HC Deb 26 April 1910 vol 17 cc337-77

(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 if they have not previously ceased to be in force cease to be in force on the thirtieth day of June [thirty-first day of December] next after the passing of this Act, and the Commissioners shall repay or allow to the holder of any such existing licence which ceases to be in force on the thirtieth day of June an amount of duty proportionate to the time by which the period of the currency of the licence is diminished under this provision after deducting 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, or, if the licence was granted after the said thirtieth day of September, for the period during which the licence has been in force.

If the additional sum to be paid by the licence-holder exceeds the sum to be repaid or allowed the excess shall be treated as an addition to the duty to be paid in respect of any licence granted in substitution for the existing licence.

(2) For the purpose of recovering the duty which would have been payable on certain licences if they had expired on the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and nine, the following provisions shall have effect:—

  1. (a) Where an existing licence ceases to be in force after the date of the passing of this Act but before the thirtieth day of June next after that date, there shall be payable in respect of any licence granted in substitution for the existing licence an amount equal to the sum by which the proportion of the annual duty payable under this Act for the period between the thirty-first day of December and the date of the expiration of the licence exceeds the proportion of the annual duty payable before the passing of this Act for that period; and
  2. 338
  3. (b) Where the holder of an existing licence was on the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and nine, the holder of a similar licence which has expired before the passing of this Act, there shall be payable as an addition to any duty or additional sum to be paid in respect of any licence granted in substitution for the existing licence, an amount equal to the sum by which the proportion of the annual duty payable under this Act for the period between the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and nine and the date of the expiration of the licence, in the case of an expired licence granted after the first day of July nineteen hundred and nine, and for the period between the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and nine and the date of the expiration of the licence, in the case of an expired licence granted before the first day of July nineteen hundred and nine, exceeds the proportion of the annual duty payable before the passing of this Act for the same period.

([2] 3) Where any licence granted under this Act in substitution for a corresponding existing licence expires by virtue of the provisions of this Act before the expiration of a full year the duty payable on the licence shall be proportionately reduced.

[(3) The duty upon a licence to a brewer of beer for sale granted to expire on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and ten, may be paid, if the licence-holder so desires, as to the last one-fourth part thereof, upon the first day of July, nineteen hundred and ten, and if the payment is not then made the licence shall thereupon cease to be in force.]

Mr. JAMES HOPE moved in Section (l), after the word "they" ["if they have not previously ceased to be in force"] to insert the words "or similar licence granted by way of renewal of them."

There are two Amendments, of which I have given notice in respect of this Clause, and they must be read together, and there is a third Amendment which is really consequential on the second. I am quite aware if these Amendments were passed they would involve consequential Amendments, and I am not quite sure that that would be possible under the procedure under which we are working. I think it might be possible to introduce other words as consequential. Even if that were a formal difficulty, it would not be a practical difficulty for some months to come, and whatever might arise could be corrected in the next Finance Bill in a few months. The intention of the Amendment is to put off the payment of the new duty for another six months, and that it should not be collected until the end of the present year, which, of course, would still be within the current financial year. The revenue to be obtained for these licences will be applied within the same financial year. The accounts of this financial year will not suffer by this delay in collecting these new duties. We heard to-day that the duties collected under this Finance Act will not go into last year's accounts, which, I presume, would mean the Sinking Fund, but will be applied towards the accounts of the current financial year. Therefore, although there may be some Treasury objection to it, still I think there is very little objection to the collection of these amounts being postponed, as far as the total balance sheet of the present financial year is concerned. I submit it will be a very great relief to those who are to be called on at an interval of three months to meet enormous burdens which when they went into their business they could never contemplate was possible. Under the Act as it stands with these Government Amendments, licence-holders will be called on to pay a very large sum in July and another very large sum in October, far in excess of anything to which they have been accustomed. I am not going to quote extreme cases, because I know that the cases which are most obviously excessive might be dealt with under the alternative system of assessment, and that in some cases that system will produce relief, and in other and many cases it would not. Without an examination into the details in each case it would not be possible to say whether in those cases some mitigation under the alternative system might be possible.

Therefore the instances I give will be instances under the £500 limit assessment, and to which the alternative system does not apply. I take instances of free licensed houses. I find in a case at Ipswich the present duty is £35, the new duty, under this Bill, £125, an increase of 250 per cent. I think if you work that out you will find that the licensee in the case of that free house will for the current year, which will end in July, and for the next year, which will be in October, pay a sum of £180 more than the £70 which he would normally pay for those two years. I take another free house at Kingston where the duty at present is £45, the duty under the Bill £210, and pursuing the same method of calculation, that works out to something like £330. I confess I have not checked all those figures very carefully in detail, but I imagine they will not be found very far out. In a case at Marylebone, the present duty is £40, the new amount £162, and the extra amount on the two years £250. In a Birmingham case the present duty is £40, the new duty £150, and the difference £180. In a case in my own city of Sheffield, the present duty is £40, the new duty £225, and the difference in the two years £370. All those are cases in which the alternative system of assessment is not possible, and they are all free houses. If you come to the case of beerhouses, although the actual amount of the increase is less, still the proportionate increase is very much more. There is one beerhouse in Sheffield where the difference amounts to 1,000 per cent., and there are many others which can be quoted in this way. There is a Leeds case where the difference comes to 2,400 per cent., and the total increase to something like £170, and another with the same percentage, and where the gross difference in the two years totals £194. In a case in Cardiff of a beerhouse with a wine licence the difference comes to no less than 3,650 per cent., and an actual rise from £8 on the two years to no less than £300.

I know it is not in order to argue the merits of the Licence Duties now, but the point to which I would draw attention is the extraordinary hardship of collecting these very large sums within so very short a period. There has been no certainty with regard to these duties. It is well known that the actual certainty that these duties would be collected has been only a certainty for a very short time. Personally I think the injustice is the same whether those who have to pay are rich or poor in this respect, but of course in the case of breweries the actual incidence of the injustice is less severe on them than in the case of free houses. The instances I have given are of free houses. The injustice and hardship is very great in the tied houses, but it is absolutely crushing in the case of free houses. What can the licensees of free houses do when they are suddenly called on to pay these enormous sums? One of two things will happen; either they will come to an end in many cases, or they will rush to the breweries, and become tied houses on almost any terms. Those very evils, if they be evils, of tied houses, which hon. Members opposite have been accustomed to denounce, will under this exorbitant system of double taxation within a very short time become accentuated to a great degree. I do feel, even if an increase is necessary, that the procedure is harsh, arbitrary, and unjust in the extreme, and really is not necessary because you can get the same amount of money by extending the period, and the payment at any rate within the limits of the present financial year. In fact I believe it would be better for the revenue, because if you drive these men to despair obviously they will not attempt to keep their licences; and they will go under unless they can get some brewer to float them on. Many of those breweries will have to pay enormous duties, and will not be in a position to pay for fresh licences. The result will be that the Exchequer will lose rather than gain. But apart from the point of view of the Exchequer, I think it will be a great hardship on these men themselves. I speak for all classes of licence-holders, but I would direct special attention to the case of the free houses. There are thousands of these free tenants, many of whom will be exposed to greater burdens than those who have somebody behind them to fall back upon, hard as their case is also. I do not believe hon. Members opposite in voting these Licence Duties realise the hardship they are inflicting. Many of these men have not taken to the business from love of it; from one circumstance or another they have had to take over the houses, and as they have conducted the business honestly under the law I submit that hon. Members opposite should be as indulgent to them in the operation of the law as their principles will allow. To ask for this mitigation is not to ask for much. Many of these men will be ruined right out if you do not allow this slight alleviation. I cannot understand how supporters of the Government can broaden their philacteries on Sundays when by their votes they are causing the ruin of many honest families. As some slight alleviation of what I regard as a grievous injustice I beg to move.


I join in the appeal of my hon. Friend for some little generosity towards these unfortunate licence-holders, who by the Budget are placed in the position of having to find an enormous sum of money within the next few months. My hon. Friend's Amendment proposes that the period for the payment of the retrospective taxation should be the month of December. I myself have an Amendment on the Paper suggesting 10th October. My reason for taking that date was that the existing licences, in England at all events, granted in October last expire on 10th October this year. An announcement was made last night by the Postmaster-General that with regard to the payment which in ordinary circumstances would be due in advance for licences from 10th October next, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, having regard to the heavy burdens placed upon these people, to take the payment not all at once in October, but in a series of instalments spread over the financial year. That leads me to think that the Government would view with reasonable favour a proposal to postpone the payment of the retrospective duty, at all events, until 10th October. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask in view of the enormous liability which is being placed upon these people— a liability which I do not think it will be possible for many of them to meet, and certainly not if two payments of the kind are exacted within such a short period.

