Sitting of 4 October 1909

Preamble
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker,
Whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Standing Order.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Army Pensioned Officers' Pay.
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for War, whether, under Article 606 of the Royal Warrant for Pay, etc., 1900, the services of pensioned officers who were re-employed during a war were always to be considered special circumstances under that rule, empowering his Department to withhold retired pay granted to these officers on retirement?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland): Re-employment in war is not one of the special circumstances referred to in Article 606 of the Pay Warrant of 1900 (Article 467 of the Current Warrant).
  Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Member say whether there is any rule or regulation adopted by his Department in the definition of these "Special Circumstances"; for example, does one Secretary of State for War follow in the wake of his predecessor in office as regards their definition?
  Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Member may rely that very great care is exercised by the Department in this matter.

  Pay of Officers of all Ranks.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Secretary for War whether he would take into consideration the advisability of appointing a committee to revise the rates of pay of all officers of all ranks?
  Mr. ACLAND: While my right hon. Friend greatly sympathises with the aim and object of my hon. Friend's question he regrets that at the present time it would not be practicable to carry out his suggestion.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that owing to a recent revision the pay of captains and subalterns in the French Army is actually higher than in the English Army?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that.

  Territorial Force (Artillery Sights).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the batteries of the Territorial Artillery have yet, been supplied with dial sights; and whether all batteries are now in possession of the proper number of plotters and directors as laid down in regulations?
  Mr. ACLAND: The dial sights have not yet been supplied. As the House has already been informed they will not be available until those now being used by the Regulars are released by the supply of new pattern sights for the latter. Directors are being issued to all batteries. As regards plotters a few are still due.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the hon. Member aware that the present dial sights of the Territorial Artillery are made of wood are absolutely useless?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am aware they are made of wood, but they are satisfactory for their purpose.
  Mr. ASHLEY: If I bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman certain proofs, will, he look into the matter?
  Mr. ACLAND: Certainly.

  Troopship Accommodation
  Mr. ASHLEYasked what steps are taken to ensure that on every troopship there are sufficient boats to accommodate everyone on board in the event of fire or shipwreck?
  Mr. ACLAND: This question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Am I to understand the War Office have no responsibility for the safety of the troops on board a troopship?
  Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir; but it is the province of the Admiralty.

  Disbandment of Regiments.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether a date had yet been fixed for the disbandment of the following regiments:—Royal Field Reserve Artillery, South East of Scotland,

  1641
  Devon, Donegal, Dublin City, Durham, Edinburgh, Fife, Forfar and Kincarcardine, Glamorgan, Hampshire, Kent, 1st Lancashire, 2nd Lancashire, Limerick City, Mid-Ulster, Norfolk, Northumberland, Carmarthen, Suffolk, Sussex, Tipperary, Waterford, West of Scotland, Pembroke, Yorkshire, Cardigan, Wicklow, Sligo, Londonderry, Clare, and the Cornwall and Devon Miners; and what steps he intended to take to fill up the blank caused by the destruction of 31 well-trained and efficient regiments in the interest of the defensive strength of the country?
  Mr. ACLAND: No date of final disbandment of these units has been fixed. As regards the last part of the question the scheme for the amalgamation and reduction of the Royal Field Reserve Artillery and the enlistment of three year men for the Regular Royal Artillery who will replace the men of these units, has already been fully explained to the House.

  Territorial Force (One Year Enlistments).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Secretary for War if he could state how many of the Volunteers who joined the Territorial Army for one year prior to 30th June, 1908, extended their service with the Territorial Forces on the expiration of that year, and for how long and for what term of service?
  Mr. ACLAND: Exact figures are not yet available, but it is estimated that of the 108,000 men serving on a one year engagement on 1st October, 1908 (the date on which the returns are made up), 51,000 have re-engaged for one year, 20,000 for more than one year, and 37,000 have left the force.

  Tamil Schools in India.
  Sir HENRY COTTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the immigrant Indian population of the Federated Malay States was 123,000, who are all Tamils from the South of India, and to the fact that the number of Tamil schools in 1908 was only 18, with an average attendance of only 819; and whether special steps are being taken to extend educational facilities for these immigrants?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): My attention has been drawn to the number
  1642
  of Tamil schools in the Federated Malay States as compared with the Indian population of the States. I am not aware that special steps require to be taken to extend educational facilities to the Tamil immigrants, but the Secretary of State has requested the High Commissioner to consider the matter.

  Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Gold Coast (Importation of Spirituous Liquors).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he can state whether negotiations are in progress between the Governments of South Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and the Gold Coast and the French and German West African Governments with reference to a joint agreement on the question of the imports of spirituous liquors; and, if so, whether the said negotiations have some prospect of success?
  Colonel SEELY: Negotiations of the nature described are in progress between the Governments of Southern Nigeria and Dahomey, and between those of the Gold Coast and Togoland, but it is not possible at present to estimate the prospects of success. Any agreement arrived at locally would, of course, have no effect until it had been submitted to, and ratified by, the respective Governments in Europe.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Has the Government committed itself to a policy against the prohibition of the importation of liquor for the natives of Nigeria and the Gold Coast?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not quite understand the hon. Member's question, or how it arises out of the question on the Paper.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Does it not properly arise out of the question on the Paper? My question is, whether the Government has committed itself to a policy against the prohibition of the importation of liquor for sale to the natives of these two provinces?
  Colonel SEELY: Certainly the hon. Member's question does not arise specifically out of the question on the Paper, which is whether negotiations are in progress between the Governments with reference to a joint agreement on the question of the imports of spirituous liquors. It is impossible to answer a question of that kind put as a supplementary question. If I did answer it the hon. Gentleman would be the first to catch me up if I made a slip.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Is the policy of the Government, by means of negotiations, such as those shown in the question, to work towards the policy of prohibition?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir. I can assure the hon. Member I am only too anxious to give all the information I can. It is the intention of the Government to co-operate with other Governments to check the importation of liquor to the natives.

  Barbados Government and Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state if the Government of Barbados, West Indies, has made any claim against the Peruvian Amazon Company, Limited, or their immediate predecessors in title had made any claim against the said company in respect of outrages against certain of His Majesty's subjects; and, if such claim has been made, he will state the nature thereof?
  Captain NORTON (Lord of the Treasury) (for Sir Edward Grey): My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such claim having been made against the Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State if he can state whether any demand has now been made by British directors or shareholders of the Peruvian Amazon Company in respect of the allegations of torture and murder of Indians forced to collect rubber by the servants of the said company or their immediate predecessors in title?
  Captain NORTON: For the present there is nothing to add to the answer returned to the question of the hon. Member and that of the hon. Member for Hackney on the 29th ultimo.

  Post Office Contractor (Farriers' Hours of Work).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he can now state the result of his inquiries concerning the hours of labour of the farriers employed by Messrs. Charles Webster, Limited, mail contractors?
  Captain NORTON (for Mr. Sydney Buxton): The inquiries made by the Board of Trade show that the hours of labour of the farriers employed by Messrs. Chas. Webster, Ltd., are such as fulfil the
  1644
  requirements of the Fair Wages Clause in their contract. My right hon. Friend has, however, already given notice to terminate this contract at the end of next June. Thereafter the contractors will be bound by the conditions of the new Fair Wages Clause, and the farriers they employ will have appreciably shorter hours.

  Night Telephone Service.
  Mr. WATTasked the Postmaster-General, whether he was aware that in most local exchanges of the National Telephone Company in Scotland an operator lived on the premises, slept in the exchange room, roused to every call, and was thus always available day and night; and, if so, whether his Department proposed to continue this system on the taking over of the Company, or to close at the same hour as telegraph offices?
  Captain NORTON: My right hon. Friend is aware that the National Telephone Company gives a continuous service at its exchanges. He does not anticipate that the present facilities for night telephone service—so far as they meet any actual need on the part of the public—will be restricted after the transfer of the Company's system to the State. The question of the extent of Sunday use will require special consideration.

  Meat Inspection (German System).
  Mr. WATTasked the President of the Local Government Board, whether he was aware that uniformity of standard of meat inspection was enjoined and followed throughout the German Empire; and whether he proposed to adopt a similar course in this country, especially in view of the fact that cities and boroughs which adopted a high standard of inspection: were penalised by the trade being sent elsewhere?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Bums): I am aware of the system adopted in Germany for securing uniformity of meat inspection. I do not think it would be practicable to enforce a similar system in this country at the present time; but, both by circulars which they have issued and by the inquiries made by their inspectors, the Local Government Board have pressed upon local authorities and their officers the importance of uniform and efficient meat inspection. I am happy to say that in the country generally there has been a distinct

  1645
  improvement during the last few years in the qualifications of meat inspectors and the practice of meat inspection.

  Marylebone Workhouse (Number of Able-Bodied Men).
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, how many able-bodied young men there were at the present time in the Marylebone Workhouse, how long the majority of them had been there, what work they were made to do each day, and if they were allowed to go out each day and seek for work?
  Mr. BURNS: I understand that the number of able-bodied young men in the Marylebone Workhouse on Friday last was 56. The majority of them have been in and out of the workhouse for the past two years. The daily task of work for this class of inmate is to pick 4 lbs. of oakum, or to grind 8 pecks of corn, or to do scrubbing. They are not allowed to go out each day, but can take their discharge by giving the usual notice.
  Mr. FELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the names of these men will be put upon the list of the unemployed?
  Mr. BURNS: I think you can trust the guardians to deal with these men.

  Housing and Town Planning Bill.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the President of the Local Government Board, whether the provisions of the Housing and Town Planning Bill applied to Crown lands in England; and, if not, whether he proposed so to extend the Bill?
  Mr. BURNS: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why that is?
  Mr. BURNS: The Housing and Town Planning Bill does not apply to Crown lands in England and Wales, and the Crown is not bound by statute except when it is expressly mentioned. The common law in Scotland on this point is not quite so clear, and the Government proposed in the Lords to insert a clause to exempt Crown property, and the Noble Lord's brother had the privilege of defeating it.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether, under those circumstances, the
  1646
  right hon. Gentleman will advise this House to follow the more democratic House, and extend this Bill to Crown lands.

