previous year. Assuming that the Budget passes, the statement next January will be the statement of the purchases during last year. Therefore the clubs in January next will have to pay taxes, including the period before this Budget was, I will not say thought of, but disclosed to this House. I want to know under what provision of law, under this Bill, what reason or precedent there is, or fairness there is, in charging duty for the months of January, February, March, and April to those clubs before this House had any cognisance of the Budget?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not a duty on the liquor, but is in the nature of a licence to the club to carry on its operations for the period from 1st January next. The only question is how much the licence is. It is assessed on the basis of the purchases of the preceding year. The hon. Member, who is interested in the brewing trade, will be in precisely the same position.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Very unfairly.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: He and the clubs will be in good company, one with
    1590
    the other. Both will be charged Licence Duty for the following twelve months, but the Licence Duty will be assessed upon the basis of the purchases of the preceding twelve months.
    Mr. YOUNGER: The explanation is that when he used the words "permanently in arrear" the right hon. Gentleman really referred to years in the future, and not to the present year. It was a wrong expression I think.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope before the Report stage the Government will consider whether they cannot strengthen this Clause. This proposal is not aimed at the respectable clubs. In their cases the returns will be made by the secretary, and somebody will pay. But in the case of disreputable clubs let the Committee consider the various loopholes in the Clause. On 1st January the secretary has to make a 'statement of the purchases during the past year. There is no sort of check upon that statement. The Government have no power to make any kind of inspection. The secretary is not required to make any statement as to the stock at the beginning and at the end of the year. The duty is to be paid on the secretary's statement, and the Commissioners have no power to challenge the statement unless they can prove before a police court that it has been knowingly incorrectly made. By this Clause nobody is made liable for the duty at all; consequently the only way of recovering the duty is by a distress upon the club premises. A club of the kind to which I am referring, if wound up in December, will take the precaution of removing its furniture from the club premises, and the Government will be absolutely without remedy as to the collection of the duty. They cannot make the secretary or the committee liable, nor even, in the case of a political club, the Member of Parliament who is president. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent such a club beginning again in the same neighbourhood under another name. I am not pointing out these defects for the purpose of objecting to the legislation contained in the Clause, but in order to urge the Government to make the Clause watertight as against the class of club to which I refer.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 35—(Grant of Licences and Date of Expiration of Licences.)
    (1) The licences specified in the First Schedule to this Act shall be in such form as the Commissioners direct, and any such

    1591
    licence may be granted on payment of the appropriate duty by any officer of Customs and Excise authorised to grant the licence by the Commissioners.
    (2) Manufacturers' licences and wholesale dealers' licences shall expire on the thirtieth day of June in every year, and in any other licences specified in the First Schedule to this Act which are to be taken out annually shall expire in England and Ireland on the thirtieth day of September, and in Scotland on the twenty-eighth day of May in each year.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved, in Subsection (2), after "licences" ["manufacturers' licences"] to insert the words "shall expire on the 30th day of September."
    The object of this Clause is to have uniformity in the date of the expiration, of Excise licences. At one time it was thought that manufacturers would like their licences to expire on 30th June, but the effect of this Amendment will be that manufacturers' licences will expire on 30th September.
    Mr. JOHN GRETTON: The first proposal in this matter was that the old licence should be continued from 1st July to September 30th, 1909, and the new licence should run from list October to the June of the succeeding year. By this alteration to 30th September, the licence is carried forward another three months, and in conjunction with Amendments which occur later I think it would be clear—at any rate, it occurs on the face of it—that the Government are going to collect the duty for the whole of the twelve months from the manufacturers, instead of the nine months. Might I ask what are their intentions?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: On a point of Order, Mr. Emmott. I submit that that does not arise on the Sub-section.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 36—(Penalties.)
    (1) If any person makes or manufactures any intoxicating liquor, for the making or manufacture of which he is required to take out a licence under this Act, without taking out such a licence, he shall be liable in respect of each offence to an Excise penalty of five hundred pounds.
    (2) If any person deals wholesale in any intoxicating liquor, for the wholesale dealing in which he is required to take out u licence under this Act, without taking out such a licence, he shall be liable in respect of each offence to an Excise penalty of one hundred pounds.
    (3) If any person sells by retail any intoxicating liquor, for the retail sale of which he is required to take out a licence under this Act, without taking out such a licence, he shall be liable in respect of each offence, at the election of the Com missioners, either to an Excise penalty of fifty pounds, or to an Excise penalty equal to treble the amount of the duty which would have been chargeable on the licence.
    (4) If any person holding any of the licences specified in the First Schedule to this Act contravenes the terms of the licence, or sells otherwise than as he is authorised by the licence, or contravenes any of the provisions applicable to the licence under that Schedule, he shall be liable in respect of each offence, if the offence is not an offence for which any specific penalty is imposed by any Act relating to Excise duties or licences, to an Excise penalty of fifty pounds.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSmoved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "in the case of spirits and one hundred pounds in the case of beer, and in any other case fifth pounds."
    This Clause very largely increases the Excise penalties in three cases. The first is in the case of the manufacturers of intoxicating liquor. The second is in the case of wholesale dealers. The third is in the case of the retail dealers. There are three Amendments down in my name, the first one being that of the manufacturer or makers of intoxicating liquors. But perhaps I had better state the law as it is. The present law is that the penalty for distilling spirits without a licence is £500, with the forfeiture of stocks and material. The penalty in the case of beer is only £100, with the forfeiture of stock and material. In the case of cider there is no penalty at all, because no Licence Duty is required. For sweets the penalty is £50, with forfeiture of the article. The Committee, therefore, will see that under these new provisions the brewers are raised from £100 to £500 penalty; the manufacturers of cider have to take out a licence, which they are not required to do now, and are liable to a penalty of £500 if they do not take out that licence. The manufacturers of sweets are now under a penalty of £50, and they