It would be out of order to deal with the tax itself, or to propose any reduction, but it is in order within the limits of these cases to which we are now referring to deal with the time and the manner in which this payment should be made. What is the position from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own showing? He expects £2,100,000 to be paid on 13th June. Where are the funds to come from? My hon. Friend dealt with the case of the free houses. These people are in a parlous condition. Many of them will not find it possible to meet this charge; the burden will be too excessive to be borne unless they can get out of it by some such method as my hon. Friend suggested. But one of the peculiarities with which we have to deal in this proposal is that under a system which has prevailed in England, especially for many a long year, you have large aggregations of public-houses in the hands of single corporations. There is collected in the hands of the great brewers throughout England large aggregations of public-houses, the Licence Duties of which in the aggregate amount to a very large sum of money. You have placed upon the people who have put a tie upon those houses the obligation of finding the difference between the old duty and the new; they will have to find that difference in June, and they will have to find it again in October, or in such a way as may be decided upon. Where is the money to be obtained? Every shilling of property which these corporations possess is in almost every instance mortgaged to their debenture holders. They have not a shilling of property to offer their bankers for any money they may wish to borrow to meet this charge. They can only get the money by in some way increasing the profits of their business — by increasing their prices, by reducing their quality, or by some other method of that kind. That is not open to them at the present moment? The endeavour of the brewers in London last year to meet the position with which they were faced by increasing the prices of their beer by something like 6s. a barrel resulted in a reduction of their turnover by 15 per cent. When the Lords suspended the Budget they were only too glad to take off the additional sum, because the reduction of their trade cost them a great deal more than the 6s. a barrel. So that they are perfectly unable to make any provision in that way against these duties. They have had a depressed trade since, and they are at the present moment in a worse position than they have been at any period since the corporations were floated and became limited liability companies. In the interests of the revenue, therefore, if the Government do not wish to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, as they have to a large extent done in the case of whisky, they should make the passage of the money from these people to the Treasury coffers as easy as possible. That certainly will not be done under the proposals of the Bill. Everyone realises that there will be a great struggle on the part of every licence-holder to meet the duties in the first instance. They will do their best to preserve the licences of these houses, and they will make great sacrifices in the endeavour, in the hope that even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he realises the havoc he is working and the grossly unfair burden he is placing upon these people, will himself propose to modify the burden in the next Budget and, to some extent, ease the difficulty he has created. Some of the licence-holders will succeed in their attempt; some, no doubt, will fail; but surely it is not too much to ask that within the period which I suggest they should be given time to turn round, and, what is very important, that there should be time given to the authorities to make some kind of alternative valuation. The difficulty in that is very great. The Bill in this respect is not a finished article. While it states that there is to be an alternative licence value, it does not say how that is to be arrived at. Under those circumstances a little time is necessary—a month is no use at all—to go into that question. I think the Postmaster-General will not contradict me when I say that it is not a question of easy settlement. In all probability the individual cases will have to be considered apart. There will have to be separate consideration of the factors which go to make up the annual value. If, therefore, payment is postponed till 10th October there will be a chance for those concerned in the case of the larger houses making an arrangement as to whether they will take the option or not. It is no easy matter. The whole position is wrapped in complete and Cimmerian darkness. No one has the least idea what the alternative value may be. In many cases there will be no value at all. In many cases a third of the licence value, if that be the option, will be of no use at all, because the assessable amount upon which the Licence Duty will be assessed will be very much larger in the case of the option than in the case of the rateable value. So that on many grounds—on the ground of fairness, on the ground of a reasonable generosity—though there is mightly little generosity in these taxes— I think we are entitled to ask the Government to consider this proposal fairly and make some further concession than they propose to do in the Bill. I do not know what their views are on the subject. I do-not know whether they mean to have their pound of flesh out of these unfortunate people. I hope not. Certainly, I do think, in the interest of the revenue, apart from any other consideration, that they will be much more likely to get the bulk of the £2,100,000 asked for on 10th October than they are likely to receive it if asked for on 30th June. There are many other points in connection with this matter which might be considered. I do not know that it is necessary to bring them forward now. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, in observing that there had been no discussion on these Licence Duties when the Resolutions were before the House, was good enough to say that I had spoken about them in a casual manner. Well, I have never used very extreme language in this House when dealing with this question. I have avoided it with great care.

I have never accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of vindictiveness. I have only accused him of ignorance. I do not believe he has any idea of the terrible hardships which these taxes are going to inflict. I do not believe that he has ever taken the trouble to realise what these hardships will be. We have given him figures and cases over and over again. They have fallen from him like water off a duck's back. They never made the slightest impression. Although I have not used strong language, I do think that ignorance of that kind on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is almost criminal. I say that advisedly. I am very sorry that so little consideration has been given to the matter by this House. I believe the whole scale has been adopted in a haphazard manner from some extreme fanatic on the other side. Nothing could be more ridiculous than the proposal or the idea. It has been exploded by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield in his book, and by anyone who knows anything about the matter. It has been exploded before this Committee in a way to which I have already alluded. We say that while acquiescence in what we ask, will relieve the burden in many cases, that it is an appalling thing that the House of Commons can allow itself to vote in a matter of this kind at the dictation of a Minister who has never taken the trouble to make himself acquainted with the terrible hardships he is going to inflict.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)

To follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in reference to many of his observations into the merits of the case, and to discuss this duty which has been imposed, would be, as I take it, out of Order. I quite appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was entitled to some extent to rely upon what had already been in the Bill for the purpose of making his point upon the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, and also the further date of October which is involved in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs, in order that he might make out the hardship upon which the whole argument rested. May I point out to hon. Members, apart altogether from discussion, the merits of these duties which will be imposed—and which is, according to my view, travelling far beyond what we are entitled to do on this Amendment—the sole question which is involved upon this Amendment is as to whether there should be a postponement of the date of payment in order, as it has been urged—and if I may say so, very forcibly—that there should be some mitigation of what has been described as a hardship. Let me for a moment remind the Committee of this, which is a very pertinent consideration on these Amendments. The fullest possible notice has been given to the duties which are going to be charged. It cannot certainly be said that anyone can be taken by surprise by the imposition of these duties.


I did not say that at all. I did not complain of lack of notice. I only complained that the means those concerned naturally took to protect themselves against the duties had resulted in hopeless failure.


The hon. Gentleman has misapprehended me. I was dealing with the point I was for the purpose of meeting the grievance which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield made of the hardship of collecting these duties at the dates which are mentioned in the Bill now before the Committee. Not that we complained of anything the hon. Gentleman had said, but I desired to remind the Committee where we stand in regard to the dates which are now stated in the Bill. They are dates which have been altered in order to meet the new circumstances. They are dates which are easier for the licence-holders than the dates which appeared in the last Bill. They are dates which have been purposely fixed in order to give them the opportunity of making these additional payments which have to be met by the increased duty. And I must further remind the Committee of this: That the statement was made quite explicitly by the Prime Minister that all these taxes would be re-enacted. Therefore, in any event, there is no question between us of any notice. Notice having already been given for some considerable time, it might well be urged that there is no hardship upon the licence-holder who is now going to be taxed. He has had a very full and lengthy notice, and has been able to keep money up to the present which otherwise he would have had to pay. It might well be said that that creates no hardship upon him. Let me further remind the Committee of this important factor—that the reason why the tax will only be collected at the present time is, as we all know, in consequence of the action taken by the House of Lords towards the end of last year.

This necessitated the readjustment of the dates on which the Licence Duties shall be paid. What is the whole grievance that has been made by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment and the hon. Gentleman who seconded it? It really rests upon nothing else than this, that it is a large sum for a man to be called upon to pay over upon 30th June, or 1st October as the case may be, and that, therefore, there should be some mitigation of this hardship, and the proposal is made that the dates should be altered. This point has already been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General in the speech he made last night, when he pointed out that care would be taken that there should be power to make this payment by instalments.


The October payment?


Yes, certainly for the new period.