  Submarine C11 Disaster.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the case of the men who lost their lives in the recent disaster to submarine C11, their clothes and personal effects were sold, and out of the proceeds a week's wages was deducted, on the ground that they had been overpaid to that extent at the time of the disaster; and, if so, whether, having regard to the position of the widows and relatives of the victims, the Admiralty would consider the propriety of refunding the amount of such deduction?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The personal effects of the men who lost their lives in C11 were sold in accordance with the custom of the Service. It is not the fact that any deduction has been made from the proceeds. As a matter of fact, although the men had received an advance of pay beyond the amounts due to them, the Admiralty have decided, in view of the sad circumstances of the case, not to recover the over-payment. The men's relatives will therefore receive the full amount realised by the sale of these effects. I may further add that the dependents and relatives have already been awarded such pensions and allowances as can be granted from Greenwich Hospital funds.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the hon. Member whether that is a recent decision, or whether, as a matter of fact, the relatives were not at first informed that a week's wages would be deducted?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, it is not a fact that the relatives were informed at first or in any time that a deduction would be made from the proceeds of the sale.

  H.M. Destroyer "Afridi."
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the destroyer "Afridi," who could not attain her contract speed, was accepted owing to the deficiency of destroyers of the newest type, and what steps are being taken to ensure that any other work by the firm who built her shall be carried out in a satisfactory manner?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The "Afridi" was not accepted on account of deficiency of destroyers of the newest type. Her specified deep sea speed was 33 knots. Over the Maplin course she attained an average speed, during the contract period of six hours, of 33·254 knots. This was considered to be equivalent to a deep sea speed of 32¾ knots, and she was accepted at that speed subject to the reduced payment to the firm as provided in the contract. In dealing with these very high speed vessels failure to attain the specified deep sea speed by a fraction of a knot cannot be held to reflect upon the efficiency of the contractors. The Admiralty system of inspection ensures that no work is passed into the Naval Service which is not in accordance with the contract, and no special steps, as suggested in the latter part of the question, appear to be necessary.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman informed us only last week that this vessel was accepted because of a deficiency in the destroyers in His Majesty's service?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I said she was required for His Majesty's service, but not on account of any deficiency.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Why did the Government accept this vessel if she was not efficient?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The vessel was part of the programme, but it was not required because of any existing deficiency.

  Commanding Officers of Destroyers.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers who have held the command of destroyers for four years or more in the aggregate have qualified every year in navigation and torpedo work?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have decided that in future all officers applying to be selected for command of torpedo boat destroyers and torpedo boats will be required to pass a practical examination at the navigation, gunnery, and torpedo schools. No arrangements are made for officers while in destroyer service to go through a course of torpedo or navigation. They can, and no doubt some do, go through requalifying courses in torpedo after leaving the destroyers. It would, I fear, take a considerable amount of time to ascertain the actual number.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Am I to understand that there is no Admiralty regulation which obliges these Commanders to go through one of these courses every year?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Before being selected for the command of a torpedo they have to pass a strict examination, but whilst in command it is not the normal rule for them to go through the course.

  Naval Programme.
  Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of the four additional ships to be laid down in April of next year are to be large amoured cruisers, or whether all four are to be battleships?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not considered desirable to make any statement at the present juncture.
  Mr. GRETTON: Am I to understand that the Admiralty are reconsidering the announcement they made to this House and the country that they intend to lay down four battleships on 1st April next?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly not. We say on the face of the Estimates that we shall lay down four ships on 1st April next to be completed by March, 1912, and we have not departed from that.

  Additional Battleships (Gun-Mountings and Manning).
  Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress had been made with the collection of material, gun-mountings, and other parts of the four additional battleships to be laid down in April of next year; and if he would state the names of the firms engaged in this operation of collection and preparation?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: An order for the gun-mountings for one ship has been placed with the Coventry Ordnance Company. The tenders for the gun-mountings for the three remaining ships have been received, and are being considered. The contracts for the armour, hulls, and machinery for the vessels will be placed at a sufficiently early date to ensure that there shall be no delay in the proper prosecution of the work.
  Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, what measures are being taken to recruit and train the additional men necessary for the crews of the additional four battleships.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: All necessary measures have been and are being considered to provide for the entry and training of men to meet the prospective requirements of the Fleet.
  Mr. GRETTON: Have any steps been taken to recruit the additional men who will be required for the additional ships?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have already stated, the Admiralty are taking all the necessary measures to meet the prospective requirements of the Fleet.

  Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Act (Prosecution of Anton Fredericksen).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Lord Advocate if he will state, with reference to the prosecution of Anton Fredericksen under Section 3, Sub-section (6), of the Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Act, ordered by the Crown counsel to be tried in the Zetland Sheriff Court on 30th August, and which was adjourned to 27th September at the request of the respondent, on what grounds the Crown counsel intervened during the period of adjournment by instructing the procurator fiscal to drop the prosecution; and what additional evidence came to the knowledge of the Crown counsel and from what source?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): During the period of adjournment information which reached the Crown authorities that a mistake had been made as to the identity of the vessel was, on inquiry, confirmed, and accordingly instructions were given to drop the prosecution. It is contrary to the practice of my Department and would be against public policy to disclose the source of the information communicated to the Crown authorities.
  Mr. REMNANT: Does that also apply to the statements made in this House?
  Mr. URE: Yes.

  Montagu House.
  Mr. YOUNGERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the land upon which Montagu House stands is owned by the Crown and leased by the Duke of Buccleuch; what compensation was paid by the Metropolitan Board of Works on the formation of the Thames Embankment in respect of land appertaining to Montagu House taken or injured; and whether the compensation paid to the Duke of Buccleuch as tenant amounted to the sum of £8,325, awarded for the garden taken, injury to property and
  1650
  amenity, and new walls required to enclose the property?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The land upon which Montagu House stands is owned by the Crown and is leased to the Duke of Buccleuch. No compensation in respect of the land was paid to the Crown on the formation of the Thames Embankment, and I am not aware of the amount paid to the duke.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Would it not be, therefore, as incorrect to say that £150,000 was paid in respect of that land, as it is to say that compensation was paid in respect of such land to the extent of £8,325 for value added without the act or superaction of the owner?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is asserting a fact or asking a question. All I have to say is that I have no knowledge of the sum paid to the duke.
  Mr. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a copy of his reply sent to the Lord Advocate?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is quite unnecessary, because the Lord Advocate is perfectly aware of the facts.
  Mr. REMNANT: Was he aware of the facts when he made his first statement?

  Coal Output (South Wales).
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if there has been any decrease in the amount of coal raised in South Wales since the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act came into force, and how the output for each of the past three months compares with the output for the similar months last year?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY to the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Secretary of State has no information as to the amount of coal raised in South Wales since the Coal Mines Act of 1908 came into force, as the statutory Returns are not required to be made until the end of the year. He cannot therefore say how the output for each of the last three months compares with the output for the corresponding months last year. It is obvious that until both employers and workmen have settled down to the new conditions created by the Act any comparison of the kind would be altogether misleading.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Has the Home Office received information that in those collieries the output is as great under the Eight Hours Act as it was formerly?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information upon that point.

  Unemployed Statistics (Building Trades).
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade how many men engaged in the building trade were out of work according to the last Return for England; and how this compares with the similar Returns for the same period for each of the past three years?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): The Department has no information as to the total number of building trade operatives out of work. The percentage unemployed among trade union carpenters and plumbers at the end of August, 1909, was 10.0, the corresponding figures for 1908, 1907, and 1906 being 10.3, 5.6, and 5.5.
  Mr. FELL: Would that include the bricklayers, labourers and others employed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures I have quoted relate to trade union carpenters and plumbers.
  Mr. E. A. GOULDING: Is there not a vast body of working-men attached to the building trade not associated with any trade union?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I should have thought it was well known by this time that the Board of Trade unemployment figures only relate to statistics of trade unions. Consequently, they are not thoroughly representative, and we have never pretended they are.

  Licensed Victuallers' Trade (Persons Engaged).
  Mr. FELLasked how many persons were engaged in the licensed victuallers' trade according to the latest return; and how this compares with the numbers at the same period in the three preceding years?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The latest information available is that given in the Census Reports for 1901, from which it would appear that the total number of persons engaged in the licensed victualling trade, including eating-houses, was 248,364.
  Mr. FELL: There are no particulars which can be given of the unemployed in the licensed victuallers' trade?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is nothing in the question to suggest that the hon. Member requires any information with regard to the number of unemployed. I have no later return than that I have given.

  Jersey Education Bill.
  Mr. J. BOLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state what petitions against the Jersey Education Bill have been received by the Privy Council; and if he can say when they will be listed for hearing?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Three petitions have been lodged against the Jersey Education Bill, namely:—A petition of members of Church of England, trustees, managers, and supporters of Church Schools in Jersey (bearing 2,094 signatures) received at Privy Council Office on 9th September, 1909; a petition of Roman Catholic clergy and laity of Jersey (bearing 3,434 signatures) received at Privy Council Office on 13th September, 1909; and a petition of certain ratepayers of Jersey (bearing 354 signatures) received at Privy Council Office on 18th September, 1909. They will now be forwarded to the Jersey States for observations.
  Mr. BOLAND: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my question—when they will be listed for hearing?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That depends upon the acceleration of the Jersey States' observations.
  Mr. BOLAND: I will put down another question in a month's time.