    1593
    are put under a penalty of £500 if they do not take out a licence. I want to ask the Solicitor-General, or the Chancellor of the Duchy, the reason why the Government propose to increase these penalties so very largely? I should also like to ask either of them if they can give any information as to the number of cases in the past where licences have not been taken out, and the penalties that have been inflicted. Because if it cannot be shown to the Committee that it is a common offence I think there is really no reason why these very severe penalties of £500 in each case should be insisted upon. I beg to move my Amendment.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The object of the Clause is, I think, a very good one. That is, first of all, to secure revenue, and, in the next place, to have uniformity. There is a good deal of want of uniformity at present in the penalties which are recoverable. The scale which the Bill has adopted is this: for manufacturers' licences a penalty of £500. I am not now dealing with the forfeiture of material and stock. For the wholesale dealer we propose a uniform penalty of £100 in every case, and for the others, £50. As to manufacturers' licences, distillers and rectifying distillers are at present under a penalty of £500, and brewers at present are subject to a pecuniary penalty of £100. There is an alteration in the pecuniary penalty for brewers to £500; but, then, the brewers' licence is very small under the existing law, and the fine under the existing law was very much greater in proportion to the Licence Duty than it is under this Bill. The only other remaining manufacturers' penalty is that of the sweet manufacturer, which is increased to £500. Of course, if these were duties, the increase would be very serious, but they are merely penalties. With regard to the wholesale dealers dealt with in the second Sub-section, the uniform penalty we suggest is £100. In respect to wholesale dealers in spirits, beer, and wine, the penalty is £100, and in the case of retailers the penalty in every case is £50, or treble the duty on the licence. For spirits in Ireland the penalty is £100; that is reduced; and, for beer and cider the penalty is £15 and £20 on, and £10 off; wine, £10; sweets, £50. In some cases there is no difference; in one case there is a reduction of the penalty; and, in two or three, there is an increase. The result of the whole thing is we have a uniform penalty of £500 in respect of manufacturers and a penalty of £100 in respect of wholesale
    1594
    dealers, and £50, or treble the duty, on the licence on retailers.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have not much sympathy with people who know they are breaking the law, and I do not think it is possible for anyone to incur these penalties without knowing they are committing a breach of the law. I take the same view as the Solicitor-General, and I hope my hon. Friend will consent to withdraw his Amendment. There are two or three points I want to reserve, but they arise on Sub-section (3). I am referring to the words "treble the amount of the duty," which we can discuss when we come to them. That is a point on which we should like some further explanation. I think we had better wait until we come to that. On the Sub-section we are discussing I would like to ask a question. Does it not occur to the Solicitor-General that the courts ought to have a certain amount of discretion? I do not regard these penalties which it is within the power of the court to inflict as excessive, but I think the court ought to have the option not to inflict the full penalty in every case. I understand that as the words stand in the Bill the court will have absolutely no choice, and wherever a, breach of the law comes before the court the full penalty must be imposed. If the Solicitor-General will consent to put in the words "not exceeding ££00," it would then be in the power of the count to adjust the penalty to the gravity of the offence. In a very grave case I do not think £500 is too high.
    Mr. YOUNGER: This is no new question, because this difficulty does arise. As far as my experience goes, I have always found the attitude of the Inland Revenue in this matter very fair, and I have known them treat some bad oases in an extremely lenient way. I think they can be trusted to do that in the future as in the past. I do not think there was any necessity to increase the penalty in the case of brewers.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid my hon. Friend has not sat on the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, and has not had official charge of these matters as I have had, otherwise he would have known that that Committee and Members of the House of Commons are showing an increasing jealousy in regard to any elasticity of administration exercised by official bodies as to the penalties or dues to be levied. I do not share that jealousy, because I think

    1595
    their discretion is wisely exercised, and I think it is a great advantage to our system in many ways. Some of these cases are relevant to this particular matter and some are not, but still that jealousy exists, and if we could arrive at the same result by a method which would not arouse the jealousy of the House of Commons it would be much better. I am perfectly satisfied with the undertaking which the Solicitor-General has given to have this matter considered.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: After the appeal which has been made to me by the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I do not move my second Amendment, but I would like to move the third Amendment standing in my name.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSmoved, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "or to an Excise penalty equal to treble the amount of the duty which would have been chargeable on the licence."
    This involves a very important question, because with the increased Licence Duties being imposed by the Bill treble the amount of the duty in many cases would amount to a very large sum indeed. In the case of a retailer's house of the annual value of £100 the penalty, three times half the value, would be £150; and in the case of a house of the annual value of £300 it would be £450. I hope the learned Solicitor-General will agree to strike out these words, and leave the Excise penalty £50 to retailers of intoxicating liquor.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman that the scale is not objectionable in this case at all.
    There is a great variety in the amount of the retailer's Licence Duties. Some of them are very low, and in those cases it may be agreed that a penalty of £50 is too high. We therefore intend to meet those cases by the alternative of treble the duty. On the other hand, there are cases in which £50 as a fixed sum would be too low. Our object is to have treble the duty in cases of small amounts, and the alternative of £50 to meet the big amounts.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I know in the Customs it is not uncommon to have a penalty of treble duty. I am not, however, quite certain how this is going to work. The Solicitor-General and the Government assume the courts will apply it in a particular way. They assume they will adopt £50 in a normal case, and take the other calculation to give a lower amount where £50 would be too high. There may, he says, be cases in which the duty payable will be so high that £50 would be far too high, and then the alternative will work out with beautiful simplicity in a sliding scale which will cut off the head of the small man, and another to cut off the head of the tall one. But what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do with the case of the shebeen, where there are no premises? That will rot be touched by the treble duty. Yet these are the worst cases, in which the penalty ought to be high. This matter is one requiring further consideration. I think the real solution is to give discretion to the court—a direct discretion as to the penalty.
    Question put, "That the words 'or to an Excise penalty equal to treble the amount of the duty' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 80.

    Division No. 628.]

    AYES.

    [10.55 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Agnew, George William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Dillon, John

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Clough, William

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Barker, Sir John

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Elibank, Master of

    Barnard, E. B.

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

    Erskine, David C.

    Beale, W. P.

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Falconer, James

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

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

    Findlay, Alexander

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

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

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cowan, W. H.

    Gulland, John W.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Crossley, William J.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Cullinan, J.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Harwood, George

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Massie, J.

    Seely, Colonel

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Henry, Charles S.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morrell, Philip

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morse, L. L.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hogan, Michael

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

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

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Hudson, Walter

    Myer, Horatio

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Summerbell, T.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Nuttall, Harry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Tomkinson, James

    Jowett, F. W.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Toulmin, George

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Radford, G. H.

    Verney, F. W.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Walters, John Tudor

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Waring, Walter

    Lambert, George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roes, J. D.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rendall, Athelstan

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)'

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robinson, S.

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

    Maclean, Donald

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Winfrey, R.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Rowlands, J.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Maddison, Frederick

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

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

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

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Anson. Sir William Reynell

    Foster, P. S.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Remnant, James Faquharson

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Renton, Leslie

    Baring, Capt. Hon. (Winchester)

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Renwick, George

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

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hills, J. W.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Starkey, John R.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kerry, Earl of

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

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Keswick, William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Younger, George

    Doughty, Sir George

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Moore, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

    Morpeth, Viscount

    S. Roberts and Mr. G. D. Faber.

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) after the word "the" ["amount of tie duty which would have been chargeable on the licence"] to insert the word "full."
    In Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "which would have been chargeable on the licence"—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

  GENERAL.