That has nothing to do with this Amendment.


It involves the point made by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, and I am meeting that. All we have to consider is that he will have to pay at this moment the duty which it was thought he would have to pay last June; and in respect to the new payments the statement is made that every consideration will be given by way of instalments, so that the licence-holder may have his burden eased and the hardship mitigated. Having regard to these facts, it does seem a little difficult to appreciate the hardship relied upon and dwelt upon by the hon. Gentlemen who proposal and seconded this Amendment. There are provisions already in the Bill dealing with some of the matters upon which the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs expatiated. He made reference to the difficulties with reference to annual licensing value, but there is a provision for that already in the Bill.


I know that.


It would be better when this is referred to and relied upon as a hardship that the hon. Member pointed to the provisions in the Bill in respect of the annual licence value which mitigate the difficulties to which he refers. I am only calling attention to it for the purpose again of meeting the observation made by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs.


What I said was that it would take time to arrive at it. There is a proposal that a portion of the Licence Duty should be paid. I merely used it as an argument in favour of the completion of the transaction in October.


Under the Schedule there is provision to this effect. It deals with the particular point where the annual licence value has not been certified, and says:— (b) Where the annual licence value has not been certified, the licence shall be granted on a provisional payment of the minimum duty payable under this provision, or of one-fifth of the full duty, whichever is the higher, and, upon the annual licence value being certified, the duty shall be adjusted by the return of any over-payment or by the recovery, as a debt to His Majesty, of any sum by which the amount paid falls short of the amount which is found to be payable. That is the point of my reference to the Schedule. I submit we deal with this complaint about hardship both by provisions in the Bill and by the promises made by the Postmaster-General when he spoke of the instalments that will become payable.

9.0 p.m.

I quite appreciate that the payment in October is a matter which is outside the narrow consideration of this Amendment, but of course reference has been made to it, and reliance has been placed upon it for the purpose of increasing the hardships which will nave to be borne by the licence-holder. Here again in determining this matter you must also consider what is very important that is the statement made about the payment by instalments. I will not travel into the more technical grounds which are really involved in the Amendments of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield. He frankly recognised it would not be possible for the Committee to accept. It would have necessitated a redrafting, which would be quite impossible in the present state of affairs, and all that he could possibly hope from this Amendment was that when the matter came up on a future occasion some means might be taken for making the very kind of statement that was made by the Postmaster-General yesterday.


I fully realise if this Amendment was passed it would possibly cause some inconvenience in the future which would have to be met, but it could not arise until October, and it could be formally put right in the next financial proposal.


We all recognise the technical objection to the form of the Amendment, but I think it is desirable that under the Amendment we should discuss the question as to whether a portion of this retrospective duty could not be postponed, at all events, until some day later than 30th June. It is quite possible to postpone the payment for at all events three months without affecting the machinery of the Bill. Dealing with the matter on the merits the Solicitor-General said, I think quite correctly, that the purpose of the Amendment is to put off the evil day—to postpone for a period the payment of the retrospective extra duties for the year now coming. That sum was put at £2,000,000 extra as the amount payable for this Bill in the current year. The answer given to the obvious hardship is this: "There is no hardship, because you knew all about it last December. The Prime Minister gave you notice that not a comma of the Bill would be altered." Is that treating the taxpayer fairly? The Prime Minister, who is going to dissolve, says if he comes back into power he is going to impose certain duties. Is that giving the taxpayer full notice that the duties will be imposed? In December last who could prophesy that the Government would again return to power? And even when the Government was returned to power, who could prophesy that the Budget was going to be passed? I do not think the Government themselves knew that so recently as three weeks ago. If you had asked the question whether the Budget was going to pass or not a very short time ago you would have had a very ambiguous answer. Is it fair to treat the taxpayer as if he knew at the last election that the present Government were going to remain in office? I think that disposes of the argument of the Solicitor-General. It is obvious that people in this trade do not save up for this purpose. They make both ends meet as best they can, but they do not have a large margin for contingencies. They do not save, and the consequence will be that you will find these men will be in very great difficulties to find this very large sum of money. How could they save enough to pay this duty? You say they could have charged more to their customers. May I remind the House that that was tried in London with very indifferent success, because it reduced the sales, and, therefore, there was no increased income. Whatever warning may have been given, it was not reasonably possible for these men to provide in advance for the large sum which they will now be called upon to pay. You are going to impose taxes to the amount of £2,000,000 at the end of April to be paid at the end of June, and this Amendment is to give them a little longer time to pay. I do not think any real answer has been given to this proposal.

We are always being taunted with giving figures which have not been verified. I have some figures to-day which have been very carefully verified by those upon whom I can rely. There is one case where the Licence Duty is now £60, the assessment £900, and the new duty £450, making the increase to be paid at the end of June £390. The total income of this man is £1,500, so that he must pay one-fourth of his income away on 30th June. The sum of £390 is a very heavy fine on 30th June, and I think you might give him a little longer time to provide the money. There is another case where the Licence Duty is £55, the assessment £675, and the increase of the Licence Duty is £282. The total income is £460, out of which this man must pay £282 increase, reducing his net income to £178, or considerably less than half his present income. What is the answer to a case of that kind?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)

I have given the hon. and learned Member the answer at least twenty times. In the cases he has quoted they will not pay those duties, because they can be assessed on the lower valuation in proportion to the trade they do.


In these particular cases the point has been looked into from that standpoint, and no relief is given by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman always assumes that this option is going to be beneficial in all cases. The fine has to be paid in these cases, and it is a very heavy one. We are told there is to be some concession in the next Budget in the shape of payment by instalments, but we are not told when it is going to be, and, therefore, we cannot rely upon it now. The point we are dealing with is the urgent one of the payment on 30th June, and I do not think the least answer has been given to the arguments that further time ought to be given for these very heavy payments. The purpose of Clause 53 is equally obtained whether the date is 30th September or 30th June, because the object is to get the duty for the current year in some way or other. This point has not been thoroughly met by the Government. This House has to consider whether it is fair treatment of the men who have to find the money to insist upon payment within three months.


I should like to refer to one point which has been omitted in this discussion. It has been said that brewery companies have not had ample notice of the increase in these duties. Anyone who will look through brewery company reports that have been issued during the last few months will see frequent allusions to the fact that they were anticipating and making a fair provision for the additional taxes. I have gone through a good number of these reports, and I find a very large sum in many cases put to reserve funds. I also find additional sums have been carried forward, and, in fact, I do not think there is any doubt that brewery companies, as good business men, have not failed to make provision which might occur to anybody, of putting by such sums as would meet this new taxation when imposed.


But that is income which ought to go to the shareholders?


I will take a case showing the weight of these new burdens on a particular brewery company. We have had from the other side the fallacy of extreme figures over and over again, and although the hon. and learned Member for Kingston is exceedingly fair and reasonable in his arguments, yet in the Debate which has taken place he has pressed extreme figures to a point which is not quite fair. Take the last case he has given, namely, that of a house which has its Licence Duty extended from £60 to £450. He says that case will get no remission or no abatement by being charged on the licence value, or on its compensation value, as it used to be called. We know this particular house cited is doing a very large alcoholic trade, and a very short calculation will show that the value of the licence, apart from the structure, could not be less than £13,500. I do not think that in the case of a house doing that kind of alcoholic trade you ought to expect the owner to escape with the old duty it has had in the past, or that it is an exaggerated claim on the part of the State, whose restrictive action has given to this house an immense amount of trade which it would not otherwise have had, to impose the increase in the Licence Duty which is now proposed.


The hon. Gentleman is rather arguing the general point of the amount of the duty. I put the case on the question of the date.


I was just going to point out to the hon. Member that he is arguing the general question. He must confine himself to the Amendment.


I was referring to the particular case which the hon. Member brought forward, and on which he based his statement of the hardship in virtue of which he asked for some mitigation. The particular case which I was going to quote is that of a brewery company which carried forward £39,000, which paid 15 per cent, on its ordinary shares, which put about £7,000 more to special reserve, and which said the extra taxation which it would have to meet was between £2,000 and £3,000. I do not wish to argue the case further, but I do think the other side has put forward extreme cases. These brewery companies and various licence-holders have known perfectly well that this taxation will very likely fall upon them, and they have made reasonable provision. When you take into account the fact that after all there is to be no remission to the Income Tax-payers and that the Land Duties are to be dated backwards, it does not seem to me to be unfair or unjust to also claim that in the course of the two years these duties shall be payable by this particular trade.

