§ Where the licensed premises are held under a lease or agreement for lease made before the passing of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which does not contain or import any covenant, agreement, or undertaking on the part of the lessee under such lease or agreement for lease to obtain a supply of intoxicating liquor from the grantor of the lease or agreement for lease, the lessee under such lease or agreement for lease shall be entitled, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, to 2309 recover as a debt due from, or deduct from any sum due to, the grantor of such lease or agreement for lease so much of any increase of the duty payable in respect of the licence under the provisions of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as may be agreed upon as proportionate to any increased rent or premium payable in respect of the premises being let as licensed premises, and, in default of agreement, the amount proportionate to such increased rent or premium shall be determined in manner directed by Rules of Court, by a County Court in England or in Ireland and by a Sheriff Court in Scotland.
§ The words "lease," "leased," "agreement for lease," and "lessee" in this Section include sub-lease, sub-leased, agreement for sub-lease, and sub-lessee, respectively. I have made no bargain with the Government about this Clause. It has had a peculiar history. I moved it in a rather different form, though exactly to the same effect in Committee. We were nearing the end of the proceedings when the Clause was to be taken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was a little bit sick of the whole thing, and asked me, as he had not had time to consider the question very carefully, to postpone it until Report. He thought it was fair and reasonable as it stood, and he wanted to give it due consideration. When the Clause came up on Report, Mr. Speaker ruled that it came within a technical rule, which prevented it being moved, and that it was out of order. The Clause, as I now submit it, is a Clause proposed in the interest of the free tenant, the darling of hon. Members opposite, and the man who has never been the least protected by any of them.
§ I am formally moving this Clause just to show the sort of position we are in regarding the Budget, which has been put off until the last hours of the Session, and is now going through without adequate time for discussion. Had time permitted this Clause would have been accepted, probably in its present form, on the Report stage of the Budget of 1909–10. It was put down on the next Budget—that of 1910—but the Bill was largely dropped. It then appeared in connection with the Revenue Bill, and was guillotined. It appears again to-night, and is going to meet with very much the same reception. This Clause originally was one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought ought to appear in the Budget Bill, but instead of caring for the administration of these affairs the right hon. Gentleman has been 2310 busy legislating in other directions. The consequence is that the free tenant of licensed premises is denied a right which is given to the tied tenant. The latter may recover part of the extra Licence Duty from those who supply him with liquor, but the free tenant is not allowed to recover from a rack-renting landlord a part of the monopoly value which is charged on his rent. I have not the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKinnon Wood), and what I wish to say to-night on the subject is that I shall assuredly bring up the question again on the next Budget Bill. That measure I hope will be introduced and discussed at a time of the year which will give us a decent chance of getting some justice for people whom we desire to protect.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member move?
§ Sir G. YOUNGERNo, Sir, I will not go on with it now.
§ Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. PATRICK WHITEI beg to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:—