    CLAUSE 37—(Relation of Licences Granted under Act to Licences Abolished.)
    (1) Any reference in any Act or document Lo any description of Excise Licence for the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor which is expressed in the First Schedule to correspond to any description of licence which may be granted under this Act shall

    1599
    be deemed to be a reference to the description of licence to which it is expressed to correspond.
    (2) The additional retail licences for the sale of spirits or liqueurs or beer granted to a dealer in spirits or beer, and the licence for the sale of table beer, and the combined licence for the sale by retail of wine and beer, shall cease to be granted, without prejudice to the continuance of any such licence which is in force at the time of the passing of this Act until the date when the licence expires in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILLmoved, after Subsection (1) to insert, "(2) Any licence which is expressed in the First Schedule of this Act to correspond to any existing licence shall, if applied for, be granted in substitution for such existing licence and shall be a renewal of the licence, and in the case of any existing Excise Licence which may be granted without a justices' licence being required, no justices' licence shall be required for the issue of the corresponding Excise Licence under this Act."
    There would not appear to be very much doubt as to what was the intention of the Government when the Bill was framed, having regard to answers which they have given, from which one gathers that they intended the existing state of things to continue. I should like to know whether under this Sub-section it is the intention of the Government to place licences under this Act, though they may differ from the existing Excise Licences, in the same position as those for which they are substituted. We do not want any ambiguity with regard to the renewal of a licence or any breach of the continuity of renewal, because the continuity of renewal is one of the essentials to the right of compensation under the Act of 1904, and it is also one of the few remaining privileges which will exist with regard to the ante-'69 beer-houses. I should like to know whether the Government mean this substituted licence to be a new licence or a renewal. It is not as clear in the Schedule as it should be. I should also like to know whether under this Section a justices' licence is necessary where a present Excise Licence exists.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The intention of the Government is as expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We do not propose to make any difference at all in respect of the substituted licence in any case, either from the Excise point of view or from the point of view of the necessity of a justices' licence. The hon. and
    1600
    learned Gentleman has used the word "renewal." It is not of such importance when we deal with Excise licences as with justices' licences. I am entirely at one with the hon. and learned Gentleman in that object which he has in view, but I am assured, and I believe, that the first Subsection, which says we must read into the old Acts of Parliament the reference to the new licences which now exist, covers the point entirely, and if it does it is very much better not to put this in for fear it might be argued that the general efficiency of Sub-section (1) might be impaired. I think certainly at this stage the hon. Member might withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move to leave out the words "or liqueurs" ["The additional retail licences for the sale of spirits or liqueurs"]. This is not a very large point, but it is one upon which an explanation should be given. There are certain peculiarities in the present law with reference to the sale of liqueurs manufactured in this country. A British liqueur cannot be sold retail in less than a certain quantity, and under an Inland Revenue Act a privilege in that respect is given to foreign liqueurs. I wish to know whether, if the Government obtain the provisions of this Bill, it is their intention to repeal the section of the Inland Revenue Act which gives foreign liqueurs a privilege in order that they may be put on the same footing as British liqueurs, I am advised that the effect of the Bill as drawn is to put British and foreign liqueurs on the same footing.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is correctly informed. We are Free Traders and consequently we desire to see foreign goods and English goods treated on an equality. The present law gives a preference to foreign liqueurs because they can be sold in bottles of the size imported while British liqueurs must be sold in bottles of the size required by law. The effect of the provisions now under discussion will be to sweep away the privilege given to foreign liqueurs.
    Mr. GRETTON: I understand that it is usual, in the administration of the law, for the Excise to allow a certain number of bottles as a dutiable minimum. I think it is important that it should be understood whether that practice will be discontinued, or whether the effect of the Bill as drawn

    1601
    will be to make importers put up their liqueurs in accordance with the requirements of the law in this country.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will allow me, I shall make further inquiry on that point. It is a purely technical point. A particular quantity is specified, and the seller of the articles under the present law would be able to sell in smaller bottles, provided that he does not sell a smaller number of the smaller bottles than are required to make up the minimum he is allowed to sell. Whether the quantity should be absolutely and mathematically the same, and whether the bottles should be treated so strictly that neither a drop too much nor too little should be given, is a matter on which I should like to inquire.
    Mr. GRETTON: Under these circumstances I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the information which he has given.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 38.—(Definitions.)
    In this Part of this Act—
    The expression "beer" includes ale, porter, spruce beer, black beer, and any other description of beer, and any liquor which is made or sold as a description of beer or as a substitute for beer, and which on analysis of a sample thereof at any time is found to contain more than 2 per cent. of proof spirit;
    The expression "wine" means foreign wine;
    The expression "sweets" means any liquor which is made from fruit and sugar, or from fruit or sugar mixed with any other material, and which has undergone a process of fermentation in the manufacture thereof, and includes British wines, made wines, mead, and metheglin;
    Any reference to cider shall include a. reference to perry;
    The expression "registered club" means a club for the time being registered under the Licensing Act, 1902, and in Scotland and Ireland a registered club within the meaning of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, respectively;
    The expression "passenger vessel" means a vessel of any description employed for the carriage and conveyance of persons going as passengers from any place in the United Kingdom to any other place in the
    1602
    United Kingdom, or going from and returning to the same place on the same day;
    The expression "publican's licence" means the on-licence to be taken out by a retailer of spirits, and the expression" beer-house licence" means the on-licence to be taken out by a retailer of beer;
    The expression "fully licensed premises" means premises to which a publican's licence is attached, and the expression "beer-house" means premises to which a beer-house licence is attached;
    The expression "premises" in relation to licensed premises includes any offices, courts, yards, and gardens occupied together with the house in which the liquor is sold.
    Mr. GRETTONmoved in the second paragraph, after the word "wine," to add, "not wine made and grown in British Colonies."
    I would like to know if the words "foreign wine" include wine made in British Colonies? I understand that hitherto wine made in British Colonies has for excise purposes been classed as foreign wine?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The words do include Colonial wine.
    Mr. GRETTON: Then I must move the Amendment. It is a manifest absurdity to class as foreign wine wine which is grown and made in British possessions. There is some advantage in these duties for British wine which is classed for the purpose of excise as "sweets." The retailer's duty upon foreign wine is double what it is upon British wine, and the manufacturer's duty is rather more than double, and I claim that Colonial wine should be put on the same footing as British wine in this country. I therefore beg to move that those words be there inserted, and, of course, other words would have to be added to give a definition of Colonial wines.
    Mr. J. D. REES: How would this affect the definition in the case of wine made in Wales? Very good wine is made in Cardiff, though in small quantities.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter that is dealt with later on.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The term "foreign wine" really means wine that comes from oversea. It is possible that some change of terminology may be necessary. I understand that the hon. Member proposes that wine from Australia and the Cape should be sold under a different licence for precisely similar wines from