The other side have again persistently ignored the fact that in all these heavy cases of duty which they quote there is the provision to pay by instalments already in the Bill, and we understand it is going to be extended to other cases besides. We were told last night it was to be done in the next Budget. The case has been put of breweries with large aggregates of licensed houses. It is said that a brewery company which owns a number of houses has a claim for this remission of the extra three months. I would like to point out that of the 87,000 licensed houses in the Kingdom, 50,000 at least are under £50 annual value. In those cases there will be very slight additional taxation, and in 5 per cent, of the cases there will a year's remission. It is therefore only in a minority of the cases where brewery companies hold aggregates of licensed houses that they will have to meet the additional charge. I think, therefore, the general case of hardship has not been established, and all you get is a general sense of unfairness produced by the quotation of extreme cases which have to be averaged with the other cases where no additional duty is charged. This degree of injustice and unfairness has really, therefore, not been properly established.


Every speech we have listened to from the other side tonight has been based upon the old fallacy that there is some extraordinary profit made by the licensed trade out of which any demand of the Government can be met. We on this side of the House have again and again given cases, which hon. Members opposite never attempt to meet except by saying they are extreme cases, showing exactly the opposite. They will not understand that the licensed trade, as the figures of their own Government show and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley {Sir Thomas Whit-taker) argued last night, is a declining trade with a diminishing output. They still persist in the argument that it can meet any demand the Government makes upon it. Really, in a very large number of cases throughout the kingdom, there is not the money to pay this tax. It may, of course, be borrowed, but in a large number of cases there is not the security on which to borrow the money.

I can assure the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Charles Roberts) that the case he quoted is not the average case. Hon. Members opposite accuse us of taking extreme cases, but I say, with my knowledge and experience, that the case he has quoted is an extreme case, and does not represent the general position. The right hon. Member for the Spen Valley argued last night that a very small proportion of profits will be required to meet this enormously increased taxation. For a considerable number of years I kept a record of the profits made by the brewing trade. In 1898 breweries were making a little over 5 per cent, on their capital, but in the year ending 31st December, 1908, those profits on a much decreased capital had shrunk to a bare 4 per cent. The total sum which is payable to all the debenture holders was only £6,000,000, and the Government on their own confession are going to take a very large proportion of that, because they mean to extract from the brewery companies chiefly some £2,100,000.


The hon. Member is again debating the general question.


I was trying to convey to hon. Members opposite that the money to meet these vastly increased charges is not immediately available, and many companies as well as retail traders will be in an inextricable, difficulty and will not be able to meet the charge on 30th June. The case of the retail trader has not been met. The only argument offered was that of the Postmaster-General, who said that in cases of high licences they will have some mitigation under the Schedule of the Bill. We have not been able, with the most careful investigation, to find that particular exemption and mitigation, or where the reduction of duty is to be effective. It is still a myth in the air, and experience is necessary before that particular Clause can be declared to be of any value to anyone engaged in the licensed trade. It appears to me, and I think to everyone who carefully considers this subject, that there is a very real grievance. There is not the money which can be made immediately available on 30th June in a very large number of cases to meet these increased duties. The Government would be better able to obtain the full amount they estimate if they postponed the date of collection. They can well afford to do so, and the argument used that in some Budget which the Government hope to introduce at some period which they have not announced they are going to make some arrangement about payment by instalments which they have not explained has nothing to do with this particular Budget, and the payments demanded under it on 30th June. That extreme pressure we ought to avoid. If the Government wish to drive a number of persons engaged in the retail trade into ruin, they are going the best way to work it by trying to enforce their demands on the 30th June. They might show some sense of consideration for the taxpayers from whom they intend to tax this duty.


It is only too apparent that the Government do not intend to make any concession in this matter. They have hardened their heart like Pharaoh. After all, the question is a narrow one, and there is no need to go into the merits. All we ask is that a certain period of time should be allowed during which the duties shall not be collected. What are the new duties? Two millions at the end of June. In addition to the old Licence Duty a sum of £2,000,000 more will then have to be collected, and again at the beginning of October another £4,000,000 will be collected. Therefore no less than £6,000,000 sterling will be collected from the licensed trade in the country between now and the beginning of October. That is a tremendous sum of money to ask from any trade, however profitable. The argument has been adduced by the Solicitor-General that the trade knew, through the introduction of the Budget last year, that these new duties would be imposed. But you must take human nature as it is, and there was a feeling that the new duties would not come into force; therefore the members of the trade did not keep in their banks a sum representing the new duties. After all, they are not all men who keep their money in their pockets or at their bankers. References have been made to the case of Whitbread and Buxton's brewery company. The increased Licence Duties there represent over £80,000, and there is the manufacturers' Licence Duty of £15,000, thus totalling £104,000. That is an almost prohibitive sum.


I am almost certain that these figures were quoted and that they did not allow for the abatements.


I am not going into the question of abatements. Nobody knows how they are worked out. I prefer to take the duties as they are under the new scale. Whitbread and Buxton's Brewery will have to pay £104,000 extra as Licence Duty and Manufacturers' Duty. That is a tremendous sum to ask of anybody, and when you come from companies to individuals, take the case of the free licence-holder. The duty will often be extraordinarily high, and he has no brewer to fall back upon; he has to find the extra money himself. The Solicitor-General says he knew that would happen when the Budget was passed. Yes; but he probably hoped that the Budget would not pass, but it will, and when it comes into law he will not have the money to meet the new duties. All we ask for is time. Surely we have a claim for that? May I refer to another point? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed the new Licence Duties-by his Budget of last year, in his Budget speech he said that he intended that the publicans should get an advantage out of the extra Whisky Duty, and he intended that they should recoup themselves by putting up their prices for whisky. He intended that the publicans should reap such an advantage from the extra duty that they should thereby recover the increased Licence Duty. His words were:— This is an experiment which enables the retailer to take it off the consumer. I have done that deliberately because I have not thought it fair in oases of this kind to put on the tax in a way that would embarrass trade and make it very difficult for them to pate it on to the consumer. Here they are able to do it. It is fairer to them, and it not only enables them to pass it on to the consumer, but it enables the retailer to charge practically his increased Licence Duty upon the whisky in most cases, and he is doing it. That was the bait which the Chancellor of the Exchequer threw out to the trade, but, as a matter of fact, there is no increased profit to be made out of whisky. The trade have the whole Licence Duties to meet and no extra whisky money to meet them with. Surely they deserve some sort of consideration, but I fear we shall meet with no mercy in this matter.


I do not wish to discuss the question whether or not a great loss has been incurred owing to this particular form of taxation. But by acceding to the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me giving an extension of time down to October they may possibly do something to meet the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln put the case from his point of view in an extremely fair manner. He endeavoured to argue that the cases cited by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston were exaggerated. I have no doubt that he put forward facts which he sincerely believed were within his knowledge, but having a good deal of experience of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston, I must say I do not think that there is any Member in this House who is less likely than he is to exaggerate his case. Therefore, I am prejudiced because I start with the belief that what my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct. The hon. Member for Lincoln, as I understood him, cited the figures of a brewery company which he knew had made something like £40,000, or, at any rate, a large sum of money, and well knowing that they might be sub- ject to this duty they had put aside £2,000 to provide for it. And he seemed to think that under these circumstances the Committee might take the particular instance which he cited and those cited by my hon. Friend, and then assume that everybody was equal. But may I point out to the hon. Member for Lincoln that if he happened to have an A. B. C. shop, and out of that shop he had made £40,000 in one year, and put aside £2,000 for a possible duty upon it, it would be no consolation to my hon. and learned Friend if he had only earned £2,000 by his trade and had to pay £40,000 duty. It would be no comfort to him that the hon. Member opposite was in a better position, but that was what his argument amounted to, that because one particular brewer was in a fortunate position all the other brewers, who were in an unfortunate position, were to console themselves because the other brewer whose case has been mentioned was fortunate. I do not believe that the brewery company whose case was cited by the hon. Member for Lincoln is going to divide their gain with the brewers mentioned by my hon. Friend who have not been fortunate.