  Suffragettes in Prison (Supply of Food).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the medical officer of Winson Green Gaol, Birmingham, reports any injury to the teeth, throat, or other parts of the body of those women prisoners who have undergone the special hospital treatment known as administering food by force; and whether the medical officer has said for how long this treatment can be continued without serious injury to the patients?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The medical officer reports that no injury to the throat, teeth, or other parts of the body has been sustained by any of the prisoners who have undergone the special hospital treatment mentioned in the question. My right hon. Friend is advised on good medical authority that no serious injury is

  1653
  to be apprehended in any case of this kind, even if the treatment has to be prolonged for some considerable time.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the Home Office has seen the reports of eminent medical authorities to the effect that this treatment always produces permanent injuries, and very often fatal results, if continued?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I have seen on such reports.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I will send them to you.
  Mr. T. H. SLOAN: How many of these ladies are receiving this treatment?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am going to answer a question on that point.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked how often, during the past 12 months, prisoners in Winson Green Gaol, Birmingham, have had food administered to them by force; whether, in the case of the women suffragists who have undergone this treatment, the operation was performed by the prison doctor or, if not by him, by whom; and what was the method adopted in connection with the operation?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: With the exception of these women prisoners, there have been no cases in Birmingham Prison during the past 12 months in which it has been necessary to feed any prisoner forcibly. This treatment has been administered in some cases by the medical officer, and in other eases by a medical practitioner who has been called in to assist him. The method has been, where practicable, feeding by means of teaspoon or from a feeding cup, but where necessary the soft rubber tube in use in hospitals has been employed.
  Mr. H. BELLOC: May I ask whether this has not been the constant practice with men for many years past?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It has been the constant practice with men and women for many years past.
  Mr. BELLOC: Will the hon. Gentleman look up the records and see whether any protest has ever been made about men being so treated?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a petition from the parents or other relatives of some of the women suffragette prisoners in Winson Green Gaol, Birmingham, stating that they are anxious concerning the state of health of the
  1654
  prisoners, and praying to be allowed to send their own medical adviser to report on their condition; and, if so, whether he has been able to so far relax the prison rules as to comply with this request?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Applications to the effect indicated have been received, but my right hon. Friend has been unable to accede to them. The prisoners mentioned are receiving full and constant attention from the medical officer of the prison, who has been in consultation with the medical authorities of the Home Office at the time when the refusal to take food made the prisoners' state of health serious, and has had the assistance of a medical man in practice in Birmingham, who has been present when food has been administered. According to the latest report received this morning, the health of the prisoners continues to improve. Only one of them still refuses to take food without the use of a tube.
  Mr. F. C. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether these ladies have any opportunity of communicating with the visiting justices?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As already stated, the ladies have already communicated with the visiting justices, who made a special visit to see if they had anything of which to complain.

  Imprisonment of Mrs. Cobden Sanderson.
  Mr. J. DILLONasked the Home Secretary for what offence Mrs. Anne Cobden Sanderson has been sentenced to a week's imprisonment in the second division; and whether he will take steps immediately to secure that all political prisoners in this country shall be put in the first division or subjected to such treatment as was customary in the case of political prisoners in England a hundred years ago?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On 3rd September Mrs. Cobden Sanderson was convicted of obstructing the police in the execution of their duty, and sentenced to pay a fine of 40s., with the alternative of seven days' imprisonment in the second division. My right hon. Friend understands that she was discharged on her own recognisances pending the hearing of a case stated for the decision of the High Court on a point of law. As regards the latter part of the question, my right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to his numerous previous answers to questions in Parliament on this subject, and to his speech on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill on 4th August last.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, as I think this is an extremely serious business, whether he is now of opinion that the time has come to restore the ancient practice in England of treating political prisoners in a different class from that of common felons?
  Mr. J. D. REES: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether the law of England recognises this lady or any other law breaker as a political prisoner?
  Mr. DILLON: So much the more shame to England.

  Old Age Pensions (Suspended Payment Pending Appeal).
  Mr. J. MULDOONasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that it is the practice of the Treasury, where a pension officer has appealed against an order granting a pension by the pension committee, to suspend payment until the appeal has been determined; whether, seeing that under the statute the order so made is an effective order until formally discharged upon appeal by the Local Government Board, he will say under what statutory or other authority this jurisdiction is conferred upon the Treasury; and whether, having regard to the delay which arises by reason of the appeal, and to the fact that resort to the Poor Law would disqualify these applicants, he proposes to take steps to prevent the practice in question from inflicting hardship and inconvenience?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My hon. and learned Friend has asked me to answer this question. I explained the statutory position in my answer to the hon. Member's question on the 30th ultimo, which is that the decision of a local pension committee is only final on any claim or question which is not referred to the central pension authority. It would not be possible to issue a pension order book to a claimant until a final decision upon his claim has been given.
  Mr. MULDOON: Has the right hon. Gentleman the authority of the Law Officer for the proposition laid down?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Oh, yes.

  FINANCE BILL.

    SUPER-TAX.
    Mr. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether subscriptions to charitable and educational institutions can be deducted in calculating income assessable to Super-tax
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir.
    Mr. REESasked whether a payer of Super-tax will be required, in calculating his income, to add to dividends he has received the Income Tax deducted before receipt from such dividends?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, Sir.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. REESasked whether, under the Finance Bill, in assessing to Income Tax, deductions will be allowed on account of interest on money borrowed in India, British Colonies, or foreign countries, from banks or institutions not having their head offices in this country, in order to finance business carried on in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Income Tax Acts expressly prohibit any deduction of annual interest in estimating the profits and gains of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade assessable under the first case of Schedule D. But, if my hon. Friend has in mind the liability of an individual to Super-tax, the answer is that yearly interest, annuities, or other annual payments made out of the profits of such individual, would be deducted in estimating his income for Super-tax purposes.
    Mr. REESasked whether, under the Finance Bill, shareholders, other than servants of the Crown, resident in India, in a limited liability company registered under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900, trading in India, will be entitled as heretofore to recover English Income Tax by way of exemption or abatement subject to their income from all sources within the United Kingdom not exceeding the prescribed amount?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the companies referred to are such as fall within the decision of the House of Lords in the case of San Paulo (Brazilian Railway Company, Limited) v. Carter, the answer is in the negative.

    ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR.
    Mr. GOULDINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, owing to the extensive changes made in the Finance Bill during the Committee stage considerably affecting the revenue from the new taxes, the later date at which many of the new taxes are to be enforced, and the disappointment in the yield of certain items of revenue, he will before the Report stage submit to the House corrected figures of the estimated revenue for each of the taxes to be imposed during the current financial year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend will endeavour to lay a revised estimate before the House, if possible before the Report stage of the Finance Bill has been entered upon.

    RETURN OF SPIRITS TAKEN OUT OF BOND.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total quantity of spirits taken out of bond in Great Britain and Ireland during the months of March, April, and May, 1908; and will he give a similar Return for the corresponding period of this year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The approximate quantities of spirits on which duty was paid in Great Britain and Ireland during the months of March, April, and May, 1908 and 1909, were:—

    1908.

    1909.

    Proof gallons.

    Proof gallons.

    March

    …

    3,060,000

    4,283,000

    April

    …

    3,205,000

    5,097,000

    May

    …

    2,986,000

    675,000

    SPIRIT DUTIES (WITHDRAWALS FROM BOND).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked as to the quantity of spirits taken out of bond in Great Britain and Ireland; and the amount of duty paid in September of last year and corresponding returns for September of this year.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: This information will not be available until the 8th instant.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the reduction in the quantity of spirits taken out of bond in Ireland since the introduction of the Budget this year, to the latest return this month, if the reduced quantity was averaged over every on- and off-licensed house in Ireland; how much per house it would amount at the end of a year, assuming the reduced consumption to continue; and whether, in arranging the schedule of Licence Duty, he will take into account the reduced profit derivable from the sale of spirits?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Comparing the period 1st May to 18th September, 1909, with the period 1st May to 19th September, 1908, the decrease in the quantity of Spirit3 Duty paid in Ireland amounts on an average to 85 gallons for every on- and off-licence to retailers of spirits in Ireland. If the reduced clearances continued at the same rate throughout a complete year of 365 days, the average decrease per licence would be 220 gallons, but the hon. Member must bear in mind that the clearances of
    1658
    spirits since the Budget to the present time do not represent actual consumption, in consequence of the heavy forestalments in March and April and the reduction which traders have no doubt made in the duty-paid stocks which they ordinarily hold. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend regrets that he does not see his way to make any further concessions in the proposed Licence Duties beyond those contained in the Amendments which have been placed on the Paper.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Then is it of no further use debating the matter in this House?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is as the hon. Gentleman pleases.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked what quantity of spirits was taken out of bond in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively, for the months October to May, 1908–9, and the amount of the duty paid in each country?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The approximate quantities of spirit on which duty was paid, and the amount of duty received thereon, in England, Scotland and Ireland, respectively, for the months October to May, 1908–9, were:—

    Quantity.

    Duty.

    Proof Gallons.

    £

    England

    …

    12,578,000

    7,058,000

    Scotland

    …

    9,337,000

    5,146,000

    Ireland

    …

    5,483,000

    3,040,000

    IRISH TOBACCO REVENUE.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the gross amount of revenue collected from tobacco duty in Ireland from May to the latest returns in September of this year; and the returns for the same period of last year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The gross amount of duty paid on tobacco in Ireland during the period from May to September inclusive in each of the years 1908 and 1909, was:—

    £

    Period from May to September, 1908

    786,000

    Period from May to September, 1909

    866,000

    EFFECT OF NEW SPIRIT DUTIES IN IRELAND.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked what the proposed annual duty on spirits would amount to in Ireland if the output of all the Irish distilleries remain the same as they have been for some years past, and what sum per head of the population the gross revenue would amount to per annum?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid that I do not quite understand this question. As the hon. Member is aware, a large proportion of the spirits distilled in Ireland is exported before payment of duty. According to the last Financial Relations Return (House of Commons Paper No. 208 of 1909) the estimated contribution of Ireland to the spirit revenue in 1908–9 was:—

    £

    Spirits made in United Kingdom

    1,948,000

    Imported spirits

    320,000

    2,268,000

    Amounting per head of population to:—

    s.

    d.

    Spirits made in United Kingdom

    8

    11

    Imported spirits

    1

    6

    10

    5

    If the new rates of duty now being charged had been in operation during 1908–9 and the consumption had remained the same these figures would have been:—

    Total contribution—

    £

    Spirits made in United Kingdom

    4,612,000

    Imported spirits

    424,000

    3,036,000

    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: What part of the question is it that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That part as to what the proposed annual duty would amount to if the output of Irish distilleries remained as for years past. A very considerable part of the output of these distilleries goes abroad, and is not consumed in this country. I have given the hon. Member what information I have.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: When the right hon. Gentleman says it goes abroad does he mean outside the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, Sir.