    1603
    France or Spain. I should not be prepared to accept that without very carefully considering where it would take us and what the effect would be on our whole system of excise. Clearly, as a matter of fact, British-made wines do not command that wide sale and general approval which I have no doubt they well deserve. To assume that the wines from Australia and the Cape should be sold under the easy circumstances that attach to wines made in other countries may be to forfeit a very great deal of revenue. We cannot do that without very careful consideration. I undertake to consider the question of terminology, which is a matter of sentiment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Duchy used the phrase "wines from oversea." Does that mean from oversea only, or does it exclude wines such as the hon. Gentleman referred to?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: British wines? We do not grow grapes in this country.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: There, is a Customs duty, though it may be in the form of a retailer's duty on foreign wines, without a corresponding excise duty in the case of British wines. That is contrary to all the Free Trade principles. Though I suppose the wines of Wales will command a larger market than they do, it is not only protecting British wines against foreign wines, but it seems also to protect them against Colonial wines. I hope the present state of things against foreign wines, which is apparently endorsed by the Government, will continue; but I want Colonial wines to be on the same footing as British wanes, and therefore I support the Amendment.
    Mr. GRETTON: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman I will not press my Amendment on the present occasion, but I note carefully the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to give it careful consideration. I have no doubt very good wine is made in Wales, as was stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Rees), but it is not a matter of sentiment, and in moving the Amendment I hoped to obtain from the Government the concession that Colonial wines would be put on the same footing as British wines.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONmoved to leave out the sixth paragraph ["The expression, passenger vessel,'" etc.].
    The definition of "passenger vessel,'" has only been brought to my notice within a very short time, and I really cannot understand it. The first part of the definition is tolerably clear—"The expression 'passenger vessel' means a vessel of any description employed for the carriage and conveyance of persons going as passengers from any place in the United Kingdom." That is quite clear, but I have great difficulty about the rest of the paragraph, which. goes on to provide, "or going from and returning to the same place on the same day." I do not know if that means that the vessel is to go from and return to the same place, or if the passengers are to go from and return to the same place on the same day. I do not know even whether that place is to be in the United Kingdom. Apparently, as I read the paragraph that would not be necessary. I assume, of course, that what the Government do mean is that those words are intended to cover cases of excursions, say a day excursion from Ramsgate to the French coast. That means, I suppose, that cross-Channel steamers are not intended to be liable. It is quite clear that after the second word "going" you ought to put in "as passengers."
    Supposing you do not intend to tax Channel steamers, and that the Chancellor of the Duchy and myself, after the labours of these Debates, were to go across to Calais or Boulogne for a blow and return on the same day, we are persons who have gone from a place in the United Kingdom and returned to the same place in the United Kingdom, and we have gone on a passenger vessel. Is the vessel liable under the definition of this Clause? I think it is a very bad definition. It is taken largely from previous Acts which you repeal, thereby creating a new definition. I think we ought to have some further explanation. I beg to move.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is clear we cannot bring within the scope of our licensing provisions a ship which sails from the United Kingdom for a six months' cruise to foreign ports. The question is. what class of ships should, and we have simply followed the existing law which says that if a ship goes from a British port and back again on the same day from a foreign port, it requires a licence, and if it goes from one British port to another, whether on the same day or not, it requires a licence. In other words, the ship which

    1605
    goes on long voyages does not require a licence. The wording of the paragraph is, I think, fairly clear, and "going to or returning from" refers not to the passengers but to the vessels.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I suggest he should look at the wording, and the words "going from and returning to "I suggest should be" passenger vessels going from and returning to."
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We will consider that on the Report.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will these duties be levied on foreign cross-Channel steamers?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think we have jurisdiction over such ships.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then you are purporting to do what you have no power to do; and you are imposing on British steamers an obligation which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, you have no power to impose on foreign steamers with which they may be competing. I do not know whether you have jurisdiction or not; but you purport to have it. You do not say that this shall apply to British vessels, but to all vessels under the conditions named.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Neither do we say that these new licence duties are to apply to British public-houses only. It is obvious that a British Act of Parliament must apply to that which is subject to British law. If a ship is outside British jurisdiction you cannot apply your Act to it, just as you cannot make your legislation run on foreign territory.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman, on consideration, will see that he has really made no answer. Of course, you cannot levy excise duties on a public-house not within the United Kingdom, nor can you apply your law to a ship not within your jurisdiction. But these ships are within your jurisdiction; they come into your ports, and you purport to apply this Clause to them. These words certainly purport to cover the case of foreign steamers. The right hon. Gentleman must seriously consider what jurisdiction we have over them in these circumstances, and whether, if his statement is correct, it is desirable to apply to our own steamers restrictions which you cannot apply to their competitors. Speaking as one layman to another, but subject to correction from legal Members. I would sub-
    1606
    mit that we have jurisdiction, and that we have the same right to apply this provision to foreign ships that we have to apply the conditions included in the merchant shipping law, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with full approval from this side of the House, and with great credit to himself and to the Government, did extend to foreign shipping coming into our harbours conditions which had previously been imposed upon British ships only. I think that upon reflection the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is more in my case than he was at first inclined to grant.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: I do not know on what grounds it is assumed that we have no jurisdiction over boats of foreign owners conveying passengers between, say, Dover and Ostend. When they come into our territorial waters and into our harbours, why should we have no jurisdiction to treat them in exactly the same way as we treat our own boats? Suppose a French or Belgian company decided to run coasting steamers between various ports on our own coast. Would they be exempt? The moment they come to our ports they become subject to our law. We apply certain rules and regulations as regards loading and unloading. The moment they are within our ports they are within our jurisdiction, and the same rule should apply here.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The words that we propose are precisely the words of the Act of 1880. As a matter of fact under that Act foreign shins are not charged these Licence Duties. Perhaps I may have been rash in assuming from that that they could not be charged. We will consider the point.
    Mr. RENWICK: I am extremely surprised at the remark made by the Chancellor of the Duchy that this paragraph is "fairly clear." I think it is exactly the reverse. The Government have gone out of their way to define what a passenger vessel is. Why did they not define it in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act? Had they done that they would have been on safe ground. What does the paragraph say? It defines a passenger vessel as one "of any description employed for the carriage and conveyance of persons going as passengers from any place in the United Kingdom to any other place in the United Kingdom." That, in many cases, is exactly what a passenger vessel does not mean. May I remind the Committee that the Merchant Shipping Act distinctly states that a vessel carrying less