What I rose to do was to ask the Government to consider a suggestion in the face of these conflicting statements, because I do not wish to cast any reflection upon the hon. Member for Lincoln or to doubt his figures, and there may be some persons engaged in the brewing trade who, by superior intelligence, will be able to avoid the loss put upon them by this duty. But, on the other hand, there are a large number of people, as instanced by my hon. Friend, who will not be in that fortunate position, and I should suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should postpone the collection of this duty from June to December, or at all events October. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General (Mr. Herbert Samuel) comes of a business family, and will agree with me in what I am saying, that if there is no doubt about securing the revenue, it would be wise to defer the collection. I presume that all he desires is to secure the revenue, and he has no arrière pensée against anybody, and does not want to inflict a penalty upon people, and if he only wants to collect the revenue he should take into account the fact that in view of the statements made it is inevitable that some hardship will be inflicted by the insistence that these taxes shall be paid in June. If that is done, there will be no opportunity for recoupment or for measures being taken to find the money, and this being so, it would be better to give the opportunity provided by the Amendment, and to defer this tax till October. The object of the right hon. Gentleman being to secure the money, would it not be better for him to delay the collection of his tax for three or four months, and make sure of getting the money, or, at any rate, of giving the people concerned a chance of paying it, rather than to insist upon it now? The revenue will not suffer, the money will be paid to the Government in the course of the year, and the result will be satisfactory to everyone. When, however, we hear so much of the triumph of Free Trade finance, it seems strange that the Government cannot defer the collection of a certain amount of revenue till October. It is not at all likely that I shall occupy the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if I ever was in that position, and I found that I could not defer the collection of my revenue from June to October, I certainly should not say that my system of finance had triumphed. I appeal to the business instincts of the Postmaster-General, which I am sure are just as strong in him as they are in the rest of his family, to look upon this Amendment from a business point of view and endeavour to collect the revenue in a manner which will meet with the least possible resistance.


I wish to say a word or two before this Debate closes, as this is the last time that we shall have an opportunity of saying anything with regard to these particular proposals of the Government. The suggestion in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend behind me is that there should be a delay granted before these heavy additional payments have to be made. I agree with the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that the case against this Amendment, and indeed the whole case in support of the Bill, has been put to-night with absolute fairness by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts). I have often wished, when I have heard him and some other advocates of the great reform with which he is identified, that everybody would put it with the same clearness with which he has spoken. Notwithstanding the fact that that opinion is shared by everybody in the House, what do we find? We find the hon. Gentleman answering my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) by the argument that the case put by him is an extreme one, and what does the hon. Member for Lincoln then do? He gives another case, which I think everybody must admit, and he will admit himself, is, if not extreme, not in any way a general case, and I am sure he will not question the fact that there are a large number of people who will be affected by this new Licence Duty who will not come under the description which he has given in regard to one particular brewery. In this respect this particular tax illustrates the fallacy of the position of the Government. This has been recommended to the country as the Poor Man's Budget, which is going to tax the rich for the benefit of the poor. Hon. Gentlemen argue that rich people can bear an extra burden of this kind, but they ignore altogether the majority of cases in which the resources are insufficient to bear the burden without very considerable strain and difficulty. Then the hon. Member told us that provision is to be made in the next Budget to enable payments to be made by instalments, and he and others have argued that the history of his Budget has been such as to make it almost compulsory upon licence-holders to make provision for this new tax. As far as the next Budget is concerned, I do not attach much importance to the assurances which have come from the other side of the House. In the first place no one knows who is going to introduce and pass the next Budget—we are not even allowed to know when the next Budget is going to be introduced. We have humbly asked to be told, and only yesterday I asked a question as to when the Budget statement will be made, but the Prime Minister could not tell us. In face of that fact I do not think we ought to be asked to attach very much importance to the suggestion that we are going to get relief in the next Budget.

But what becomes of the next Budget argument when the speeches we have heard, even from hon. Gentlemen opposite, have not attempted to deny the fact that there may be, and probably will be, hardship in some cases? We are told that those people upon whom the new burden wall fall ought to have made provision. Will not exactly the same statement be made when the new Budget is brought in? The concession will be something like the concession on the Land Taxes, something which will do nothing for those who are pressed, and when they raise their grievances they will be told "You know what passed on the discussion of the late Budget, and you have no right to ask Parliament to relieve you from the burden which you ought to have prepared yourself to bear." The whole of this Debate is like the one which preceded it. Hon. Members opposite are unable to deny that there is a grievance, and that there may be a mistake in the phraseology of the Bill, or in the effect which it will have upon those who pay the taxes. The Committee stage is to conclude to-night, and the Third Reading to-morrow. That means that there is to be no Report stage. The Government resist Amendments, not because their case is a good one, and not because a grievance is not made out, but because it will not fit in with those closure by compartment arrangements under which the whole of the legislation for which the present Government are responsible is apparently to be passed.

The Postmaster-General said he had answered my hon. and learned Friend twenty times. I thing I have heard him give the same answer more than twenty times. The answer is, "Your figures are wrong." The Postmaster-General is a distinguished Member of the Government, but, able though he may be, he is not infallible, and to tell us that our figures are wrong and his figures are right, and that he does not think it necessary to pay any attention to the statements we make, is not argument, but simply denial. We have argued this with the Postmaster-General frequently in the last Parliament, and we stated what I state now, and what is absolutely correct, that these figures which have been presented to the Committee time out of number are not cooked figures, produced in order to set up a case which does not really exist. They have been submitted to the most microscopic examination. They have been examined by people who are competent to test them and ascertain their accuracy. I have no personal knowledge of these questions, but I have myself discussed them with those on whose behalf the figures are put forward, and, whatever authority the Postmaster - General may have for his figures, there is at least equal authority for the figures which are put forward by my hon. and learned Friend and other of my hon. Friends who have pressed their case on the Government. Therefore, simply to answer us, as the Postmaster-General has done for the twentieth time, with exactly the same statement, that our figures are incorrect, is not to make any answer to those who present the case or to those outside the House on whose behalf the case is presented. Once again we come to this conclusion, that a case of hardship and injustice has been made out.

I do not think anyone doubts that there is a very large class of people in the country upon whom you are going to lay, by these taxes, a very heavy burden. All that we are asking by the Amendment is not that you should lighten that burden, not that you should get rid of it altogether, but postpone for a very short time the period at which it will come into existence. Surely it is a moderate proposal, and if it were not for closure by compartments, if we were debating this under ordinary conditions, and if it were the desire of the Government, as it generally has been the desire of Governments, to meet reasonable criticisms and objections, and so frame their Bill that, while it will produce the revenue they require, it will fall with the least possible hardship upon those who have to pay it, I believe the Government would accept a moderate, reasonable, and fair Amendment of this kind. They cannot do it because it will upset the whole plan of their legislation. Therefore injustice is to be done to people who are as worthy of fair treatment as any other class in the country, not because a case has been made out against them, but because the exigencies of the position of the Government make it impossible for them to accept the Amendment. It is only another proof of the way in which legislation is now being carried through this Parliament, and I believe the Government will in the end get their reward, because, if legislation is passed in this way and contains any such proposals, they will react on those who have been responsible for them.


