§ Every duty payable under Part II. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, on any licence for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquor (including every duty imposed by way of a minimum charge) shall be reduced by an amount equal to eight and a-half per cent. of that duty.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move this Clause, standing in my name. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget he pledged himself to limit the charge upon the trade generally to £2,100,000 beyond the sum they were paying at that time. In the course of the Debate we had a further splitting up of that sum, and a practical pledge given by the present Postmaster-General, who was in charge of the Licensing Clauses, that the amount to be taken from the on and off-licence holders was intended to be £1,600,000, and when the new register was completed the total yield from that particular source was to be £1,500,000, and no more. It has not been possible to complete the register, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said there was no immediate or probable prospect of it being done. A register which was to have been completed within a few months has not yet been completed, and charges amounting on an average to £420,000 a year have been taken out of the on and off-licence holders more than the amount which he pledged himself should not be exceeded. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say, "I wanted £2,100,000." I think he calculates he is only getting £1,750,000, and the actual sum from clubs is £220,000. But I do not think he has any business, in dealing with various classes of licences, to make one class pay for the shortage in another. I put it moderately, that the actual excess taken from licence holders was 11 per cent., but to allow for certain adjustment I claim 8½ per cent. only. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is under a perfectly definite pledge. I admit it was given in connection with the new basis for assessment; but the right hon. Gentleman, entirely through his own fault, has been unable to produce the promised register. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will refuse to accept my Clause. But in so doing he will be extremely unfair and unjust to the 2804 trade which ought not to be punished because Clause 44 of the Budget has proved to be unworkable, or because the Inland Revenue failed to carry out the instructions embodied in that Clause: it ought not to be punished because a foolish circular was issued, as a result of which the register is in embryo. I take it the right hon. Gentleman admits the Government is under a pledge in this matter, if not I will quote speeches to prove it.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Baronet is practically asking for a reduction of £400,000 in the Licence Duties. In the first place I am afraid I cannot afford it in the present year, and I am not sure if I could there might not be a demand which would appeal more to the bulk of Members of this House than that. The hon. Baronet seeks to fasten on the Government a pledge that the aggregate amount of duty which was to be extracted from the licensed trade—on and off—was to be £1,600,000, including the duty from clubs. My recollection of what was said during the passage of the Budget through the House of Commons was that I expected to get from the licensed trade £2,100,000. I went beyond that in deputations which I received from the licensed trade. I said that if they did not care for this Schedule, if they submitted another Schedule which would return £2,100,000 I should be perfectly prepared to accept it. I never asked for more than that. The hon. Baronet agrees that substantially that is the amount we have received—I think it is about £170,000 above that. It is not by any means finally settled, because there are one or two questions which have to be settled again, and we shall probably make a return to some of the larger holders of licensed property. The hon. Baronet says that the Postmaster-General split up that amount, and confined this pledge to the on-and-off licence trade. I think he is rather stretching what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion, and the explanation he gave as to the sources from which the sum would be derived. He is rather straining that to a pledge. My right hon. Friend undoubtedly did say that the sum of money we expected to get from the on-and-off licence trade was £1,600,000, and that the remainder of the £2,100,000 we expected to get from other sources. As a matter of fact it has turned out that the £500,000 is down to £333,000, and the £1,600,000 is up to something less than £2,000,000, but the aggregate is pretty near the sum which I then stated 2805 we expected to get from the licensed trade.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe right hon. Gentleman must not forget that the Postmaster-General could not help himself. He was dealing with the registered licence value. He had to split up the sum; he had no other resource.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat was the occasion on which he undoubtedly did split it up into £500,000 and £1,600,000. I quite accept what the hon. Baronet says, for he has never misled me or the House. I understand that what the Postmaster-General said on that occasion was that when we came to the re-valuation, which we had hoped might be ready in the course of a few months, that then the total sum we hoped to get out of the licensed trade was £1,600,000—