    1607
    than 12 passengers does not need to take out a passenger certificate. Again, I could take a ship and go on a trial trip, or a trip from one part of the Kingdom to the other, and carry as many passengers as I like without a passenger certificate, provided I do not charge for them. That shows that the Government have put in this paragraph without considering the exact meaning of a passenger vessel.
    I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel) that if he wants to be on safe ground, and avoid having to say that this is "fairly clear," to make it really clear by using the definition of the Merchant Shipping Act. We are told that the Government have not the power to penalise or make foreign vessels conform to our laws. May I remark to the right hon. Gentleman, and the Committee in particular, that we have full powers where a foreign vessel overloads or is overladen in a British port to detain her. Surely if that is so with overloading, we can compel her to conform to our laws in regard to taking out a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor. I would also remind him that we are the only country—I speak from practical experience—that leaves its coasting trade absolutely open to the foreigner. All other countries retain their own coasting trade for their own ships. Therefore they have no difficulties of this kind to deal with. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy not to let us have any more Clauses or Sub-sections in the Bill that are "fairly clear." The whole Bill is full of Sub-sections that are anything but "fairly clear." I want it to be really clear. If the right hon. Gentleman wants it really clear, and to be on safe ground, let him draw this paragraph in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Two points arise here; one is a matter of drafting and the other is a matter of international law, and I do not think it would be right to press the Government at the present moment in regard to them. When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the question of international law he might also consider Section 5 of Schedule D, which says that "for the purpose of giving jurisdiction any sale of liquor on a passenger vessel shall be deemed to have taken place either where it has actually taken place, or in any place in which the vessel may be found." That complicates
    1608
    the point very much, and I hope we shall have before the Report stage some clearer wording. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANSmoved in the last paragraph, after the word "to' ["The expression premises' in relation to licensed premises"'], to insert the words "the annual value of."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Earl WINTERTONmoved in the same paragraph, after the word "courts," to insert the word "and" with a view subsequently to move to leave out the word "gardens."
    This Amendment proposes to exclude from the operation of the Act those parts of the licensed premises which would not ordinarily be used for the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquors. As the Clause stands now, the premises would include gardens and courts and other places not ordinarily so used. I want to exclude from the operations of the Sub-section such places as tea gardens attached to public-houses, but in no sense having any intercourse with the part of the premises where beer or spirits are consumed. It seems hard that the owner of a public-house who desires to improve his premises and make them more desirable should be penalised by this Bill by having these gardens included when the annual value is taken into consideration. I do not suppose the Government wish to see these gardens included. I am sure the last thing the Committee would desire to do would be to penalise the owner of public-house property for providing places where people may take these kind of refreshments in the open air.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The words in question have been included in all the Acts of Parliament dealing with licensing for many years past. [Cries of "Speak up."]. The same words which we are using here were repeated in the Act of 1880, and have remained in the Acts from that time to this in the definition of licensed premises. We are not making any change in what we are proposing, and I do not think we ought to make any change.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Solicitor-General is technically right when he says the Government are not making any change, but practically you are making a very great change. When the Licence

    1609
    Duties were low this matter of the gardens was of small consequence, and it did not make much difference whether you included the gardens in the premises which had to be valued, but now that you are making the Licence Duties very high it becomes a matter of the greatest importance, and you have indirectly made a change in the situation not by leaving these words in, but by the changes which you have made in oilier parts of the Bill. The late Chairman of the Birmingham licensing justices once called my attention to a particular house in Birmingham which he said was a model licensed house and the class of house which he would like to see extended throughout the boundaries of the city if it were possible to do so. Its principal peculiarity was that it had a garden into which the men did not go alone but they took their wives and families just as an hon. Member has described the people in his constituency do in the case of the club. I am of the same opinion as the late chairman of the Birmingham licensing justices, that it is desirable to encourage that kind of thing, which does not lead to excessive drinking. I think you do a disservice to the cause of temperance and to the good conduct of public-houses and the trade if you do anything to make it more difficult for the owners of licensed premises to have this kind of amenity attached to their houses. I earnestly press the Government to give a sympathetic consideration to the Amendment which has been moved by my Noble Friend.
    Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I am anxious to know the view of the Government on this point. So long as the duties were moderately small, the size of the licensed premises was comparatively unimportant. It is quite obvious that, having regard to the alteration in the scale which is being made by this Bill, the dimensions and limits of the licensed premises become a matter of very great importance. We are dealing now with the definition of the word "premises" in relation to licensed premises. The position, as I understand it, is this: A man goes to the justice and gets a licence to sell intoxicating liquor on premises known as the "Bull," High Street, with the result that if any offence against the Licensing Laws takes place in the garden he is liable because the garden is held to be the "Bull," which is the description of the licensed premises. I see some difficulty in dealing with that point. Is it possible to prevent that and to make a separation of the garden from the rest of the premises
    1610
    so that it would no longer be part of the licensed premises and subject to the Licensing Laws? Will it be possible to limit the licence to the house in which the liquor is sold so that gardens, stables, and other places may be excepted from the operation of the Licensing Laws?
    Mr. G. D. FABER: It is true that the definition of licensed premises in this Bill is the same as in Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1880, but with this drastic system of high licences an altogether different position arises. The Act of 1880 only referred to fully licensed premises. This Bill also applies to beer-houses and "off" licensed premises. You are therefore attributing to beer-houses and "off" licensed premises this very wide definition which in the Act of 1880 was only attributed to fully licensed premises. Did the Government designedly intend to include "off" licences in a definition which they have apparently culled from the Act of 1880?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The point raised is as to the limitation of the area to be covered by the licence when the Commissioners are ascertaining the annual value of the premises. I think it will be possible for the justices to say "We will only license this part or these parts of the premises," and in that case, of course, on the remainder there can be no sale of intoxicating liquors. But that would not affect the ascertainment of the value of the premises. It may be that the gardens could not be taken by themselves and without the outhouses, which might include the value of the premises. But may I point out that in most of these rural houses with gardens the assessment is so low that there is practically no increase of duty at all.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have taken an urban house which the Chairman of the licensing justices in Birmingham described as a model house. We have not arrived as yet in that paradise at Birmingham in which every square yard of the land is built upon.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: These houses with gardens are usually £40 houses, and there is no increase of duty at all. That will, of course, apply to beer-houses.
    Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand that the licensing justices can exclude gardens if they so desire?
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This does not affect the law, which is applicable to the ascertainment of the annual value. If these