The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government must have been convinced of the reason and moderation of the Amendment, and resisted it only because the Rules of Procedure forbid its acceptance. Indeed, that is not so. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman quite sincerely that that consideration has never entered into the mind of the Government. As a matter of fact it need not do so, for the guillotine cuts short the Report stage as well as the Committee stage. In any case we regard the Amendment as really having no justification behind it. In the vast majority of cases the Licence Duties to be imposed involve either no increase at all, or only a very small increase. There is, however, a very considerable number of houses where the increase is considerable, and there are some where the Licence Duties have in the past been absurdly low in proportion to the trade done in the house and in proportion to its rate-able value, and there the increase of the Licence Duty is large. Today, however, we are not discussing, and we are not entitled to discuss, the weight of these duties, or the justice or the injustice of the burden that they impose. We are only considering whether it is right and reasonable to require that on 30th June, 1910, the duties for the year 1909–10 should be paid. I would ask the Committee to look at this question of dates and to go back a little way. The Budget was introduced in April, 1909, and the trade were told that a considerable increase of Licence Duties was in contemplation. The Finance Bill was introduced, and it made provision for the increased duties to take effect on all licences granted after 1st July last year. The licences were taken up on 10th October by the ordinary retail publicans in England and Wales, and they might have been justly expected and required to pay the Licence Duties when they took up licences for the year. They were not asked to pay as the Budget did not pass. But previous to that, when it was known that it would not pass by 10th October, the date 30th November was inserted in the Bill as that on which these increased duties should be paid. Still there was a prolonged delay and prolonged discussion—I will not say obstructive discussion—on all the clauses of the Bill. Consequently, when 30th November came, the Bill still was not law. The date on which the trade were to be required to pay their duties was consequently postponed until 31st December. When 31st December came still the Finance Bill was not law. It was rejected by the House of Lords, and further delay ensued. Meantime the licensed victuallers' trade, which might have been justly called upon to pay the Licence Duties on 10th October, were able to retain this money in their pockets. The Prime Minister, in December, announced formally to the whole country that in this Budget these taxes would be re-imposed. The complaints hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have been making for a few weeks is that we have not brought on our Budget soon enough, and that we have not got it already. What an inconsistency it is for them to-night to raise their voices in favour of still further delay in the collection of these duties! I think the Government, without any injustice or any inequity, were fully entitled to say at least that from the date of the passing of this Bill these duties should be collected. That would have been on 30th April or thereabouts. That date will apply to the collection of the Income Tax, the Super-tax, and almost all the other duties in the Budget. The Government have not done that. Not only has the collection of these duties been postponed, first, from 10th October to 30th November, next from 30th November to 31st December, next until after the General Election, and next until the passage of this Bill at the end of April, but now we have gone further, and we have anticipated the very claim that has been made to-day, and instead of asking for the duties to be paid on the passage of the Bill, we are allowing a further delay of two months and to have the collection on 30th June. In these circumstances I suggest to the House that there is no substance in the complaint that has been made.

10.0 P.M.

The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) have urged that this is a mere postponement that is now proposed, and that after all it would be a very great convenience to the members of the trade. They say, "You are not foregoing revenue, and if you are really anxious to meet their convenience, you should make this concession." That is not so. It would be more than a mere postponement if you were to adopt the date 30th September. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), who moved the Amendment, very candidly admitted that the consequence of such a postponement must be that in next year's Budget there must be a further adjustment. If you postpone the collection of last year's duties to 30th September, you would not be able to collect the duties for the year 1910–11 within that financial year at all, and the consequence would be that for some years to come, possibly permanently, the collection of the duties would have to be thrown back some months, and possibly a quarter's or a half-year's revenue would ultimately be lost. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), with much sweet reasonableness and many kind words, appeared to make sure of the money for the Treasury. He said, "Postpone the collection until 30th September and you will get your money collected, but on 30th June you will not be able to get it."


I did not guarantee it.


At all events, the hon. Baronet suggested that we should get more if we collected on 30th September instead of 30th June. I suggest that the opposite would be the case, and that if we postponed the collection until 30th September we should lose next year a large proportion of next year's revenue. His suggestion is, indeed, that we should surrender that revenue in order to avoid the risk of losing it. We have been told of a man who committed suicide in order to avoid being killed, and the hon. Baronet's suggestion is akin to that. The suggestion does not appeal to such business instincts as I possess. I would point out to the Committee that there is already in the Bill a provision that in any year if a licence-holder has to pay more than £60 he will only be required to pay one-half when the licence is taken out, and the other half during the remainder of the financial year. We propose in next year's Budget to extend that principle and to make it work for smaller men as well as larger men, and possibly other adjustments may be made as well. Certainly there is nothing vindictive in the dates chosen and in the course the Government have adopted. I agree with hon. Members that we should indeed be departing very widely from our duty if we asked the trade to bear a considerable burden and also collected the tax with harshness and without consideration. I think I have shown to the Committee that precisely the opposite is the case.


The right hon. Gentleman said quite truly that all the greater questions connected with the Finance Bill are withdrawn from our consideration by the action of the House. That is true, but it is quite inconsistent with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he complained that he had no opportunity of discussion, and the Chancellor interjected, "You will have plenty of opportunity to-morrow." We have no opportunity. I hope that that will be understood by the country and by the very large number of correspondents who press upon my Friends and myself that we should take this opportunity of raising once more some of the hardships which this Budget is inflicting upon the taxpayer. We do not do that because we are unable; all we can do on the present occasion is to seek for these people, not any relief from the burden imposed on them, but some slight alleviation in the matter of collection, by which they may be allowed a little more time to pay the very much heavier tax which they will now have to pay than they have paid in the past. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are inconsistent in making such a demand, we who were foolish enough to expect the Prime Minister to do what he said he would do, we who were impudent enough to ask him to do what he said he would do, and to proceed as his first act in the new Parliament with the Budget. It appears that that was a gross act of impertinence and folly on our part. The Postmaster-General and those who sit behind him obviously feel a contempt for us for having placed any reliance on the Prime Minister's words, but we set more store on it than his followers and colleagues do.

But is there any inconsistency in our action? What we pressed the Government to do was to bring this Budget to an issue at once. They did not do it. They had not at the time got a majority for it. They did not know whether they could get a majority for it. They were still bargaining. They need not have bargained for so long, because what is the end of it all? Abject surrender on their part. The Prime Minister ate his words again, and accordingly now they are able to proceed with it and to pass it. But when we pressed that they should proceed with the collection of the taxes, we were pressing specially with regard to Income Tax. There is a clear differentiation between that and this. The money Lad already been to a very large extent taken out of the taxpayers' pockets. Whatever injury was to be done, whatever loss was to be suffered they had already incurred. The money was lying in the hands of bankers waiting for the Government demand, and the Government preferred to borrow it and to pay interest on it. And because we pressed upon them in that case to take the money which was waiting, which everybody was ready to pay without gross hardship, we are to be debarred from asking for a little more time for poor men who cannot pay these burdens under any circumstances, and least of all in the time allowed, without the grossest hardship and injustice. The right hon. Gentleman said he cannot accept any delay in the payments for the year 1909–10 without postponing the payments for 1910–11. I do not quite know what he means, but I thought that was exactly what he had undertaken to do. He made an announcement yesterday that the Government, in order to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, would make arrangements for spreading the payments for 1910–11, as I understood, over a longer period, and now he has taken away what yesterday he offered. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I cannot exactly interpret the meaning of it, but it is one of two things: Either he takes away what he offered yesterday or what he offered yesterday was a hollow sham. Once again the Government were pretending to make concessions when in fact no real concession was either intended or made, and the only purpose at their disposal was to do the country as to their intentions.


What has been said by the other side about tempering the wind to the shorn lamb comes very ill from a party which speaks for a body of interests who have already escaped payment of their fair taxes. The working men of England have been paying their share of taxes during the past nine months, while the interests that are proposed to be taxed under the Budget by the Income Tax, the Land Taxes, and the Licensing Taxes have been avoiding the payment of those taxes. Is it unfair to give them two months' notice to pay what they should have paid six months ago? Surely the public can judge of such complaints as have been made. I can hardly imagine how the House can sit and listen to them in patience. I have not taken much part in debate, but I do claim to know what the country feels about these taxes that have been so long delayed, taxes which might have been paid over, taxes many of which have been paid over, but have been withheld by the bankers. With regard to these License Duties, which the Government have proposed to meet by deferred payments of the extra duty, they have gone a long way, longer than they might reasonably have been expected to do, to meet the case of those who have to pay taxes that should have been paid long ago. When I hear about tempering the wind to the shorn lamb, I feel that language such as that which has been used ought not to be allowed to pass without strong protest, not only from the Front Bench on this side of the House but also from those who sit behind and support the Government.

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 296.