§ Sir G. YOUNGERHe said not substantially greater.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat was in the event of there being a revaluation of the licensed houses. The hon. Baronet said he would not go into the question of why there would not be a revaluation. He must recognise that it is not the fault of the Government. There is nothing we should more prefer than that we should have a general revaluation. The fact is that it suits one part of the licensed trade and not another; it suits the London houses, but not the provincial houses. That is the reason why we have been utterly unable to get any sort of co-operation from the trade in this matter, and it is a very difficult thing to do without that. I should be very glad indeed if it were possible to do it, because I am sure it is the best method of raising the money. But I cannot enter into that now. I am sorry I cannot see my way to give the trade the very substantial reduction the hon. Baronet has asked for.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINHaving regard to what passed during the Budget discussions of 1909, I think the trade has a substantial grievance against the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that he will neither accept the Amendment nor propose any alternative of his own. I do not think really, although the words of the Postmaster-General were very definite and explicit, that the matter rests wholly on the words of the Postmaster-General.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThey were not very explicit.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think they were explicit enough for a Minister's 2806 word. Under the circumstances whatever the Postmaster-General said must be regarded as the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of a very arduous Budget, found it necessary, or thought it right, to depute a certain portion of the work to his colleague. It was not as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to be present in the House to correct any statement made on the occasion if it could give rise to misunderstanding. He left the Bill in charge of a colleague, and while that colleague was in charge his words were the binding words for the Government. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said something very like it as far back as the Budget statement of that year. He said:—
It may well be, however, that it will have the effect of so considerably raising the whole level of the contribution required by the publican as to make it appeal oppressive.That is not the level of contribution of the trade but of the publican, and therefore refers specifically to the on and off licences.In that case we undertake, when the valuation is complete, to reconsider the whole scale in the light of the more accurate and scientific figures which have been secured by the operation of this new assessment.The Chancellor of the Exchequer pleads in mitigation of any charge we bring against him now that the new valuation is not complete and that it is incomplete, not owing to any laches of the Government, but owing to differences of opinion amongst the trade. No doubt there are different interests in the trade. There almost always are in any trade. But I do not accept that explanation of the Government not having arrived at a new valuation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would have one. He issued an inquiry which it would have puzzled even a revenue officer, if he had been converted into a publican, to fill up correctly. If he would take the trade more into his confidence he might be able to complete his valuation, but if he cannot complete his valuation that does not relieve him of his pledge. He announced to the House that the valuation would be completed in two or three months. The belief which he held communicated itself to the House, and they accepted it, I do not say as wholly satisfactory, but they were obliged to accept, as the best they could get, his assurance that if within a few months the think was proved to be wrong he would set it right. It was to be proved right or wrong by a valuation. If the Government cannot make the valuation for any 2807 reason whatever it really is the Chancellor's business to find some way of redeeming his pledge. That the present system is not satisfactory I think the Chancellor himself would acknowledge. The inequalities of the distribution of the new burden are very curious. He estimated an increase of £1,600,000 for the whole trade. That works out at an increase of 82 per cent over the whole country. How is that distributed? In the case of London, as I am informed, the increase is 205 per cent. In the rest of England, excluding London and the eleven principal cities for which separate figures were given in the Return that the right hon. Gentleman granted to me, the figure is 86 per cent. When you take England as a whole, including these big cities, it is 114 per cent.; Wales, 92 per cent.; Scotland, 51 per cent.; and Ireland, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured us there was no differentiation, 11 per cent. It is at least open to suspicion that the Government, which can never get through a Division without the support of hon. Members below the Gangway, should have framed a scheme which professes to distribute equally all round, but raises London 205, and England as a whole 114, and allows Ireland off with an increase of 11 per cent. Under these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that the publicans in England consider that they have a real grievance against him, and that it is his duty, if he cannot accept the proposal of my hon. Friend, at least to make some advance towards meeting it, and towards, I will not say giving them back that which they have over-contributed in the past, but towards relieving them of the excess of burden in future.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEPerhaps I may be allowed to say a word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. If the valuation had been delayed through any fault of ours, and if the trade had done their very best to help us along, then I agree that there would be very good ground for the right hon. Gentleman to say that although we are adhering to the letter of the promise, we are breaking it in the spirit. But they have not. The Government were exceedingly anxious to find this new basis of valuation, and if they had been able to do so, they would have redressed what the right hon. Gentleman has been pointing out. There is no doubt that it is 2808 bearing heavily on the publicans of London for exactly the same reason that it is bearing lightly on Ireland. It is because the increase was in the higher class of public houses as far as annual value was concerned. So far as houses known as village public houses were concerned there was even a reduction of 10s. As the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, it does not apply where rates of value were very low. The class of houses known as village public houses is exactly the class you have in Ireland. There are very few public houses in Ireland valued at over £100.