    BUDGET FORESTALMENTS.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether he can state the districts or bonded stores in England, Ireland, and Scotland respectively, from which spirits were taken in
    1660
    anticipation of the new Budget duties, and upon which he based the amount of his forestalment calculations?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot give this information?

    NEW DUTIES ON LICENSED HOUSES.
    Mr. BARNARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider extending to all licensed houses the choice to be given to larger houses of paying their licences on annual value?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I assume that by "annual value" my hon. Friend refers to the annual compensation value to be certified under Clause 30 (2) of the Finance Bill. It would not be possible to ascertain the annual compensation value of all fully-licensed premises and beer-houses within the current financial year; but, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, it is proposed in an Amendment which has been placed on the Paper to Schedule 1, page 53, line 2, to extend to all on-licence holders, whose premises are of an annual value exceeding £500, the option of having their Licence Duty assessed on annual compensation value.
    Mr. BARNARD: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the desirability of making the arrangement universal instead of limiting it to houses of a certain value?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that the practice has been hitherto to limit it to houses of £700 value. This is a concession reducing the limit to £500. As at present advised, my right hon. Friend does not see his way to go further.

  General Election (Returning Officers' Expenses).
  Mr. H. A. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation before the next General Election making returning officers' expenses payable by the nation instead of by the Parliamentary candidates?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  Scottish Universities.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee appointed to consider the financial position of the Scottish universities has now reported; and what grants can be given to meet their claims?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Report in question has now been received, and is under consideration.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that the money shall not be finally allocated until the Report has been made public?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The usual practice will be followed.

  French Investments in Great Britain.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any estimate of the value of the investments of French subjects in this country which have been transferred elsewhere in consequence of the agreement respecting Death Duties dated 15th November, 1907?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir. I should perhaps add that the information at my right hon. Friend's disposal does not indicate that any such transfer as is suggested in the question has taken place.

  Caherciveen Water Supply.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that memorials have been sent to the Local Government Board frequently during the past 15 years asking that the water supply of Caherciveen, county Kerry, be promptly dealt with; and can he now state what action will be taken in view of the danger to the health of the town through the Board's neglect of the matter?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Recurring complaints of the insufficiency of water at Caherciveen have been made to the Local Government Board for some years past, and they have frequently urged the rural district council to supplement the supply. In 1906 a scheme was agreed to, but the council did not proceed with it owing to opposition to the area of charge. Further plans were obtained by the council and approved at a meeting of ratepayers, but the council have again postponed action until satisfied that the outlying electoral divisions will be free of all expense in the matter. A formal complaint under Section 15 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896, has now been received by the Local Government Board, who intend to institute an inquiry.

  Irish Intermediate Examination.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on those students who have taken
  1662
  Irish as an honours subject in the recent intermediate examination, he will state when the Intermediate Board propose to revise the existing rules; and whether the necessary steps will be taken before the close of the present Session of Parliament?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have referred this question to the Commissioners of Intermediate Education, to whom it will be submitted at the next meeting of the Board on the 22nd instant. It is obviously impossible for me to reply to the question until the Commissioners have considered it.

  Dublin Licensing Regulations.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the condition of things which has arisen in the Dublin metropolitan police area owing to the attitude of the authorities, which prevents Dublin citizens from enjoying the privilege of giving dinner parties or balls, or any other social entertainment, in hotels unless they leave the premises at 11 p.m. on week-days and 10 p.m. on Saturdays, he will take such steps as will reinstate the old order of things pending the revision of the law, so that Dublin citizens may be permitted to enjoy social life without interference at the hands of the police?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the police authorities that no change has taken place in their practice as regards dinners in hotels terminating at or close to 11 o'clock p.m. In the case of dances and other entertainments continued to a late hour, the police have recently found it necessary to enforce a stricter compliance with the law, in consequence of a growing misapprehension on the part of hotel keepers as to their obligations. The matter is not one in which I can interfere.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman not see the necessity of introducing into the Budget a special Licence Duty for these temporary occasions, whereby a special charge might be made for giving permission in such cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will convey that representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the principal hotels in Dublin a special room is provided for dances and soirées for charitable and other purposes; was not the action of the police the cause of great loss to the proprietors of these places, to the waiters,

  1663
  and to the trade and commerce of the City of Dublin; and will the right hon. Gentleman see that the old permission which formerly was granted when applied for will be given in the future for social purposes?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think there must be some real necessity for alteration of the law, but it is a question whether the present law is to be enforced.
  Mr. SLOAN: Is it not a fact that reasonable facilities are always given and that the police are only doing their duty on these occasions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is what I have said.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Is it not a fact that within the last few years this permission has been granted to hotel-keepers in Dublin, and will he not see, when application is made, that the police will give the same permission as formerly?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot hold out any hope of permission to have the law disregarded. If the law requires alteration it must be altered.

  Dances on Licensed Premises (Ireland).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Chief Secretary if he was aware that applications had been made to the Chief Commissioner of Police by the management of the Royal Marine Hotel, Kingstown, and other hotel proprietors, to grant an extension of time for balls to private residents in accordance with the past usage; and if he would explain why the Chief Commissioner had refused to grant the privilege?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police informs me that an application of the nature indicated in the question was recently made to him by the manager of the Royal Marine Hotel, Kingstown, who was informed that, under the Licensing Acts, hotels in Ireland are on exactly the same terms in regard to entertainments as public-houses, and must conform in every respect to the regulated hours of closing. The police are bound to enforce the law, and have no authority to grant any exemption.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the particular case of the Royal Marine Hotel that it was well known for many days previous to the holding of the dance that it was to take place, and that the police took no action until all the arrangements had been made, and whether he can see his way to put a
  1664
  stop to such vexatious interference in the future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police are under no obligation to discover what festivities are going to take place in their district. If they had known of it I have no doubt they would have called the attention of the proprietors to the subject.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Are the social amenities of a city like Dublin to be placed in such a position that you cannot get a dinner or a dance in the hotel owing to the vexatious action of the police?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The last time I was stopping at a hotel in Dublin there was both a dinner and a dance in it.
  Mr. SLOAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that the police exercising this duty are only carrying out the ordinary law?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have already stated that the police are simply doing their duty. They are not doing what has been referred to because they want to do it, but because they are obliged to do it.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Chief Secretary if he was prepared to pass a short Act assimilating the English and Irish laws in connection with the holding of dances or balls on licensed premises; and, in the meantime, would he take such steps as to requisition the police to give all reasonable permission to Dublin citizens to enjoy their social life without molestation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am prepared to consider the question of legislation on this point when an opportunity arises, but it is obviously impossible to do anything in the matter at present. I cannot interfere with the enforcement of the existing law by the police.

  Police Action at Elphin, County Roscommon.
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that Head Constable Gilhooly and Acting Sergeant Nestor had frequently of late stopped respectable inhabitants of Elphin, some of them young ladies, going about their ordinary business, at nine and 10 o'clock at night to ask for their names and the business on which they were abroad; whether he could say if these police officers have any special instructions, and for any, and, if so, what, special reasons to thus interfere with and annoy respectable residents well known to them; and whether he would give instructions that this action on their part should cease?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that, on the occasion to which the hon. Member appears to refer, the two policemen named in the question, hearing a noise in some bushes near the Convent, and having received complaints of damage done to the Convent grounds, examined the bushes and found two persons there who refused to give their names. The head constable lit a match in order to see who they were, and then went away. The Inspector-General is satisfied that the police did no more than their duty. This incident appears to be the only ground for the allegations in the question. No special instructions have been issued to the police on the subject and none are required.

  Boyse Estate, South Kilkenny.
  Mr. KEATINGasked the Chief Secretary if he was aware that the rents on the Boyse estate, South Kilkenny, range from 33s. to 38s. per acre; that the rents on the adjoining estates are 14s. to 15s. per acre; that the productive capacity of the former is less than the latter, a large portion of which is flooded at certain periods of the year, and other portions consist of bogs, marsh, and rocks of no agricultural value; that the estate is now in Chancery; and could he instruct the Estates Commissioners to take steps to assist the tenants in their desire to purchase their holdings at a reasonable price?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have referred this question to the Estates Commissioners, who inform me that this estate is the subject of Chancery proceedings, and that no proceedings are pending before them with respect to it. I am not in a position to say whether the statements in the question with respect to the rental of the estate are correct.
  Mr. DILLON: Is it not a case in which the Estates Commissioners may take the initiative?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will draw their attention to it.

  Belmullet Rural District Improvement Scheme.
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary if he would say whether the rural district of Belmullet, county Mayo, recently submitted a scheme under the Labourers Act to the Local Government Board; and, if so, whether the scheme has been sanctioned?
  Mr. BIRRELL: An improvement scheme was received by the Local Government Board, but has not yet been confirmed by the Inspector who held the local inquiry.

  Lord Kenmare's Bailiffs (Police Protection)
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary whether he allowed police protection to Lord Kenmare's bailiffs to seize cattle at Tureencahill, county Kerry, on 25th September; whether the police witnessed the bailiffs ill-treating the cattle on the occasion; if they made a report on the matter or intend to take any action in connection with it; and whether, having regard to the fact that this estate is before the Estates Commissioners for sale, and that the Estates Commissioners have afforded every assistance to the landlord in his dealings with tenants unwilling to purchase on the landlord's conditions, he proposed to take any action as to withholding police protection and compelling the Estates Commissioners to do their duty?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Constabulary authorities that the bailiffs were not under police protection on the occasion referred to, but a police patrol was at hand to preserve the peace. The police saw both parties beating the cattle in their endeavours to drive them in opposite directions, but there was no ill-treatment which would justify proceedings. Having regard to the prior claims of other estates, the Estates Commissioners cannot deal with this property for a considerable time to come, and meanwhile neither they nor I have any power to interfere with any legal proceedings which the owner may institute for the recovery of the rent due to him.
  Mr. MURPHY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is going to allow the police force to be placed at the disposal of the landlord, and are the tenants to be driven into unfair and improper purchases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The only answer I can give to the hon. Member is no.

  FINANCE BILL.