Division No. 64.] AYES. [10.15 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Greene, Walter Raymond Newman, John R. P.
Adam, Major William A. Gretton, John Newton, Harry Kottingham
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gulney, Patrick Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Ashley, Wilfred W. Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward O'Brien, William (Cork)
Attenborough, Walter Annis Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Haddock, George B. O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)/
Balcarres, Lord Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Baldwin, Stanley Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hambro, Angus Valdemar Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Hamersley, Alfred St. George Parkes, Ebenezer
Barnston, Harry Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton).
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.) Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney) Perkins, Walter Frank
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.) Peto, Basil Edward
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Pollock, Ernest Murray
Beckett, Hon. William Gervase Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.) Proby, Col. Douglas James
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Healy, Timothy Michael Quilter, William Eley C.
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Heath, Col. Arthur Howard Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Helmsley, Viscount Rankin, Sir James
Boyton, James Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire) Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Brackenbury, Henry Langton Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury) Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter Remnant, James Farquharson
Bridgeman, William Clive Hills, John Walter (Durham) Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Ridley, Samuel Forde
Bull, Sir William James Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Burdett-Coutts, William Hope, Harry (Bute) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Butcher, John George (York) Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Royds, Edmund
Calley, Col. Thomas C. P. Horner, Andrew Long Rutherford, Watson
Carlile, E. Hilldred Hunt, Rowland Salter, Arthur Clavell
Castlereagh, Viscount Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Cautley, Henry Strother Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven) Sanders, Robert Arthur
Cave, George Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Sanderson, Lancelot
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kerry, Earl of Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Keswick, William Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) Kimber, Sir Henry Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Clive, Percy Archer Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Stanier, Beville
Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.) Kirkwood, John H. M. Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall) Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Starkey, John Ralph
Courthope, George Loyd Knett, James Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Lane-Fox, G. R. Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Strauss, Arthur
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Lawson, Hon. Harry Sykes, Alan John
Crean, Eugene Lee, Arthur Hamilton Talbot, Lord Edmund
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Lewisham, Viscount Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.) Llewelyn, Venables Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Thynne, Lord Alexander
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay) Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Duke, Henry Edward Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Tullibardine, Marquess of
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Valentia, Viscount
Fell, Arthur Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm, Edgbaston) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Finlay, Sir Robert Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Mackinder, Halford J. Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Fleming, Valentine Macmaster, Donald Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Fletcher, John Samuel M'Arthur, Charles Wheler, Granville C. H.
Forster, Henry William M'Calmont, Colonel James White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc. Southport)
Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft) Magnus, Sir Philip Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Gardner, Ernest Mallaby-Deeley, Harry Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Martin, Joseph Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Gibbs, George Abraham Mason, James F. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Gilhooly, James Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Gilmour, Captain John Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Goldman, Charles Sydney Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Yerburgh, Robert
Goldsmith, Frank Mitchell, William Foot Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Gordon, John Morpeth, Viscount
Goulding, Edward Alfred Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. G. D. Faber.
Mount, William Arthur
Abraham, William Allen, Charles Peter Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Armitage, Robert Balfour, Robert (Lanark)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry Barclay, Sir Thomas
Alden, Percy Baker, Harold, T. (Accrington) Barlow, Sir John Emmott
Barnes George N. Hancock, John George Nuttall, Harry
Barran Sir John N. (Hawick B.) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Barry, Edward (Cork, S.) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Barton, William Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) O'Doherty, Philip
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) O'Dowd, John
Bentham, George Jackson Harwood, George Ogden, Fred
Bethell Sir John Henry Haslam, James (Derbyshire) O'Grady, James
Black, Arthur W. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Boland John Pius Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Bowerman, Charles W. Haworth, Arthur A. O'Malley, William
Brace, William Hazleton, Richard O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Helme, Norval Watson O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Brigg, Sir John Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) O'Shee, James John
Brocklehurst, William B. Henry, Charles Solomon Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Bryce, John Annan Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) Parker, James (Halifax)
Burke, E. Haviland- Higham, John Sharp Pearce, William
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hindle, Frederick George Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Buxton C. R. (Devon, Mid) Hodge, John Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Buxton Noel (Norfolk, North) Holt, Richard Durning Pirie, Duncan V.
Buxton Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Hooper, Arthur George Pointer, Joseph
Byles, William Pollard Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Pollard, Sir George H.
Cameron, Robert Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Power, Patrick Joseph
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Hudson, Walter Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood) Hughes, Spencer Leigh Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Chancellor, Henry George Hume-Williams, William Ellis Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Illingworth, Percy H. Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel Pringle, William M. R.
Clancy, John Joseph Johnson, William Radford, George Heynes
Clough, William Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Clynes, John R. Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydfil) Raphael, Herbert Henry
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Rea, Walter Russell
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Reddy, Michael
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Joyce, Michael Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Keating, Matthew Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Condon Thomas Joseph Kelly, Edward Rees, John David
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Kemp, Sir George Rendall, Athelstan
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kettle, Thomas Michael Richards, Thomas
Cory, Sir Clifford John Kilbride, Denis Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cowan, William Henry King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Roberts, George H. (Norwich).
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Lambert, George Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Crosfield, Arthur H. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Crossley, Sir William J. Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Cullinan, John Leach, Charles Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lehmann, Rudolf C. Roche, John (Galway, East)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Levy, Sir Maurice Roe, Sir Thomas
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Lewis, John Herbert Rowntree, Arnold
Dawes, James Arthur Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Delany, William Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Devlin, Joseph Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Scanlan, Thomas
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lundon, Thomas Schwann, Sir Charles E.
Dillon, John Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Donelan, Captain A. Lynch, Arthur Alfred Seddon, James A.
Doris, William Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Shackleton, David James
Duffy, William J. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Shaw, Sir Charles Edward
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sheehy, David
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) M'Callum, John M. Shortt, Edward
Edwards, Enoch McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Elverston, Harold Manfield, Harry Snowden, Philip
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Markham, Arthur Basil Soares, Ernest Joseph
Esslemont, George Birnie Spicer, Sir Albert
Falconer, James Marks, George Croydon Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Farrell, James Patrick Masterman, C. F. G. Summers, James Woolley
Ferens, Thomas Robinson Meagher, Michael Sutherland, John E.
Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Sutton, John E.
Ffrench, Peter Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Field, William Menzies, Sir Walter Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Middlebrook, William Tennant, Harold John
Flavin, Michael Joseph Millar, James Duncan Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Molloy, Michael Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Gelder, Sir William Alfred Molteno, Percy Alport Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)
Gibbins, F. W. Mond, Alfred Moritz Thomas, James Henry (Derby)
Gibson, James Puckering Montagu, Hon. E. S. Toulmin, George
Gill, Alfred Henry Mooney, John J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Glanville, Harold James Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Twist, Henry
Glover, Thomas Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Greenwood, Granville George Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Verney, Frederick William
Grenfell Cecil Alfred Muldoon, John Vivian, Henry
Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey) Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Wadsworth, John
Gulland John William Muspratt, Max Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Nannetti, Joseph P. Walsh, Stephen
Hackett John Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Walters, John Tudor
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Nolan, Joseph Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Norton, Capt. Cecil W. Wardle, George J.
Waring, Walter Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)
Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) Wing, Thomas
Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Wiles, Thomas Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Wilkie, Alexander Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Waterlow, David Sydney Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth) Young, William (Perth, East)
Watt, Henry A. Williams, John (Glamorgan) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Wedgwood, Josiah C. Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
White, Sir George, (Norfolk) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.
White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Whitehouse, John Howard Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER moved to leave out the words "thirtieth day of June" ["cease to be in force on the 30th day of June"], and insert instead thereof the words "10th day of October."

There is a substantial difference between this Amendment and that upon which we have just voted. My hon. Friend proposed that credit for the retrospective duty should be granted licence-holders until 31st December. I propose that that credit should be granted only to 10th October, my reason being that on that date the existing licences expire in England, and the new Licence Duty to carry on the licence till 10th October next year will become payable. We have had an announcement from the Postmaster-General that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to make a rearrangement of the payments in connection with the duty, and therefore under my proposal there would be no overlapping. It is obvious that if you ask from these people within a short period such an enormous sum as the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees they will be called upon to pay, you ought to show a certain amount of generosity and give them reasonable breathing time in which to find the money. Many great corporations have in their possession an aggregation of these licences, and, having pledged practically the whole of their security to their deben

ture-holders, are not in a position to raise money to pay the tax. It is a different matter in the case of single licence-holders who may possibly manage to find the money. I beg to move.


The hon. Member cannot move his Amendment in the same line as that upon which the Committee have just divided, as we have already decided that the words shall remain in.

Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER moved, after the word "period" ["for the period during which the licence has been in force"] to insert the words, "since the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten."

This Amendment deals with the Scottish case. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. G. Cave) has stated that the Scottish licence-holders have obtained an exceptional advantage from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt owing to the arguments which I have used. I am afraid I cannot claim that credit. In this particular case I am asking the privilege of a further extension. They are to be asked to pay the retrospective duty from 1st. January. I now ask that they should pay it only from 1st March. I beg to move.

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 320.