    1611
    words stand, whatever course the justices may take with respect to the licences under their control, it will be the same to the licence holder. It will not affect the rights which the law now gives.
    Mr. PEEL: It is quite clear that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend on my left would not help us at all, because the hon. and learned Gentleman says that even if the justices were to restrict the area of licence, that would not detract from the annual value. Of course, that makes the difficulty far more formidable, because I had thought the suggestion of my hon. Friend would have got rid of the difficulty. It does not, however, get rid of the difficulty at all that the licensee may find himself in the position of deliberately getting his garden included as a place where liquor may be sold, and the next day he may find himself obliged to pay a large sum of money in respect of this garden. May I remind the Solicitor-General that in the previous portions of the Bill with regard to licences the Government have been assuring us, that although they intend to levy this duty on annual value, they look upon that as an extraordinarily unfair way of levying the duty, and if that is so, they might give us this small concession by allowing the omission of the garden from the annual value which they have admitted id an unfair basis to levy the duty on. A great deal of stress is being laid upon the garden in the country, but there are in the outskirts of London many licensed houses with gardens. I could give instances if I chose of places where the gardens are of very great rateable value, and where if a man sold the land it would be extremely valuable. In all these cases it would make a very substantial difference and not a small one as the Solicitor-General thinks
    it is. I do earnestly urge the Government to reconsider this question.
    Sir E. CARSON: I think the Solicitor-General alluded to small hotels and small houses with a garden at the back, but how about an hotel like that of the N. E. Rly. Co. at York. That hotel has got a most beautiful garden; is it to be taken into the annual value in regard to the collection of these enormously increased Licence Duties?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The value of that would be assessed in regard to its compensation value.
    Sir E. CARSON: But we have never heard what that means.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The great virtue of Sub-section (3) of Clause 30 is, that it will enable all these premises to be charged irrespective of their gardens, &c, but according to the value of their licence.
    Mr. E. B. BARNARD: The Solicitor-General the other evening said, in answer to a specific question which I put to him, that he considered it would be within the power of the justices and that if the justices do so that it would be perfectly clear that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in making their valuation, would not go outside the licensed premises as defined by the licensing justices. I rather thought, from what he said to-night, that he was not quite expressing the same view.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I assume the licensing justices will confine their licence to the exact building itself.
    Question put, "That the word 'and' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 133.

    Division No. 629.]

    AYES.

    [12.5 a.m.

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

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

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Coates Major E. F (Lewisham)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Cochrane. Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S.)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

    Barnard, E. B.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

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

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gardner, Ernest

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Moore, William

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

    Gretton, John

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Carlile, E Hildred

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

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Peel, Hon. Win. Robert Wellesley

    Percy, Earl

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

    Renton, Leslie

    Stanier, Beville

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Renwick, George

    Starkey, John R.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl

    Salter, Arthur Clavel

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Winterton and Captain Faber.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Valentia, Viscount

    NOES.

    Agnew, George William

    Harwood, George

    Radford, G. H.

    Allen, A Acland (Christchurch)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Barker, Sir John

    Higham John Sharp

    Rendal, Athelstan

    Beale, W. P.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Holland. Sir William Henry

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Howard. Hon. Geoffrey

    Robinson, S.

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

    Hudson, Walter

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Rowlands, J.

    Bright, J. A.

    Jardine, Sir J.

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

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

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmer (Swansea)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Seely, Colonel

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

    Byles, William Pollard

    Jowett, F. W.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Carr-Gomm, H W

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Chaining, Sir Francis Allston

    Lambert, George

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lamont, Norman

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Dough, William

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Summer bell, T.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

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

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

    Corbett, A Cameron (Glasgow)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Theme, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Tomkinson, James

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Maclean, Donald

    Toulmin, George

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Walters, John Tudor

    Cowan, W. H.

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

    Waring, Walter

    Crossley, William J.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Maddison, Frederick

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Waterlow, D. S.

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

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

    Massie, J.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Worrell, Philip

    Wiles, Thomas

    Elibank, Master of

    Morse, L. L.

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

    Evans, Sir Samuel T

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Winfrey, R.

    Falconer, James

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Wood, T. M' Kinnon

    Findlay, Alexander

    Nuttall, Harry

    Gladstone. Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Gulland, John W.

    Partington, Oswald

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Harvey. A. G. C. (Rochdale]

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Question, "That the Contract be approved," put, and agreed to.

    Sir F. BANBURYhad given notice of an Amendment to add the following words to the last paragraph of the Clause, "except where the licensing justices have certified that any part thereof is used for purposes distinct from and independent of the use of the premises as licensed premises."
    The CHAIRMAN: The question raised "by the hon. Baronet's Amendment was dealt with on an Amendment which has already been decided.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My Amendment does not raise the point which has already been decided. The point already decided is whether a portion of the premises not used for the purpose of the licence should be
    1614
    included in the valuation for the duty. My Amendment says that where the licensing justices have certified that any part of the premises is not used for the sale of liquor, duty should not be charged on that part, which is a very different thing. The Amendment applies to the particular part which the licensing justices have certified.
    The CHAIRMAN: Have the justices to certify in regard to parts of premises not used for the sale of liquor?
    Sir F. BANBURY: The value of the entire premises has to be brought forward before the justices, and they say then whether they will license the whole or part of the premises, and whether or not

    1615
    certain alterations are to be made. My Amendment is simply to enact that where this takes place the portion of the premises not licensed shall not be included in the valuation for the purpose of levying duty.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I submit that the ruling which has been given from the Chair is correct. The licensing justices have no power to certify that a portion of the premises is used for purposes distinct from and independent of the licensed premises.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think, if so, the justices give the licence to certain premises.
    Mr. GRETTON: It follows that the licensing justices have power to define the premises on which the licence is issued.
    Amendment made: To add at the end of the Clause: "The expression 'full duty' means the duty which would be charged under the First Schedule to this Act without taking into consideration any reduction or allowance or, in cases where duty may be charged under that Schedule by reference to annual value, any alternative mode of charging the duty."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: No effort has been made to make this Clause applicable to Scotland. I think that someone on the Government Benches should have been found to put in some interpretation for Scotland.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: There are certain Clauses applicable to Scotland in this Definition Clause. I think that the right hon. Gentleman must be referring to the appeal in certain cases, and the promise made by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: I have endeavoured to get reprints of the clauses, and they are only down to Clause 29, and it is impossible to say what state they are now in. I think the Committee will agree that there have been enormous transformations in this Bill, and there are other matters besides this which require interpretation.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think it very desirable that the Bill as amended in Committee down to the end of the Licence Clauses should forthwith be printed.
    Mr. BARNARD: I was rather disappointed that the Amendments which stood in my name and the name of the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) were not in order, but I venture once more to appeal to the Solicitor-General whether he cannot hold out some hope that on the Report stage he will do something in the direction he indicated in a previous speech, in which he said that if the justices expressed a certain opinion he had no doubt it would have some effect on the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I now ask him whether he will give effect to that in some form of words?
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: I think that so far as Scotland is concerned some explanation should be given by the Solicitor-General of what is meant by this procedure.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not think there is any difference between the separate parts of the United Kingdom under the Excise Acts. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of London, and of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Barnard), which, were out of order, I have been exercising such mind as is left to me to see how I can meet the hon. Gentlemen. I have provided certain words to make it perfectly clear that if any part of the premises is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be for the use of any trade or business separate and distinct from the business authorised by the licence it shall be excluded from the annual valuation. I am prepared to meet the hon. Members, and I do not think they will be in a worse position when they come to the Report stage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is a very extraordinary statement just made by the Solicitor-General. My Amendment was ruled out of order, yet the hon. and learned Gentleman had in his mind words to meet that Amendment.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANS: By way of personal explanation may I say that the Chairman had ruled the hon. Baronet out of order when he began to argue upon it. I got up, and he finished his argument on the point of order by moving the Amendment a little irregularly. I got up to submit to the Chair that the Amendment was out of order. It really is not the same as this that I suggest. His Amendment was one dealing with the justices, while this deals with the Commissioners of Inland. Revenue.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On the Report stage you will consider the matter.
    Sir SAMUEL EVANSassented.
    Mr. BARNARD: I understand you will give me that on Report stage?