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that public houses in Dublin are assessed in exactly the same way as public houses in London?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEAs to that, I could not say at the moment. Let us assume for the moment that they are not; the difference would be a very small one in Ireland, for the simple reason that we get our money by increasing the charge on public houses over a certain rental. We have said to the publicans: "If you supply us with information to form the basis for a new valuation, we will proceed instantly with the new valuation." We sent out forms. They might be too minute. It may be said, "You asked information which no publican can supply. It is impossible to go into all these details, but if you ask such and such information we will supply you with that." The hon. Member (Mr. Gretton), at a meeting of his company, discouraged the supplying of information. They cannot complain that the Government have broken their pledges when they could easily have put it in our power to redeem those pledges, and they cannot say, "We propose to compel you to redeem a pledge which is dependent on the new valuation." The moment they are prepared to supply us with information we shall make the new valuation which will redress the grievance to which the right hon. Gentleman pointed, a grievance not as between the revenue and the trade, but as between certain localities, certain brewery companies, and others, and between one class of publican and another. The moment that is done we shall be prepared, not merely to redeem our pledge as we are bound to do, but we are anxious to do it because it will be the more equitable basis of taxing the trade, and it will be taxing them upon the business they are 2809 doing and not merely upon the size of the house.
§ Mr. GRETTONThe right hon. Gentleman has made a statement for which there is no foundation whatever, that I said at a public meeting of the company with which I am connected—
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It was at the Licensed Victuallers' Asylum.
§ Mr. GRETTONThe right hon. Gentleman forgets that he is bound by Statute, and the basis of his valuation is laid down in the Budget for which he himself is responsible, and which was passed into law in April, 1910, and the form issued must be that which the Statute prescribes. The form when issued was of such a kind that no ordinary publican had the information required. The excuse which the right hon. Gentleman offers will not deceive anyone whatsoever. He has extracted from the licensed trade £442,000 more than the amount which he himself estimated, and to which he led this House and the country to believe that he intended to tax the trade when he passed the Budget. This is a very serious matter. It is no use for him to say that the total tax put on the licensed trade, manufacturers, brewers, distillers, dealers, and retail trade, was only £175,000 more. It has turned out to be only £175,000 more than he himself expected. But the distribution of this amount is of vast importance to the people who have to pay. We were told that the contribution from manufacturers was £400,000. They are paying this year about £385,000, practically the amount that was required. The clubs which were expected to pay £100,000, are paying only £53,000. They arte, therefore, short of what was required. But there was a great falling off in the amount estimated to be raised from the distillers' licences and from dealers' licences, and the whole of that amount comes back on the unfortunate retailer, and he not only finds the whole amount deficient owing to the false Estimates which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in other directions, but he is actually paying an excess on the total sum.
That is the grievance. We claim that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to do his best to redeem the fault he has committed, and which he has pledged himself to remedy at the earliest possible moment. It is useless to say that he will do so when he has got a new valuation; 2810 he has set up the basis of valuation. He talks about the difference between town and country. There is no difference. Everybody in the trade has got a grievance, and the only people who have not got a grievance are the Irish. I recollect that the Irish retail trade was represented in this House by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), and he spoke of the burden which oppressed the retail trade in Ireland. The result was that he persuaded the right hon. Gentleman and the House to accept the Amendment that Griffiths' valuation should be adopted instead of the valuation proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget. Small houses in Ireland now practically escape without any increase of taxation whatsoever, and they are exactly in the same position as before—in fact some are paying less. The only houses that are paying more are some of the larger houses in the larger towns of Ireland, which contribute whatever extra amount is raised in Ireland under the right hon. Gentleman's Budget. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt unfairly and unjustly with the licensed trade. He started a campaign to attack the trade, and he was going to make them smart.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWill the hon. Gentleman say when I said that I would make them smart? I never said so.