    ANNUAL VALUE (FREE AND TIED PUBLIC-HOUSES).
    Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the advice and assistance of Mr. Deputy-Speaker to the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a question put

    1667
    to-day in relation to calculating the annual value for free and tied public-houses? He was asked if the Government would state how annual value is to be arrived at. The answer given in the first instance was, we should know on Thursday, and when the right hon. Gentleman was pressed for a more immediate reply he said he hoped to give it to-morrow. My point is that we are very likely to get on to part C of Schedule I. to-day, and the whole burden of it is the question of annual value. May I ask whether we could not have from the Chancellor of the Duchy a statement as to how the annual value is to be arrived at?
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Herbert Samuel): This question does not arise on Schedule I., but on the Clause, which says that the duty is to be assessed in certain contingencies on compensation value, and that compensation is to be converted from a capital sum into an annual sum. What the Government has promised to do is in good time to give hon. Members opposite an opportunity of saying on what basis and by what method this capital sum is to be converted into an annual sum. Before we reach the Clause on the Report stage a statement will certainly be made.
    Mr. YOUNGER: What the hon. Gentleman says is perfectly true, but the scale

    SCHEDULES.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.—EXCISE LIQUOR LICENCES.

    A.—MANUFACTURERS' LICENCES.

    Licence to be taken out annually.

    Duty.

    Corresponding existing Licence.

    1.

    Spirits:—

    (a) By a distiller of spirits.

    Duty specified in Scale 1

    Licence for manufacture of spirits under 6 Geo. 4, c. 81, s. 2.

    (b) By a rectifier or compounder of spirits.

    £15 15s.

    2.

    Beer:—

    By a brewer of beer for sale.

    Duty specified in Scale 2

    Licence on which duty is payable under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 10.

    By a brewer of beer other than a brewer for sale.

    If he is the occupier of a house of an animal value exceeding ten pounds and not exceeding fifteen pounds, and brews solely for his own domestic use, 9s.

    Licence on which duty is payable under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 10.

    In any other case, 4s.

    3.

    Cider:—

    By a maker for sale of cider.

    £5 5s.

    —

    4.

    Sweets:—

    By a maker for sale of sweets.

    £5 5s.

    Licence on which duty is payable under 6 Edw. 7, c. 20, s. 7.

    in the Schedule—the charge for the next year—ought to be regulated according to what that annual value means. It is ridiculous to suggest we should discuss it on rateable value when we do not know what it is to be on compensation annual value.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It appears to be much more a matter for argument. The hon. Member cannot carry it any further now.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I point out that the answer given by the Financial Secretary indicated that the Government did not know how it was to be arrived at. He hoped to give the information to-morrow.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have no power in regard to the matter.

BILL PRESENTED.
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (IRELAND).
  Bill to amend the Irish Education Act, 1892—[Mr. John Murphy]—presented, and read the first time.—(To be read a second time upon Thursday next.)

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[40th Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.

  SCALE 1.—SPIRIT DISTILLER'S LICENCE.
  Number of gallons computed at proof of spirits distilled during the preceding year—

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding 50,000 gallons

  10

  0

  0

  Exceeding 50,000 gallons, for the first 50,000 gallons

  10

  0

  0

  For every further 25,000 gallons or fraction of 25,000 gallons

  10

  0

  0

  SCALE 2.—LICENCE TO BREWER FOR SALE.
  Number of barrels brewed during the preceding year—

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding 100 barrels Exceeding 100 barrels—

  1

  0

  0

  For the first 100 barrels

  1

  0

  0

  For every further 50 barrels or fraction of 50 barrels

  0

  12

  0

  For the purposes of this scale, barrels may be taken at the option of the brewer either to be bulk barrels or standard barrels, and a standard barrel shall be taken to be 36 gallons of beer of an original gravity of 1055 degrees.
  Provisions Applicable to Manufacturers' Licences.
  1. A manufacturer's licence, except in the case of a licence to a brewer not for sale, authorises not only the manufacture of the liquor to which it applies in accordance with the licence, but also wholesale dealing (subject in the case of a

  B.—WHOLESALE DEALERS' LICENCES.

  Licence to be taken out annually by a wholesale dealer in

  Duty.

  Corresponding existing Licence.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1.

  Spirits

  …

  …

  …

  15

  15

  0

  Licence on which duty is payable under 6 Geo. 4, c. 81, s. 2.

  2.

  Beer

  …

  …

  …

  10

  10

  0

  3.

  Cider

  …

  …

  …

  5

  5

  0

  —

  4.

  Wine

  …

  …

  …

  10

  10

  0

  Licence on which duty is payable under 6 Geo. 4, c. 81, s. 2.

  5.

  Sweets

  …

  …

  …

  5

  5

  0

  Licence on which duty is payable under 23 & 24 Vict. c. 113, s. 1.

  Provisions Applicable to Wholesale Dealers' Licences.
  1. A wholesale dealer's licence does not authorise sale by retail in any case. Re-
  spirit manufacturer's licence to the provisions of the Spirits Act, 1880) in any such liquor which is the produce of the manufacture of the holder of the licence at the place where the liquor is manufactured, and elsewhere by a servant or agent of the manufacturer if the liquor is supplied direct from the premises where it is manufactured.
  2.—(1) The occupier of a house of an annual value not exceeding eight pounds may brew beer solely for his own domestic use without taking out a manufacturer's licence.
  (2) An occupier of land may, without taking out a manufacturer's licence, make cider for sale from fruit grown on land occupied by him, and from fruit not so grown if it does not exceed in amount the fruit grown on land occupied by him and made into cider.
  3. The duty on a manufacturer's licence granted in respect of a distillery or brewery in respect of which such a licence has not been in force at any time during the preceding year shall be the minimum duty payable under Scales 1 or 2 as the case may be, and where a manufacturer's licence has not been in force for a full year, the number of proof gallons distilled or the number of bulk barrels brewed during the preceding year shall, for the purpose of payment of duty in the following year, be deemed to be a number bearing the same proportion to the number actually distilled or brewed as the whole year bears to the time for which the licence has been in force.
  tail sale for the purpose of this provision is retail sale as defined for the purpose of the provisions in this Schedule applicable to retailers' licences.
  2. A wholesale dealer's licence need not be taken out by the holder of a manufacturer's licence so far as respects the sale of liquor being the produce of the manufacture of the holder of the manufacturer's licence.
  3. A person holding the licence to be taken out by a wholesale dealer in beer may deal wholesale in cider as well as beer without taking out any further wholesale dealer's licence.
  4. A person holding the licence to be taken out by a wholesale dealer in wine may deal wholesale in sweets as well as wine without taking out any further wholesale dealer's licence.

  C.—RETAILERS' LICENCES.

  I.—On-Licences.

  Licence to be taken out annually by a retailer of

  Duty.

  Corresponding existing Licence.

  1.

  Spirits (Publican's, licence).

  A duty equal to half the annual value of the licensed premises, subject to the minimum duty payable under Scale 3.

  Licence on which duty is payable under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 43 (1).

  2.

  Beer (Beerhouse licence).

  A duty equal to a third of the annual value of the licensed premises, subject to the minimum duty payable under Scale 3.

  Licence on which duty is payable under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 41.

  3.

  Cider

  Half the duty specified in Scale 4

  4.

  Wine

  Duty specified in Scale 4

  5.

  Sweets

  Half the duty specified in Scale 4

  SCALE 3.—MINIMUM DUTY PAYABLE FOR PUBLICAN'S AND BEERHOUSE LICENCES.
  There shall be a minimum duty payable on the publican's licence and the beerhouse licence respectively, as shown in

  Population.

  Minimum Duty.

  Publican's Licence.

  Beerhouse Licence.

  £

  £

  s.

  In areas which are not urban areas, and in urban areas with a population of less than 2,000

  5

  3

  10

  In urban areas with a population of—

  2,000 and less than 5,000

  10

  6

  10

  5,000 and less than 10,000

  15

  10

  0

  10,000 and less than 50,000

  20

  13

  0

  50,000 and less than 100,000

  30

  20

  0

  100,000 or above

  35

  23

  10

  For the purposes of this scale an urban I area means any county borough, borough, or other urban district; and the administrative county of London shall be deemed to be a single urban area; and population shall be calculated according to the last published census for the time being.
  5. An occupier of land may, without taking out a wholesale dealer's licence, deal wholesale in cider made by him from fruit grown on the land occupied by him, and from fruit not so grown if it does not exceed in amount the fruit grown on land occupied by him and made into cider.
  6. Where a wholesale dealer's licence for the sale of any liquor is taken out by a person who is the holder of a licence authorising him to sell the same liquor by retail, the duty payable on the wholesale dealer's licence shall be reduced by twenty-five per cent.
  the following scale and where the annual value of any licensed premises is less than the annual value to which the minimum duty corresponds, duty shall be charged as if the premises were of that annual value.

  SCALE 4.—WINE RETAILER'S ON-LICENCE.
  Annual value of licensed premises—

  Duty

  £

  s.

  d.

  Under £30

  …

  …

  4

  10

  0

  £30 and under £50

  …

  …

  6

  0

  0

  £50 and under £100

  …

  …

  9

  0

  0

  £100 and over

  …

  …

  12

  0

  0

  II.—Off-Licences.

  Licence to be taken out annually by retailer of

  Duty.

  Corresponding existing Licence.

  1.

  Spirits

  …

  Duty specified in Scale 5.

  As respects England, the additional retail licence on which duty is payable under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 21, s.

  As respects Scotland, licence on which duty is payable under 16 & 17 Vict. c. 67, s. 8.

  As respects Ireland, licence on which duty is payable under 6 Geo. 4, c. 81, s. 2, and 8 & 9 Vict. c. 64, s. 1.

  Additional liqueur licence on which duty is payable under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 121, s. 10.

  2.

  Beer

  …

  Duty specified in Scale 6.

  As respects England, the beer retailer's licence and the additional beer dealer's retail licence on which duty is payable under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 41, s. 20.

  As respects Scotland, licence on which duty is payable under 16 & 17 Vict. c. 67, s. 8.

  As respects Ireland, dealer's additional retail licence on which duty is payable under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 41.

  3.