  TEMPORARY PROVISION.

    CLAUSE 39.—(Temporary Provision as to Expiration of Licences.)
    (1) All Excise Licences for the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor which are to be taken out annually and are in force at the time of the passing of this Act (in this Section referred to as existing licences) shall cease to be in force on the thirtieth day of September next after the passing of this Act, and the Commissioners shall repay or allow to the holder of any such existing licence (except in the case of a licence which would have expired on the tenth day of October) an amount of duty proportionate to the time by which the period of the currency of the licence is diminished under this provision.
    (2) Where any licence granted under this Act in substitution for a. corresponding existing licence expires by virtue of the provisions of this Act on the twenty-eighth day of May or thirtieth day of June next after the passing thereof the duty payable on the licence shall be proportionately reduced.
    Mr. GRETTONmoved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "thirtieth day of September" ["in force on the thirtieth day of September "], and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of January."
    As the Clause stands the date for the commencement of the tax is 30th September, and they have to take out a licence which expires on 30th June. The Government have altered that, and have extended the duration of manufacturers' licences to twelve months instead of nine months. The original intention of the Government when they introduced this Bill was that the period should only be for nine months. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 4th May:—
    "If he will state at what date the new brewers' Licence Duty will become payable; and if the whole of the duty will be payable on the specified date."
    To that Question the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:—
    "The new duty will come into force on 1st October, 1909. It is proposed that the licence shall be granted,
    1618
    not for a full year, but for nine months to expire on 30th June, 1910. The duty therefore, will be proportionately reduced."
    That was made quite clear in answer to a supplementary question. They now propose to put back the date of 30th September to 1st November. It is not quite clear what they mean by that, and if the twelve months is now to be reduced to ten months, I take it they only mean to charge ten months because there is an Amendment in the name of the Solicitor-General-which would make it clear that they only intended to charge duty for the period which would elapse to the 1st November. If not, I think it should be clearly stated. The Government ought also to explain why they intend to make an increased charge on manufacturers. We know that the Government have made what they call' "concessions" in various directions, and they may intend to recover from the manufacturers some increased amount to pay for their generosity in those matters. That, however, is a peculiar kind of generosity, and one which ought to be fully explained to the House and the country. There is this remarkable feature about it. In the case of the distillers the amount of duty involved would be very small—about £4,500; but the amount involved in the present alteration of date would be £100,000 or more. That is a considerable sum, and the alteration ought, not to be smuggled through without explanation. I take it that the Government do not intend to go back on their statement in May last, that only nine-months' duty should be charged in the case of manufacturers. For the purpose of making that clear, and to insert a date which would bring the duty on to a nine-months basis, I beg to move the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The intention of the Government is, and always has been, as was expressed earlier in the Session. As. the Bill stood originally, any licence granted after July? this year was to pay on the new scale for 12 months from the time at which the licence was granted; that is to say, if a manufacturer was granted a licence on October 10th he would be charged either at the moment of granting of subsequently at the increased rate from October 10th this year to October 10th next year. But an alteration was made in consequence of previous discussion in. respect to the very exceptional licences, small in number, which are granted between July 1st and September 30th on-account of some misunderstanding owing

    1619
    to a statment of the Secretary to the Treasury. That point is dealt with in a subsequent Amendment. I cannot see any case for Postponing the issue of new licences until January 1st. Why should a brewer who takes out a licence on October 10th have his licence at the old rate until January 1st next? I can understand that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gretton) would prefer it; but nothing the Government have said, or which has appeared in the Bill, would give the impression that he was to get his licence at the old rate from October 10th. All that was made clear was that he should not be charged at the new rate as from July 1st, and that is the effect of the Bill. September 30th was the date fixed in this case, because a sanguine Government anticipated that the Bill might become law by that date; but at present it seems somewhat doubtful whether that expectation will be realised. Consequently, it is proposed by the Amendment, which I shall move in a moment, to alter the date from the 30th September to 30th November.
    Mr. GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman has stated his case, but he really has not taken the trouble to make any reference to the date which I have given him—a very explicit statement of a date which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on May 4th, in reply to the hon. Member for Windsor. Let me give it:—
    "Mr. JAMES MASON asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state at what date the new brewers' Licence Duty will become payable; and if the whole of the duty will be payable upon the specified date?
    "Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The new duty will come into force on 1st October, 1909 It is proposed that the licence shall be granted, not for a full year, but for nine months, to expire on 30th June, 1910. The duty, therefore, will be proportionately reduced.
    "Mr. JAMES MASON asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the new brewers' Licence Duty of 12s. per 50 barrels will be calculated upon the output of the brewery during the 12 months prior to the payment of the duty?
    "Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative."
    Clearly the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended in May to charge for only nine months' and not for twelve months' duty. The Government now come down to the House—perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will cast his mind back to the date I have given—with their proposal, whilst their original intention was that manufacturers' licences and wholesale dealers' licences should expire on 30th June.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Quite right. They began on the 30th June, and now they begin on the 10th November, so that
    1620
    obviously the licence will be charged for that period.
    Mr. GRETTON: I am afraid I have not made myself quite clear, though I think I have proved the ambiguity of the Government. The effect of the alteration of the date in the sub-section, if not amended, will be that the Government will charge from the 30th September to the 30th September instead of from the 30th September to the 30th June. That is as clear as day-light. It is the difference between 12 months and nine months. The Government are going to calculate a quarter more duty this year than apparently they intended in May. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it would only be a fair and just thing to amend the sub-section, making the duty payable on 1st January; that would put the matter back to the state contemplated by the Government. At present they are going back upon their plain statement and former speeches.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the Government are going to charge 12 months for a period of nine months?
    Mr. GRETTON: No; what I say is that that is exactly what they will do unless they alter the Bill.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir, that is not so.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Duchy has quite appreciated the point of my hon. Friend. He does not suggest that the Government are going to charge twelve months only for nine months, but in this sub-section they have apparently inadvertently made a change that they did not intend to make. My hon. Friend points out—I think he is correct—that by the change in the Bill the Government will now collect twelve months' duty. Of course twelve months' duty will cover twelve months. If you project yourselves into the future the licensee will not pay less than he would under the Government scheme, but the effect will be that, instead of being called upon the first time the new duty is levied for nine months, and then beginning his (twelve months' series he will be called upon at once to pay twelve months. Therefore, you will take immediately more out of his pocket. What is equally important from the point of view of the House of Commons is that you will get a fourth more revenue into this financial year than you profess to be