§ Mr. GRETTONI do not say the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, but his supporters said it, and the right hon. Gentleman did not reprove or rebuke them. I maintain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer owes us reparation, in view of the enormous revenue he has taken from the trade. He talks of the continued prosperity of the country, and surely he can afford to do justice to a hardly used and a very oppressed trade in this country. I am surprised that the Government should go back on their pledges, and it is only just that they should return the money which the right hon. Gentleman's representative in the Department said the Government ought not to take. I heartily support the Amendment.
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSIt is not true to say that the Government in 1909 were dealing with £1,600,000 from the trade. Over and over again they have said in answer to questions that they were not in a position to allocate to any particular class of licences the sum which they were going to raise. They declared that the 2811 £2,100,000 could not be allocated to any one particular class of licences. They did not bind themselves to this particular amount. Secondly, I think the hon. Member has rather forgotten that this offer which was made to him was absolutely rejected. The hon. Member said, in the speech which has been referred to, that the object of the new valuation was to pry into private affairs in order to find out how to tax the trade further. He told the trade that he and his Friends had been quite right not to accept the invitation of the Chancellor to help him in his new valuation. On that the National Trade Defence Committee passed a resolution, saying that it was inopportune that the trade should officially recommend or support this new basis of valuation Therefore the offer was made to the trade and rejected by the trade, and the responsibility for rejecting this new system of valuation rests with the trade itself, and not with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI cannot allow the hon. Gentleman's speech to go without a reply. I have no doubt it is true that my hon. Friend made the remarks, but that is what called forth the Postmaster-General's pledge. Let me quote what the right hon. Gentleman said on 2nd September, 1909:—
I am aware that what is in the mind of hon. Members opposite is that we want to get this new compensation basis because we believe that it may produce more than the annual value, and that, consequently, this Sub-section is in intention a weapon for getting a higher sum out of the trade than would otherwise he obtained. This Sub-section, it is thought, is not merely a question of valuation, not merely a question of getting a fair basis of your taxation, but it is to be used as a means of getting more taxation out of the trade than would otherwise be obtained. That is not the intention of the Government, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never advanced any such argument. Therefore, if it is found that the new valuation so raises the general basis of valuation of the trade that
§ to apply the same rates would amount to a substantial burden, then the rates will be modified. … It is not intended to be a vehicle of extracting any burdensome taxation from the trade, and I hope, in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said and my assurance, the discussion will be conducted on that basis."
§ Could anything be more specific and distinct than that, and the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) knows it perfectly well.
§ Mr. CASSELI wish to say a word from the point of view of a London Member. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admits that this injustice weighs particularly heavily on London, and it weighs in London, not only upon the licence holders, but upon the ratepayers, because the result has been in London of these heavy Licence Duties to knock down rateable value by over £350,000. For the first time in the history of London, since the Metropolis Valuation Act on the quinquennial valuation the rateable value of London has actually fallen. The result is that the other ratepayers have got to make up the deficiency. The Chancellor admits the injustice, but says that the injustice would have been remedied through a new basis of valuation being arrived at within three months. Now year after year goes by, and the new basis of valuation has not yet been arrived at, and how much longer is the injustice to continue. I should like some statement as to whether he is going to meet this admitted grievance of the London ratepayers. It looks to me as if this promise is going to be fulfilled possibly this year, possibly next year, and possibly sometime, or never at all.
§ Question put, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 198.