  Cider

  …

  £2

  Licence on which duty is payable under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 41.

  4.

  Wine

  …

  Duty specified in Scale 6.

  As respects England and Ireland, licence on which duty is payable under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 41.

  As respects Scotland, licence on which duty is payable under 39 & 40 Vict. c. 16, s. 4.

  5.

  Sweets

  …

  £2

  Licence on which duty is payable under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 41.

  SCALE 5.—SPIRIT RETAILER'S OFF-LICENCE.
  Annual value of licensed premises—

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Under £30

  …

  …

  14

  0

  0

  £30 and under £50

  …

  …

  20

  0

  0

  £50 and under £100

  …

  …

  30

  0

  0

  £100 and over

  …

  …

  50

  0

  0

  SCALE 6.—BEER RETAILER'S OR WINE RETAILER'S OFF-LICENCE.
  Annual value of licensed premises—

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Under £30

  …

  …

  3

  10

  0

  £30 and under £50

  …

  …

  5

  0

  0

  £50 and under £100

  …

  …

  7

  0

  0

  £100 and over

  …

  …

  10

  0

  0

  PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO RETAILERS' LICENCES.—(GENERAL.)
  1. The sale at any one time to one person of liquor in the following quantities, namely:—

  (a) in the case of spirits, wine, or sweets, in any quantity not exceeding two gallons or not exceeding one dozen reputed quart bottles; and

  (b) in the case of beer or cider, in any quantity not exceeding four and a half gallons or not exceeding two dozen reputed quart bottles;

  is sale by retail, and the sale at one time to one person of liquor in any larger quantities is wholesale dealing.
  (2) A retailer's on-licence does not in any case authorise wholesale dealing.
  3. A retailer's off-licence shall not be granted to the holder of a retailer's on-licence if the off-licence authorises the sale of any liquor which the holder of the on-licence is not authorised to sell by retail under his on-licence, and any retailer's off-licence granted in contravention of this provision shall be void.
  4. A person holding the licence to be taken out by a retailer of beer may sell by retail cider as well as beer without taking out any further retailer's licence.
  5. A person holding the licence to be taken out by a retailer of wine may sell by retail sweets as well as wine without taking out any further retailer's licence.
  Provisions Applicable to Retailers' On-Licences.
  1. A retailer's on-licence authorises sale by retail of the liquor to which the licence extends for consumption either on or off the premises.
  2. A person holding the on-licence to be taken out by a retailer of spirits may sell by retail beer, cider, wine, and sweets, as well as spirits, without taking out any further retailer's licence.
  (3) Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the annual value of the premises exceeds seven

  1675
  hundred pounds a retailer's on-licence may be granted at the option of the licence holder on payment of an amount equal to half the annual compensation value as certified for the purposes of this Act, and where that amount has not been certified for the purpose of the register to be prepared under this Act, the licence holder may require that amount to be so certified:
  Provided that the duty payable in pursuance of this provision shall not be less than three hundred and fifty pounds.
  4. The maximum amount of duty payable in respect of a retailer's on-licence granted to the proprietor of premises to be used only for any of the following purposes, namely, as a theatre or place of public or private entertainment, or as public gardens, picture galleries, or exhibitions, or as railway refreshment rooms, or for any similar purpose to which the holding of the licence is merely auxiliary, in respect of the premises shall be fifty pounds, but it shall be a condition of any such licence that intoxicating liquor is not sold under the licence except while the premises are open and being used, and to persons bonâ fide using the premises, for the said purpose.
  Provisions Applicable to Retailers' Off-Licences.
  1. A retailer's off-licence authorises the sale by retail of the liquor to which the licence extends for consumption off the premises only.
  2. A person holding the off-licence to be taken out by a retailer of spirits may not sell spirits in open vessels, or in any quantity less than one reputed quart bottle.
  3. A person holding the off-licence to be taken out by a retailer of wine may not sell wine in open vessels or in any quantity less than one reputed pint bottle.

  D.—PASSENGER VESSEL LICENCES.

  1. Licence to be taken out annually in respect of a passenger vessel by the master or other person belonging to the vessel nominated by the owner of the vessel—

  Corresponding existing licence.

  Duty of £10.

  —

  2. Licence to be taken out in respect of a passenger vessel by the master or other person belonging to the vessel nominated by the owner of the vessel, and to be in force for one day only—

  Licence on which duty is payable under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 45.

  Duty of £2.

  Provisions Applicable to Passenger Vessel Licences.
  1. A passenger vessel licence granted in respect of any vessel authorises the sale by retail while the vessel is engaged in carrying passengers of any intoxicating liquor on the vessel to passengers for consumption on the vessel.
  2. A passenger vessel licence authorises the sale of tobacco as well as the sale of intoxicating liquor.
  3. In the event of any person to whom a passenger vessel's licence has been granted ceasing to be master of the vessel or to belong to the vessel, the licence may be transferred to any person who is for the time being master of the vessel or is for the time being a person belonging to the vessel and nominated by the owner of the vessel for the purpose.
  4. In the event of the transfer of the vessel to some other owner, the licence granted under this Section shall cease to have effect as respects that vessel, but may, in that event and in the event of the loss of the vessel, be transferred, on the application of the owner of the vessel, to the master of some other vessel belonging to him or to some person belonging to such other vessel and nominated by the owner for the purpose.
  5. For the purpose of giving jurisdiction, any sale of liquor on a passenger vessel shall be deemed to have taken place either where it has actually taken place or in any place in which the vessel may be found.
  E.—RAILWAY RESTAURANT CAR LICENCES.
  Licence to be taken out annually in respect of a railway restaurant car by the railway company or other person owning the car—Duty of £1.
  Provisions Applicable to Railway Restaurant Car Licences.
  A railway restaurant car licence granted in respect of a car authorises the sale by retail to passengers on the car of any intoxicating liquor for consumption on the car.
  F.—OCCASIONAL LICENCES.
  Occasional licences granted under Section thirteen of the Revenue Act, 1862 (25 and 26 Vict. c. 22), Section twenty of the Revenue Act, 1863 (26 and 27 Vict. c. 33), and Section five of the Revenue Act, 1864 (27 and 28 Vict. c. 18).
  Duties:—

  (a) Sale of any intoxicating liquor—per day, 10s.

  (b) Sale of beer or wine only—per day, 5s.

  Provisions Applicable to Occasional Licences.
  An occasional licence may be granted under Section five of the Revenue Act, 1864, for the sale of beer only in Scotland and Ireland as well as in England, and for the sale of wine only in Scotland as well as in England and Ireland; and any provisions relating to those licences shall apply accordingly.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER moved (in A.—Manufacturer's Licences) to leave out the words "Duty Specified in Scale 1," and to insert instead thereof the words "ten pounds."
  This Amendment is intended to retain the distiller's licence. There is a later one to maintain the rectifier's licence, and there is still a third one to retain the brewer's licence. They are all governed by the same series of arguments, and it would be convenient if these were taken together, and if a general discussion was taken on one Amendment and not on each.
  Mr. DILLON: I entirely disagree with the hon. Member's view of that matter. I have Amendments raising different questions, and they ought to be discussed separately. The questions of the brewer's licence and of the distiller's licence are quite distinct.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask whether there is room for a general discussion of this character on the Schedule, seeing that we had a general discussion on the Clause both with respect to manufacturer's duty and with respect to retail duty?
  The CHAIRMAN: Clearly if objection is taken to the discussion of the scale as a whole it cannot be taken as a whole, and under these circumstances I need not reply to the question of the Chancellor of the Duchy. We must take the items separately.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: As it turns on whether objection is taken or not, I understand that by general agreement the Bill is to be finished on Wednesday, and in these circumstances I should have thought it was for the general convenience of the House not to trammel the freedom of Debate. But I agree that it does not rest with me.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: As the Secretary of the Treasury announced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to accept no more Amendments beyond what are now on the Paper, will the Government
  1678
  not put the Closure on the whole Schedule?
  Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to make an appeal to me, but I think he misunderstood my point. I do not want to interfere with the liberty of the Opposition to discuss the Schedule as a whole. All I want is to safeguard ourselves against disposing of questions of vital importance in detail on the first Amendment and then being told we cannot raise them later on.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman states that so far as he and his Friends are concerned they have come to an arrangement that the Schedules shall be concluded by Wednesday. That is not an agreement on which he could speak for anyone except his Friends above the Gangway, but it is an agreement which the two Front Benches may force in opposition to others. If that is so, and a general discussion takes place which occupies the whole of to-day and perhaps a portion of to-morrow, then by the operation of this voluntary guillotine on Wednesday we may be prevented from discussing, as fully as we desire, matters of detail which arise on the Schedules.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I was wholly misunderstood. I merely proposed to take the questions of the brewer and the distiller together, and not to have a general discussion on the Schedule.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have no objection to their being taken together.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I certainly object to their being taken together. They raise, so far as Ireland is concerned, very distinct points which have to be discussed separately.
  Mr. BALFOUR: After listening to this conversation it appears to me that nothing will be passed by a general discussion, and that the matters must be taken separately and seriatim.
  Mr. YOUNGER: The distiller's Licence Duty is not being nearly so heavily increased as the other. I submit that in view of the enormous addition which is being made to the Spirit Duty, and of the extraordinary depression which that has created in the distilling industry, it is little less than an atrocity to add to that an additional burden. The Licence Duty that the distiller pays now is a registration duty, and no monopoly whatever is granted in return for the registra-