    1621
    taking, or even, I think, you have any desire to take. The answer given was quite explicit, and I do not understand the Chancellor of the Duchy to desire to go back upon it.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: What is the date?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May 4th. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the new duty would come into force on October 1st, 1909, not for the full year, but for nine months, and the duty, therefore, will be proportionately reduced. Therefore in the present year you are only going to collect nine months' duty, and all my hon. Friend asks is that you should adhere to that proposal, and that you should not collect this year a twelve months' duty. He does not ask that the licensee should get off with a nine months' duty, but that for this year you should only collect the duty as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked, as this will allow only for the issue of a nine months' duty, are you going to charge a duty proportionately reduced, and he answered "Yes," but I do not gather from that pledge that he would not issue a twelve months' licence and charge a, twelve months' duty. The point is a very complicated one, and perhaps it will be better that the hon. Member should allow us to consider it.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The words of the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not, I think, bear the interpretation put upon them by the right hon. Gentleman, having only heard them read. They form a clear statement that only nine months' duty would be taken this year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated upon that. The Government cannot propose by the accident of the changes they have made in their Bill to get a quarter's more revenue than they estimated for, and a quarter's more taxation out of the ratepayers' pockets than the Chancellor had intended to take. I quite understand the difficulty the Government are in. They have not had their attention drawn to this before, and they are trying to interpret words read to them across the floor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's expression is quite explicit, and of course we may take it from what the Government have said that if that be what they meant they will make whatever Amendment may be required to
    1622
    bring the matter into conformity with the declarations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. GRETTON: I wish to explain how this difficulty has arisen. The old licences expire on the 30th of September—I mean the manufacturers' licences—and the new ones are taken out in October, so that after 1909 the licences taken out in 1908 carried manufacturers by statute free from all Licence Duty until the 30th of this September. This Bill will not probably become law, but in that event some provision must be made for carying on manufacturers' licences. It is provided in the Bill that the old system should go on and the old licences are to expire this year on the 30th of November, whilst the new licences will be taken out on the 1st of December. If this is not amended they will pay not 9 months' duty, but 4 months' duty. The Government will see that this is a new point. I am satisfied with the statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy that the Government have no intention of going back on any pledge they have given to the House. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made:
    In Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "September" ["the thirtieth day of September next"] and insert instead thereof the word "November"—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    In Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "except in the case of a licence which would have expired on the tenth day of October."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    At the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words: "After deducing in the case of licences granted since the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, any additional sum which the licence holder may be required under the provisions of this Act to pay as duty for the period since the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and nine."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
    In Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "on the twenty-eighth day of May or thirtieth day of June next after the passing thereof," and insert instead thereof the words "before the expiration of a full year."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kingswinford does not come within the scope of this Clause.
    Colonel WALKER: This Amendment was intended to give the Solicitor-General an opportunity of explaining—
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that the Amendment is out of Order.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I move "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (13th September).
    Mr. ARKWRIGHT: May I ask who will be in charge of the next part of the Finance Bill?

    ARDROSSAN AND BELFAST MAIL SERVICE.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)moved, "That the Contract recently made between the Postmaster-General and Messrs. G. and J. Burns, Limited, for the conveyance of mails between Glasgow, Ardrossan, and Belfast (printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 39, of 1909), be approved."
    Mr. CLAUDE HAY: This motion has been upon the Paper a considerable number of weeks. It is a matter of some public interest, and I do not think it should pass in silence. I therefore ask the Secretary to the Treasury to explain the conditions of the contract, the amount of money it represents, and the general arrangements.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The whole of the conditions of the contract are set out at great length in the Parliamentary Paper No. 39, of 1909, printed on February 23rd. The terms of the contract are given, and there is a Treasury Minute which explains the relation of this contract to previous contracts. The only difference is that the provision enabling Messrs. Burns, the contractors, to discontinue their Ardrossan and Belfast service has been omitted, the contractors now undertaking to continue the service as at present without exception, and they give a Saturday service. Those are the only variations from the previous contract.
    Motion agreed to.

    SCILLY ISLANDS MAIL SERVICE.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Contract, dated the 27th day of February, 1909, between the Postmaster-General and the West Cornwall Steamship Company, Limited, for the conveyance of Mails between Penzance and the Scilly Islands (printed in Parliamentary Paper No. 136, of 1909), be approved."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
    Mr. HAY: I am sorry to again trouble the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will allow me first to thank him for the information he has just given me with regard to the Ardrossan and Belfast contract. In respect of the one now before the House will he say if it involves any change, if any additional expenditure is incurred, and what amount of advantage will accrue to the public by reason of the contract we are now asked to approve.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Mr. HAY: I was asking the Secretary to-the Treasury if he would be good enough to give the House particulars as to the reason why the Treasury has found it necessary to alter the old contract, or if there were no old contract, to establish a new one. I am also anxious to know the amount of money which is involved, the details as to the service, and for what period this contract is to run. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless give us the information which, after all, is of some importance, because if these contracts are to be submitted to the House of Commons they should be submitted in order that they may be fully explained, so that the taxpayers shall know exactly what is involved. We have too much of this pro forma sort of approval. It is because there is an increasing tendency for legislation which involves these contracts being rushed through that I am anxious that we should establish regular rules that when they come up for discussion, whatever the hour of the day or night, they should be fully explained by the Minister in charge, so that the public may know exactly what is being done.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think the House-will agree with me that it is quite unnecessary for me to give any further information than that so fully set out in the Parliamentary Paper No. 136. The facts are very clearly set out there. The contract

    1625
    is for a small sum, under £1,000 a year. A fresh contract has to be entered into because the old company went bankrupt. The new contract only costs the country £104 a year more. It gives a bi-weekly service instead of a tri-weekly. There were no other tenders offered to the Department. I think that on the whole the Post Office are obtaining very good value for their money.
    Whereupon Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
    Adjourned at Four minutes after One o'clock.