2815| Division No. 199.] | AYES. | [11.5 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Beresford, Lord Charles | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue | Dalrymple, Viscount |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Denniss, E. R. B. |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Boyton, James | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Du Cros, Arthur Philip |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Bridgeman, William Clive | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Balcarres, Lord | Bull, Sir William James | Eyres-Monsell, Molton M. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Faber, George D. (Clapham) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Falle, Bertram Godfray |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Campion, W. R. | Fell, Arthur |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Cassel, Felix | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. |
| Barnston, H. | Castlereagh, Viscount | Fleming, Valentine |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Cautley, Henry Strother | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Foster, Philip Staveley |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Gibbs, George Abraham |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish | Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Magnus, Sir Philip | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Grant, J. A. | Malcolm, Ian | Sandys, G. J. |
| Greene, Walter Raymond | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Sassoon, Sir Philip |
| Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Stanier, Beville |
| Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Haddock, George Bahr | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Newdegate, F. A. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Newman, John R. P. | Swift, Rigby |
| Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Harris, Henry Percy | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Nield, Herbert | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Parkes, Ebenezer | Touche, George Alexander |
| Hickman, Col. Thomas E. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Walker, Colonel William Hall |
| Hill, Sir Clement L. | Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Hills, John Waller | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Perkins, Walter Frank | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Peto, Basil Edward | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Winterton, Earl of |
| Jessel, Captain H. M. | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Quilter, Sir William Eley C. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Kerry, Earl of | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Kyffin-Taylor, G. | Rees, Sir J. D. | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Larmor, Sir J. | Remnant, James Farquharson | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Lewisham, Viscount | Rolleston, Sir John | |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Ronaldshay, Earl of | |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Royds, Edmund | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Macmaster, Donald | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | G. Younger and Mr. Gretton. |
| McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Salter, Arthur Clavell | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Ffrench, Peter | Lundon, Thomas |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Field, William | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Armitage, Robert | Fitzgibbon, John | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | McGhee, Richard |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Gill, A. H. | Maclean, Donald |
| Barnes, George N. | Glanville, H. J. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Beck, Arthur | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Bentham, G. J. | Greig, Colonel James William | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hackett, J. | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Boland, John Pius | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hancock, John George | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Bower man, C. W. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Brace, William | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Molloy, Michael |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Mooney, John J. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Morrell, Philip |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Morison, Hector |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Hayden, John Patrick | Muldoon, John |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hayward, Evan | Munro, Robert |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hemmerde, Edward George | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Clough, William | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Clynes, John R. | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Higham, John Sharp | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hinds, John | Nolan, Joseph |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hodge, John | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Crooks, William | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hudson, Walter | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Cullinan, J. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Dowd, John |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | O'Grady, James |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Dawes, J. A. | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Delany, William | Jones, Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Malley, William |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Dillon, John | Jowett, Frederick William | O'Shee, James John |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Joyce, Michael | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Duffy, William J. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master | Kilbride, Denis | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lansbury, George | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Lewis, John Herbert | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Roe, Sir Thomas | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Rowlands, James | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Primrose, Hon. Nell James | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wadsworth, John |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel) | Wardle, George J. |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Scanlan, Thomas | Webb, H. |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Reddy, Michael | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Sheehy, David | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Shortt, Edward | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.) | Younger, Sir George |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Tennant, Harold John | |
| Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I make this Motion with a view to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to make a statement. It is, of course, inconvenient to have to discuss these very important matters at this late period of the Session. It has led to a certain amount of communication between the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I understand that the Chancellor is prepared to accept certain of the Amendments on the Paper if thereby he can facilitate the passage of the Bill. In order that the Chancellor may make his statement, and say what he is prepared to offer, and that the Committee may be in full possession of the information, I desire to move.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWith the permission of the Committee, I will explain the Amendments that the Government are prepared to accept. The first Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Faversham (Mr. Wheler) and deals with timber. It is a very important matter. I promised last year to consider this, but I could not afford it last year. It gives a substantial concession in respect to timber upon estates. The next Amendment is that in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger), and it deals with the distribution of payments on account of licence duties in certain cases. The next is also in the name of the hon. Baronet, and provides for the reduction of duty in case of Sunday and early closing. The next is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) and deals with the stamping of policies of sea insurance which are subject to contingent increases of premium. The next Amendment is also in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member 2816 for Ayr Burghs and deals with allowance of rates paid by the proprietor in estimating rental value for the purposes of Mineral Rights Duty. There is a discrimination in the Budget of 1909–10 as against Scottish royalty owners. They are charged more than English and Welsh royalty I owners are charged, and this Amendment puts them on exactly the same footing as the royalty owners in England and Wales. The next two Amendments are those standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel). It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the charge of Super-tax in the case of death, with which the first of these two I Amendments deals, was discussed at a previous sitting of the Committee. I promised to consider the matter, and to see whether it would be possible to devise an Amendment within the Rules of Order. The first of these two Amendments with regard to Super-tax does not increase the charge; it involves a reduction. Then comes the second Amendment (substituted site value, extension of benefit), and this we discussed at some length on Friday. There was a question as to whether the acceptance of the Amendment would put the Bill outside the category of a Money Bill. I am satisfied it would not, and after consultation with my advisers I am prepared to accept this I Amendment in a modified form, and I must ask the hon. and learned Member to accept it in the form submitted to him by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, and I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied to do so. Then there are some drafting Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee). These are the Amendments we are prepared to accept.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAs regards the slight alteration which the right hon. Gentleman proposes in the 2817 Amendment of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Wheler), I have asked him to consult the advisers of the Government about it. I am a little in doubt about the introduction of the word "underwood" and I do not think it should appear. The concession on the question of timber is a substantial and valuable one for which my hon. Friends have pressed for three or four years and to which we attach great importance. The other concessions which the right hon. Gentleman offers are of varying degrees of value. They are not all we should like, but they are obviously all that, under the circumstances, we can hope to get. They affect the licensed trade, mineral rights, a small proportion of the shipping insurance world, the Super-tax and site value. They are fairly well spread over the different interests which are represented in the Budget, and, under all the circumstances, I think that we should be well advised on this side of the Committee to take the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman has offered us, as a result of prolonged and rather severe negotiations, rather than fight the matter out to the bitter end, when we should get none of these concessions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must understand that while we undertake to use our best endeavours to bring the Debate to an early conclusion, my hon. Friends are not to be precluded from moving Amendments not accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer making what defence they think necessary and taking a division upon them. There are some Amendments "which must clearly be divided upon. The obligation he asked us to undertake is that we do our best if these concessions are made to us to facilitate the early closing of this discussion, and on those terms I think it is a bargain which we on this side would do well to accept.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDIn my experience of two or three Parliaments I have noticed several bargains made between the two Front Benches, and I do not remember one of them in which the public interest has not suffered. I do not recall one where the interests of the public have been treated worse than in the bargain announced to-night. There is scarcely one of the points enumerated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as acceptable proposed by hon. Members opposite that we have not sat up year after year for the purpose of resisting because the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were satisfied that they contained vitals princi- 2818 pals connected with what was known as the great Budget of 1909. Now just because there is a possibility of an all-night sitting and it may be the carrying of the business of the House over another fortnight, things for which we have struggled and fought and stood for on public platforms are being whittled away by a bargain between the two Front Benches. So far as I am concerned, I do not think the business will be accelerated so much as some hon. Gentlemen imagine. No one on this side of the House ever anticipated such drastic concessions were going to be made to an Opposition. At any rate, so far as I am concerned, I make my protest against what has been done to-night. It is whittling away the main features of the Budget for which we contended three or four years ago, and if there is no one else who will vote against it, I shall do so.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMay I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to meet his friends on this side of the House and to accept the Amendments they have put down. We have two Amendments on the Paper dealing with valuation which are of very great importance.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWhen they are reached I hope to show how they come within the scope of the Bill. They have been redrafted. I should like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to meet those if they are found to be in order. I should like to know further whether he has considered the effect of the Amendment referring to timber which he has given notice he is prepared to accept. It seems to me it is an Amendment which may very seriously affect the collection of Death Duties, and, after all, the valuation of land under the Budget of 1909–10 has greatly facilitated the collection of the Death Duties.
The CHAIRMANI do not think we ought to discuss the merits of that Amendment on the Motion to report Progress. If the hon. Member will allow the Motion to be withdrawn, we shall be on the question in a few minutes.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMay I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to my question about the Amendment I have on the Paper?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI had gathered that my hon. Friend's Amendments were out of order, and I did not take the same care to examine them when I discovered there was no possibility of their being discussed as I certainly should otherwise. My hon. Friend proposes to submit some considerations to the Chairman, and I do not think I can say anything more until they come on later.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMMy hon. Friend has run away from his Amendment with reference to the Sugar Tax, but when these Clauses are all finished I shall claim to move it as a new Clause. I have always voted against the tax, and intend to do so this year.
§ Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.