§ Where the boundaries of any borough are extended or the boundaries of a new borough are fixed so as to include any previously existing borough or urban or rural district, or part thereof, the original borough and the included or partly included boroughs and urban or rural districts, as previously existing, shall be deemed to be separate areas for the purpose of determining the minimum duties payable for publicans and beerhouse licences under Scale 3 in the First Schedule to The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, for such period, not exceeding fifteen years, as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may determine, having regard to the extent to which the amount of any business carried on in fully-licensed premises and beerhouses situate in any of those areas is, or is likely to be, affected by the inclusion 2286 of the areas within one borough. And during the same period the closing hours prescribed by The Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, shall remain the same for licensed premises in any of the said boroughs or districts as they would have been if those boroughs and districts had not been included within one borough. I should like formally to move this now because it is the only possible chance of moving a Clause of this kind at all.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOn a point of Order. This is substantially the point dealt with yesterday on the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield. It is the question of the extension of borough boundaries, and its effect on the Licence Duties. That was discussed yesterday, and I thought it was disposed of then.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERIt is not exactly the same point.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have no knowledge of what occurred in Committee. The fact that it was discussed in Committee would not preclude it from being discussed upon Report, although there may be, on the merits, no good reason for accepting it.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI do not intend to make a speech upon it, but I think the Clause the right hon. Gentleman has in the Bill does not in any way meet the case. Other Members have serious cases to bring forward, notably that of Birmingham, where the minimum duty is put up from £20 to £30. Already it is a very heavy burden, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to say something on that.
§ Mr. GRETTONI beg to second the Motion. This matter arose on the Revenue Bill in the case of one borough represented by a Member of the Government. The Government admitted that case, saying that that borough was different from all other boroughs in the country, and that special provisions should apply to Dewsbury only. We on this side took objection to a very proper principle being applied to only one borough, which happened to be represented by a Member of the Government. The Government then withdrew their Clause. There is a great and real hardship in the case of an arbitrary extension of a boundary without any reference at all to the licensed trade. In many cases the values of the licensed houses are supposed to be raised, and in some cases nearly doubled. As a matter of fact, there 2287 is no greater trade done in the house, yet those premises are taxed, on a larger scale of minimum duties because for municipal purposes the borough boundaries are extended.
We suggest that the hardship which the Government admitted in the case of Dewsbury should not be inflicted upon other districts where borough boundaries are extended. There should be a period of grace during which matters should continue upon the footing which while the licensed houses were supposed to be within a rural district, was considered quite adequate. The matter might then be reconsidered, and by that time the House of Commons, I hope, will be universally convinced that the scale of minimum duties which is involved in the extension of borough boundaries into rural districts is entirely unjustifiable by any process of reason or justice or equity, and that it is a device adopted by the Government to provide more revenue and increased Licence Duties, and if possible in some cases reduce the number of licences by taxing them out of existence. There never was any adequate pretence made of justifying the procedure that this Clause proposes to modify.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI cannot agree that there is not an increase in trade. The reason for the extension of the boundaries is the growth of the population which has become an essential part of the borough. Instead of being a rural area with a scattered population they suddenly find themselves part of the town with increased population, but no increase in the number of licences. Having got the benefit of the incorporation of the town, I do not think
§ it is unfair, as the municipal corporations profit by getting the rates upon them, that the Imperial Exchequer should share the general advantage.
Mr. NEWDEGATEI represent a place called Urdington, which has lately been added to Birmingham. It has a population of 16,368 people. A year ago it had to pay a minimum rate of licensed victuallers £20, and beerhouses £13 a year. Through being added to Greater Birmingham they now pay licensed victuallers £35 a year and beerhouses £23 10s. a year. The right hon. Gentleman says that the reason these places were added to cities is because they are being built upon. That is true to a certain extent, but in this particular district while certain districts are being built upon others are not, and it is a very great hardship. In these places there are only forty licensed houses, which is not a very large proportion. Fourteen have full licences, three have beer on licences, and twenty-three have beer off licences. I do say that certainly in the rural parts recently added to the city of Birmingham it is a very great hardship that these people have to pay these Licence Duties. I know that this question was brought up earlier in the Session. I am sorry I was not here yesterday, but even at the eleventh hour I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what I consider justice to these people. If my hon. Friend goes to a division, I shall certainly support him; I shall have greater pleasure in supporting this proposal than almost any other since I have been a Member of the House.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 138.
2289| Division No. 449.] | AYES. | [12.15 a.m. |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Forster, Henry William | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Gibbs, G. A. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Goldsmith, Frank | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Baird, J. L. | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Grant, J. A. | Mount, William Arthur |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Greene, W. R. | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Gretton, John | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Haddock, George Bahr | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Butcher, John George | Harris, Henry Percy | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Campion, W. R. | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hills, John Waller | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Cassel, Felix | Hoare, S. J. G. | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Kirkwood, J. H. M. | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Dixon, C. H. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Lewisham, Viscount | Swift, Rigby |
| Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Talbot, Lord E. | Wheler, Granville C. H. | |
| Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir George Younger and Mr. Newdegate. |
| Touche, George Alexander | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Gibson, Sir James P. | Norton, Capt. Cecil W. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gill, A. H. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Adamson, William | Gladstone, W. G. C. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Gulland, John William | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Ogden, Fred |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Hackett, J. | O'Shee, James John |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Hancock, John George | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Barton, William | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Black, Arthur W. | Haworth, Sir Arthur A. | Reddy, M. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hayden, John Patrick | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Helme, Norval Watson | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Higham, John Sharp | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Robinson, Sidney |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Hodge, John | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Clough, William | Illingworth, Percy H. | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Clynes, John R. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Shortt, E. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Johnson, W. | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Sutton, John E. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Crumley, Patrick | Keating, M. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molten) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Dawes, J. A. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Doris, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lewis, John Herbert | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Lundon, T. | Webb, H. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | M'Curdy, C. A. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | White, James Dundas (Glasgow) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | M'Laren, Hon. F. S. W. (Lincs., Spalding) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Falconer, James | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Needham, Christopher T. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Guest and Mr. Geoffrey Howard. |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Nolan, Joseph |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. COURTHOPEI beg to move that the following Clause be read a second time:—