  1679
  tion. He produces a dutiable article, and that being the case he must necessarily be registered in order that the Inland Revenue authority shall have the ordinary power of collecting the duty. But, to put upon him a duty in proportion to the whisky which he produces, which is really a second Income Tax, is not in any way admissible unless we are to have a series of taxes, where no monopolies are granted, over the whole system of manufactures in the United Kingdom. It is ridiculous and unfair, and it is not in any way a proposition which hon. Gentlemen opposite can support, to single out two classes of manufacture for penalising duties of this kind, while leaving everyone else alone. Duties are all very well when a monopoly is granted in return for the duty. They are not defensible when that is not so. The Prime Minister, two years ago, distinctly stated that there was no excuse whatever for a tax of this kind, either on the brewer or on the distiller, and upon that I rest, and I move my Amendment.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It appears to me that if this Amendment is not accepted, the logical situation must be that you must grant the British and Irish manufacturers a drawback. We are competing in this matter especially with Germany, and Germany is sending in German spirits here at an enormous rate at 10d. a gallon, and sometimes as low as 9d. These Germans are under no restriction whatever in their manufacture. They have not to conform to any law of Excise in respect to the shape, the contents, or the class of the machinery by which they manufacture their product. Now, for the first time, a Free Trade Government proposes to lay upon native manufacture, and in respect of one kind of goods, a heavy duty, although the Germans, who make goods of the same class, are allowed to make them with absolute freedom. Take the case of the export duty. We are allowed 3d. as a drawback. That is because the article is sent outside of this country. We are allowed it because of the restrictions imposed on native manufacturers by the Excise, and actually so vehement and hitter is the feeling in temperance circles in this House that when the American tariff was passed the other day by which America imposed a special duty an hon. Baronet opposite got up and said that the drawback of 3d. granted in this country was not a drawback at all, but
  1680
  a bounty which ought to be abolished. That is Free Trade run mad, I thought. What have we here? You single out particular manufactures in which Britain and Ireland are in the keenest competition with Germany. When this matter was inquired into by a Royal Commission and by a Committee upstairs you refused to allow the native product to be specially marked to indicate that it was native product. And yet in all Customs places you allow vats to be established where foreign stuff made for 10d. per gallon is allowed to be blended with the native product, which costs 3s. per gallon. Remember this affects the Colonies, and especially Jamaica and the rum which it exports. In regard to Jamaica rum that sort of sophistication was allowed to go on until something was done to check it. Then, when that fraud has been committed, there comes on the top of it the proposal of a Free Trade Government to impose on this special article in addition an extraordinary duty of something like 14s. per gallon. You propose that the manufacturer should pay this enormous amount. I can understand destroying the distilleries altogether. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prefer the word "disestablish," which appears to be very popular in Wales. He proposes by this Schedule to put British and Irish manufacturers under a disability which they have never suffered under before. Under what circumstances is the proposal made? If ever conviction could be brought home to the mind of a Minister it ought to be brought home to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by his own figures. He budgetted for £1,700,000, and about four o'clock the other morning he said that the income, instead of being that amount, would be something like £1,300,000. That may be very good for those who rejoice at anything in the nature of temperance, but the logical course would be to abolish the distilleries altogether. Either this is a revenue Budget or a revenge Budget. Now, I ask, are you after revenue or are you after revenge? If you are after revenue it has been demonstrated by your own figures that you have practically ruined the distillers. It is ruin to a man to have his product falling off to the extent of millions of money. I think I am justified in using the word "ruined," but if it is objected to I will say seriously injured. I say, "If this be so, grant us at least a countervailing duty against Germany." That we are fully entitled to in connection with this proposal. You have given a countervailing duty of 3d. as re-

  1681
  gards exports against the competition of Germany. What will happen under this Duty? You have to pay £10 for every 50,000 gallons of whisky, and then for every further 25,000, or fraction of 25,000, another £10. I do not know whether I am correct in that. I think I am, but I speak subject to correction. After you have manufactured the first 50,000 gallons you must pay £20, even if you only manufacture one gallon in addition to the 50,000. In the name of Providence, I ask how can you carry on manufacturing under these conditions? The best Irish whisky costs from 3s. to 4s. With patent stills you can manufacture whisky for 1s. or 1s. 6d. These articles are made from honest native products as a rule. The German article costs 9d. or 10d., and, as we know, it is made from inferior materials for that purpose. How can any manufacturer contend against these conditions? You propose to put on the product itself an extra duty of 3s. 9d. You have admitted that there is an enormous falling-off in the quantity. That being so, how can you fairly ask the manufacturers of this substance to pay such an enormous extra duty? I cannot conceive, if the Budget is only for revenue, and if the intention of the Government is to allow the manufacture to be continued under any reasonable system, how such a duty can be proposed. Why do you not put it on poisons? There is a large manufacture of noxious substances. Let us take chemicals. There are important Members of the Liberal party engaged in the manufacture of articles which at least smell unpleasantly. I do not say they taste bad, but admittedly they must be noxious substances. To select one particular article, as the Government propose, is simply to dig the grave of the manufacturer, unless you give a countervailing duty. This question of a countervailing duty is so important that I do trust it will be dealt with in a reasonable spirit by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I must say it augurs ill for any concession when we have the Financial Secretary to the Treasury getting up and officiously stating that the Government do not intend to accept a single Amendment beyond those which have been put on the Notice Paper. In other words, the House of Commons is entering on this discussion practically garrotted. There are two kinds of closure. There is the fiscal closure that is put from the Chair, and there is the intellectual closure which is imposed when you know that you are beating the air, and when the Government say that, de-
  1682
  spite the force of any arguments that may be submitted to them, they are obliged to state that they cannot accept any suggestion. From what was said by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury we know in advance that the Chancellor of the Duchy comes in handcuffed or tonguetied. We know that he is barred from accepting any Amendment. But I do maintain that the question of a countervailing duty on German imported commodities is one well worthy of the consideration of the Government.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would have great pleasure in accepting this Amendment, and indeed all the other Amendments on the Paper, which would lower or even abolish the existing imposts, but that, unhappily, the revenue must be raised, and the deficit has to be met, and we are obliged to ask the Committee to sanction the new taxes proposed. The Committee at an earlier stage after discussion sanctioned the principle of the new duties which were to be imposed not only on retailers of intoxicating liquors, but also on manufacturers. What we have now to consider is whether the scale proposed on manufacturers is equitable or not. At present the duty on the distiller is 10 guineas. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment wishes so far from increasing it slightly to reduce it, by shillings it is true, but other Amendments which come later show that hon. Members opposite desire to reduce in several particulars the duties on retailers and manufacturers of intoxicating liquor. I think the duty proposed by the scale which the Committee is asked to sanction is exceedingly low. It amounts on the average to 1–10th of a penny per gallon. This is the duty which the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken has described as an enormous amount, and as a heavy duty which will destroy the distilleries. We have already at the present time a duty of 11s. per gallon on spirits, and we are proposing by another provision to increase the duty by 3s. 9d.; and now when we ask the distillers to bear the Licence Duty amounting to 1–10th of a penny per gallon we are told it is an enormous and crushing burden that will ruin the Irish distiller and leave him a prey for the German invader. Language like that of the hon. Member, when we consider the infinitesimal amount of the duty, is deprived of all authority. If it is true, as he says, that logically it might be necessary to give an

  1683
  equivalent drawback on account of the danger of foreign competition, and that foreign distilleries should be entitled to be taxed to the extent of one-tenth of a penny per gallon, yet the amount is so small that the cost of collecting a Customs Duty of 1–10th of a penny per gallon, in fact, even the account keeping would almost swallow up the amount of the duty. In addition, the sur-tax on foreign spirits at present is admittedly too high, and is a protection for English distillers against foreign distillers. Because when the Corn Tax was imposed there was a sur-tax of a penny imposed in 1902 to counterbalance the increased charge that would fall upon the English distiller on account of the higher price of corn which the Government of that day anticipated would follow on the imposition of the low Corn Duty. When the Corn Duty was abolished in 1903 that penny was not abolished, and consequently at the present time the sur-tax is higher probably than it ought to be. Taking that into account, and also taking into account the small extent of this new imposition, the Government have thought it would be both unreasonable and unnecessary to impose the corresponding drawback in respect of this infinitesimally small amount.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot help thinking that the Committee must have been struck by the very remarkable defect in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel). He says that before we dealt with the Spirit Duties there was already an enormous tax of 11s. a gallon on spirits—enormous that is in comparison with the cost of its production or with the ordinary units on which we levy Customs Duty. But he says, "That is not all. Not only was it taxed to 11s. a gallon, but we by another provision in this Bill are imposing an additional 3s. 9d. per gallon on it. How can you under those circumstances complain when we put on another burden not in the form of Customs or Excise under the name of Licence Duty?" Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the fact that the duty is already so high and that by another provision of the Bill the Government are making it higher is not an argument in favour of the present proposal, but is an argument against it? It is, in the first place, a fact that the existing duty is so high that, in the opinion of many of those most competent to predict and in the opinion of those who judge by the experi-
  1684
  ence of the tax, and by the admissions of the Government, the tax is already so high that fiscally, on purely revenue grounds, it is a mistake to put further burdens on those subjects of taxation. But, in spite of that, the Government have put on the 3s. 9d., and then it is said that this duty after all is so small in amount, and in this Budget we have got so many burdens to bear, that this at least need not weigh with us. But each new burden that is added by the Government is an added injury to the trade, and to all the demands on them they reply that the duty is infinitesimal, and that it is a very small matter. On the best forms of spirit it would perhaps be a small matter, but on the cheap forms of spirits it becomes of more importance, and with regard to them I venture to say that it is not infinitesimal at all. The right hon. Gentleman defends himself for imposing this duty on homemade spirits without any corresponding Customs on foreign spirits, on the ground of the infinitesimal amount, and also because he says home spirits already have some protection. There is, I think, in every case, or nearly every case, where we have a Customs Duty, or anything which affords some minute protection, a view that it should be done away with. One of my hon. Friends (Mr. Rowland Hunt) the other day called attention to the case of cocoa, and proposed to withdraw the protection in that case. I was not able to be here. Had I been here I would have appealed to him not to press that Amendment. If there is any small protection I do not mind saying I am very glad it is there. I think it would be better if the scale were turned in our favour in other directions, but admit, if you like, for the sake of argument, that previous Chancellors of the Exchequer, either beginning in the Free Trade school or themselves pioneers of the Free Trade school, have left some slight trace of favouritism in our administration in the case of cocoa, tobacco and spirits, is that any reason for undoing their work, disturbing the balance they created and proposing a new duty on the home-made article without any counterbalancing customs?
  On the more expensive articles it may be a small matter, but take the average measure of the duty as taken by the Chancellor of the Duchy to be one-tenth of a penny per gallon. What is that on the cheapest forms of spirit, such as are used for methylation? It is 1 per cent. What would the right hon. Gentleman have said if the last Government had proposed for