Division No. 65.] AYES. [10.30 p.m.
Adam, Major William A. Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Beresford, Lord Charles Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Bird, Alfred Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Ashley, Wilfred W. Boyton, James Clive, Percy Archer
Attenborough, Walter Annis Brackenbury, Henry Langton Coates, Major Edward F.
Bagot, Captain J. Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury) Colefax, Henry Arthur
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Bridgeman, William Clive Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)
Balcarres, Lord Brotherton, Edward Allen Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)
Baldwin, Stanley Bull, Sir William James Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Burdett-Coutts, William Courthope, George Loyd
Banner, John S. Harmood- Butcher, John George (York) Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.) Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Barnston, Harry Calley, Col. Thomas C. P. Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Carlile, Edward Hildred Craik, Sir Henry
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.) Castlereagh, Viscount Crean, Eugene
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Cator, John Dairymple, Viscount
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Cautley, Henry Strother Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)
Beckett, Hon. William Gervase Cave, George Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven) Pollock, Ernest Murray
Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow) Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Pretyman, Ernest George
Duke, Henry Edward Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Proby, Col. Douglas James
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Kerry, Earl of Quilter, William Eley C.
Faber, George D. (Clapham) Keswick, William Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Kimber, Sir Henry Rankin, Sir James
Falle, Bertram Godfray King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Fell, Arthur Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Finlay, Sir Robert Kirkwood, John H. M. Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Remnant, James Farquharson
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Knott, James Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Fleming, Valentine Lane-Fox, G. R. Ridley, Samuel Forde
Fletcher, John Samuel Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Forster, Henry William Lawson, Hon. Harry Rolleston, Sir John
Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft) Lee, Arthur Hamilton Ronaldshay, Earl of
Gardner, Ernest Lewisham, Viscount Rothschild, Lionel de
Llewelyn, Venables Royds, Edmund
Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Rutherford, William Watson
Gibbs, George Abraham Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Gilhooly, James Lockwood, Rt. Hon, Lt.-Col. A. R. Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Gilmour, Captain John Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Sanders, Robert Arthur
Goldman, Charles Sydney Lonsdale, John Brownlee Sanderson, Lancelot
Goldsmith, Frank Lowe, Sir F. W (Birn. Edgbaston) Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Gooch, Henry Cubitt Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Gordon, John Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Goulding, Edward Alfred MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Greene, Walter Raymond Mackinder, Halford J. Stanier, Beville
Gretton, John Macmaster, Donald Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Guiney, Patrick M'Arthur, Charles Starkey, John Ralph
Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward M'Calmont, Colonel James Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Magnus, Sir Philip Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)
Haddock, George B. Mallaby-Deeley, Harry Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)
Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Mason, James F. Strauss, Arthur
Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Sykes, Alan John
Hambro, Angus Valdemar Mildmay, Francis Bingham Talbot, Lord Edmund
Hamersley, Alfred St. George Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Mitchell, William Foot Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney) Morpeth, Viscount Thynne, Lord Alexander
Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.) Morrison, Captain James A. Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.) Mount, William Arthur Tullibardine, Marquess of
Healy, Timothy Michael Newdegate, F. A. N. Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Heath, Col. Arthur Howard Newman, John R. P. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Helmsley, Viscount Newton, Harry Kottingham Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Nield, Herbert Wheler, Granville C. H.
Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) White, Maj. G. D. (Lane. Southport)
Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) O'Brien, William (Cork) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Hills, John Walter (Durham) O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Hope, Harry (Bute) Paget, Almeric Hugh Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Parkes, Ebenezer Yerburgh, Robert
Horner, Andrew Long Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Hume-Williams, William Ellis Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)
Hunt, Rowland Perkins, Walter Frank TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Peto, Basil Edward
Abraham, William Bethell, Sir John Henry Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Addison, Dr. Christopher Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Clancy, John Joseph
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Black, Arthur W. Clough, William
Agnew, George William Boland, John Pius Clynes, John R.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Bowerman, Charles W. Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)
Alden, Percy Brace, William Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Allen, Charles Peter Brady, Patrick Joseph Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)
Armitage, Robert Brigg, Sir John Compton-Rickett, Sir J.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Brocklehurst, William B. Condon, Thomas Joseph
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Bryce, John Annan Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Burke, E. Haviland- Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Burns, Rt. Hon. John Cory, Sir Clifford John
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Cowan, William Henry
Barclay, Sir Thomas Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Crawshay-Williams, Eliot
Barnes, George N Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Crosfield, Arthur H.
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) Byles, William Pollard Crossley, Sir William J.
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) Cameron, Robert Cullinan, John
Barry, Edward (Cork, S.) Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Barton, William Chancellor, Henry George Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Channing, sir Francis Allston Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Bentham, George Jackson Chapple, Dr. William Allen Dawes, James Arthur
Delany, William Leach, Charles Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Lehmann, Rudolf C. Robinson, Sidney
Devlin, Joseph Levy, Sir Maurice Robson Sir William Snowden
Dilke, Rt. Hon Sir Charles Lewis, John Herbert Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Dillon, John Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T. Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Donelan, Captain A. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Roche, John (Galway, East)
Doris, William Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Roe, Sir Thomas
Duffy, William J. Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Rowntree, Arnold
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lundon, Thomas Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Edwards, Enoch Lynch, Arthur Alfred Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Elverston, Harold Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Scanlan, Thomas
Esslemont, George Birnie MacVeagh, Jeremiah Schwann, Sir Charles E.
Falconer, James M'Callum, Join M. Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Farrell, James Patrick McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Seddon, James A.
Ferens, Thomas Robinson Manfield, Harry Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro Markham, Arthur Basil Shackleton, David James
Ffrench, Peter Marks, George Croydon Shaw, Sir Charles Edward
Field, William Martin, Joseph Sheehy David
Masterman, C. F. G. Shortt, Edward
Flavin, Michael Joseph Meagher, Michael Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Median, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Snowden, Philip
Gelder, Sir William Alfred Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) Soames Arthur Wellesley
Gibbins, F. W. Menzies, Sir Walter Soares, Ernest Joseph
Gibson, James Puckering Middlebrook, William Spicer, Sir Albert
Gill, Alfred Henry Millar, James Duncan Stanley Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Glanville, Harold James Molloy, Michael Strachey, Sir Edward
Glover, Thomas Molteno, Percy Alport Summers, James Woolley
Greenwood, Granville George Mond, Alfred Moritz Sutherland, John E.
Grenfell, Cecil Alfred Montagu, Hon. E. S. Sutton, John E.
Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey) Mooney, John J. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Taylor, Theodore C. (Redcliffe)
Gulland, John William Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Tennant, Harold John
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Hackett, John Muldoon, John Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Muspratt, Max Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Nannetti, Joseph P. Thomas, James Henry (Derby)
Hancock, John George Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Nolan, Joseph Toulmin, George
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Norton, Capt. Cecil W. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Nuttall, Harry Twist, Henry
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Ure, R. Hon. Alexander
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Verney Frederick William
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Vivian, Henry
Harwood, George O'Doherty, Philip Wadsworth, John
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) O'Dowd, John Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Ogden, Fred Walsh, Stephen
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Grady, James Walters, John Tudor
Haworth, Arthur A. O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Walton, Joseph
Hazleton, Richard O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Helme, Norval Watson O'Malley, William Wardle, George J.
Hemmerde, Edward George O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Waring, Walter
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Henry, Charles Solomon O'Shee, James John Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) Palmer, Godfrey Mark Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Higham, John Sharp Parker, James (Halifax) Waterlow, David Sydney
Hindie, Frederick George Pearce, William Watt, Henry A.
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Pearson, Weetman H. M. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Hodge, John Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Holt, Richard Durning Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) White, J Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Hooper, Arthur George Phillips, John (Longford, S.) White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Whitehouse, John Howard
Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Pirie, Duncan V. Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pointer, Joseph Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Hudson, Walter Pollard, Sir George H. Wiles, Thomas
Hughes, Spencer Leigh Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Wilkie, Alexander
Illingworth, Percy H. Power, Patrick Joseph Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)
Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Johnson, William Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Primrose, Hon. Neil James Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Pringle, William M. R. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Radford, George Heynes Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Raffan, Peter Wilson Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)
Jowett, Frederick William Raphael, Herbert Henry Winfrey Richard
Joyce, Michael Rea, Walter Russell Wing, Thomas
Keating, Matthew Reddy, Michael Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Kelly, Edward Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Kemp, Sir George Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Young, William (Perth, East)
Kettle, Thomas Michael Rees, John David Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Kilbride, Denis Rendall, Athelstan
King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Richards, Thomas
Lambert, George Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

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

And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th April, left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Bill reported; as amended, considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 18th April; to be read the Third time to-morrow (Wednesday).