  1685
  home manufacturers a 1 per cent. preference? Would the skies have re-echoed? Would the clamours of the then Opposition against the Government, who was protecting their own country, have resounded through the House? For it is fatal in the eyes of the present Government to give protection to their own country. They are perfectly ready to give protection to the foreigner. That they are doing by the provision we are now discussing. They are imposing a duty on the home-made article without any countervailing custom. The tax was a fixed Licence Duty and they are turning it into a tax on the manufacturer proportionate to the amount of capital invested; proportionate to the energies shown and the goodwill obtained by any particular business. They are penalising industry and enterprise. They are taxing the processes of manufacture instead of taxing the excisable article itself, and they combine with all that this preference to the foreigner, which they proclaim loudly on all occasions and which they will never accord to their own country.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The House will realise that this is an Irish and a Scotch question. It does not affect England at all. I do not know whether there is a single distillery in England. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lots of them."] Certainly I never heard of anybody asking for English whisky. If there be a distillery anywhere in England, I am afraid it must be calling its product either Irish or Scotch whisky. I am right, therefore, in saying that this is in the main, if not almost entirely, an Irish and a Scotch question. So far as it is a Scotch question, the Scotch Members may be allowed to deal with it themselves. So far as it is an Irish question, I desire to say a few words, although indeed they must be more or less in the nature of repetition of what I said the night that the Budget was first disclosed to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or of what I said on the discussion of the Resolutions, and, subsequently, of what I said on the second reading of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Duchy, if he will allow me to say so without any offence, seemed to me in his speech to make a perfectly ridiculous defence. He pointed out that this particular item of tax would only amount to one-tenth of a penny on spirits, and, therefore, he said, "It is so small, why need you bother about it?" If that was the sole increased tax levied on the industry, although people might
  1686
  object, I do not suppose that any very vehement or strenuous opposition would be made. But it is impossible to discuss this addition to the tax without taking into account the whole of the burden which is being put on the whisky industry. This is only a small item of the entire tax. The taxation that has been put on the industry, so far as Ireland is concerned, will, most undoubtedly, severely hit, if it does not destroy in many cases, the distilling industry. That is one of the few industries left in Ireland. Three-fourths of the amount of whisky distilled in Ireland is not consumed in the country at all. It is sent out of the country for consumption, and this, one of our only remaining industries, is going to be destroyed undoubtedly by this taxation. It is an industry which gives large employment in the country. It is an industry which promotes other trades and industries, and through this industry being injured you will be hitting directly other industries, and especially agriculture. Therefore it is that the Irish Members take such a serious view of the matter, and, therefore, we oppose by every means in our power this additional tax which the Government are putting on the industry. I do not desire to repeat arguments which I have used again and again on this matter. We take the view that anything more unjust than this tax cannot be conceived. You put this tax on Ireland and Scotland, and you do not put an equivalent tax upon England, and I ask again, as I asked before in discussing this matter, why is it you did not put a tax upon the British industry of beer when you put a tax on the Irish industry of whisky? We regard this as an unjust differentiation against Ireland, and that at a time when you ought to be engaged in reducing Irish taxation instead of increasing it. I trust this tax will be vehemently opposed by Irish Members in all quarters of the House. So far as we are concerned we regard with the utmost resentment this addition to the burdens of our country.
  Mr. H. BELLOC: I merely wish to make one or two observations with regard to this proposed tax. There are many of us who think that a special tax of this particular type is in general unjust, though we will, nevertheless, vote for the particular Schedule under discussion at this moment. The argument brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) is an argument which I myself, and many who think

  1687
  with me, take to be an argument from the Irish point of view—the point of view of men representing a country which has been ruined, and deliberately ruined, by English rule. Men in that position have the right to protest against any increase whatever, however small; they have a moral right, and a political right, to protest against increasing the burdens upon a particular trade, and a trade which is peculiarly their own. Against that I say nothing. So far as the tax, taken as a whole is concerned, it is impossible for one who feels as I do not to support the Government in this very small increase. I could wish that the rest of the taxation on trade had been of the same nature, but this is not the moment in which to discuss that. Precisely because later in these Debates it will be my duty to protest against a different type of imposition which will fall on the ordinary consumer, and which we regard as unjust, I wish to explain my reasons for voting in favour of this particular Schedule. No one can pretend, seeing what the position of Scotch distillers is at this moment, seeing what an enormous increase in the consumption of whisky there has been in the last generation, that an impost which amounts to one-tenth of a penny per gallon—it is a little less than one-tenth—is a serious burden upon the trade. This is precisely one of those very small imposts, falling upon a trade, a wealthy, well-organised trade well able to support it, which are right, which are traditional in our finance, and which have been imposed in the past when necessary to meet an extraordinary demand for revenue.
  Mr. JOHN GRETTON: I want to dispel one illusion put before the Committee, that there are no distillers in England. It is an English question, though, I admit, not nearly so largely as it is a Scotch or an Irish question. There are distilleries in England, some of which distil various descriptions of gin, including Plymouth gin; so that it is not entirely, as will be seen, an Irish or a Scotch question. I have great reason for objecting to this tax, which, added to the other taxation which is to be imposed, will interfere with the industry. My chief reason for objecting to the present proposal is that it is put before the Committee under an absolutely false guise. The Government put the tax as upon the manufacturer, whereas it is not that at all; it is a tax on the article which the manufacturer produces, and the scale in the
  1688
  Schedule fixes that tax. I think the impost is absolutely falsely described; it is a misnomer to call it a tax on the manufacturer, and it is coming before the Committee and the country under false pretences. If the Government wish to bring this additional taxation forward, they should do so in a straightforward manner, by imposing it on the article, and not calling it a tax on the manufacturer. In view of the fact that this additional burden, though small, will be seriously felt, in combination with the other additional taxes on the trade, I shall certainly vote against it.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I wish to disabuse the minds of Irish Members opposite of this deep-seated fallacy which apparently they entertain, namely, that we do not both distil and drink spirits in England. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has also frequently fallen into that mistake.
  Mr. BALFOUR: What mistake?
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: The mistake that we do not both distil and drink spirits in England. As a matter of fact, it is a tax which falls more heavily upon England than upon Ireland. It is simply a question of looking up the particulars in the Returns of the Inland Revenue, and I find that in England we distil 12,900,000 gallons of spirits, and in Ireland they distil 12,192,000 gallons. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the population?"] It is not a question of population in this case, it is a question of the burden upon the manufacturer, and of the respective burdens on the two countries. I think hon. Members opposite will realise that there is more fairness in this tax than they are at present inclined to believe, and that they will realise that in this particular case the tax falls more upon England than upon Ireland.
  Mr. J. F. REMNANT: I do not think hon. Members of this House will agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down when he says that spirits are not drunk in England. If he were to go into the smoke-room of this House his delusion would soon be dispelled. What I wish to call attention to is not the question of potable spirits, which has been so ably referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy). With all that he said I heartily agree, and I do not believe the Government have any very reasonable or businesslike answer to make to the hon. and learned Gentleman. In all this discussion I am

  1689
  rather afraid that the distilling of industrial spirit is likely to be overlooked. I would like to call the attention of the Prime Minister, to whom everyone in this House looks for an impartial attitude on these and other matters, to the question of industrial spirit, which is made in London and England to a very large extent. I have the details of the distilling in London for which I can vouch. They have been given to me by one of the manufacturers. He says, talking about this one-tenth of a penny tax, which is contemptuously referred to by the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—
  "It is true that the Licence Duty amounts to about one-tenth of a penny per gallon; but I would merely add this, that we often work on a fraction of a penny per gallon profit, and it is more serious than it looks. Besides, we find in our business that if we can sell an eighth of a penny per gallon cheaper than the foreigner, we do the business, whereas, if we do not do it at that small fraction cheaper, so great is the competition of the day, that we lose the business and it goes to the foreigner."
  That is the opinion of a man of experience manufacturing industrial spirit in London to the extent of a million and a half gallons per year. He has asked me to call the attention of the House to this very serious matter. When the Chancellor of the Duchy commences his speech by saying that he and all Members of the Government would have the very greatest pleasure, if they could, to accept all the Amendments on the Paper, I ask why they should not do so in this instance. I suppose they have made up their minds to accept nothing, but I would point out that industrial spirit here is heavily taxed in favour of the foreigner, and I think the Government might at least see their way to exempt this kind of spirit, which, after all, only means a paltry £2,600 of revenue, which they would not feel at all. I do ask
  them to give consideration to this matter, and to exempt industrial spirit from this tax.
  Mr. SAMUEL YOUNG: Though this tax is a small one, it is very irritating to manufacturers. You have already placed a tax of 3s. 9d. per gallon on whisky, but for the purpose of raising revenue this small tax of one-tenth of a penny will produce a mere trifle. In view of its irritating consequences, surely it is scarcely worth the Government's while to insist upon this impost. Apparently any stick is good enough to beat any person in the trade. Is this tax intended for revenue? I do not think it is. I think the whole meaning of these taxes is simply revenge. I cannot see how it can be intended for revenue, because the consumption is falling off and the revenue diminishing. Probably it is thought that this legislation will reform the morals of the people. If it would do so I, for one, should not object, but I certainly believe it will not. I am one of those who do not believe that legislation will reform the morals of the country. If you impose this tax on the manufacturer I think you will find that, instead of the morals of the country being improved, the whole result of these proposals will be to cause the people to resort to other stimulants which would be far more injurious to them. I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, that he makes a great mistake in imposing this duty, which will produce a very small return, and will not assist him in any material degree.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 97.

  Division No. 757.]

  AYES.

  [4.30 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Alden, Percy

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Clough, William

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Barker, Sir John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose))

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Beale, W. P.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Higham, John Sharp

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Black, Arthur W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Hodge, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Byles, William Pollard

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Summerbell, T.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Walter (Gloucester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rees, J. D.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Watt, Henry A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rowlands, J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

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

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Marnham, F. J.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Massie, J.

  Seddon, J.

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Seely, Colonel

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Morse, L. L.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Myer, Horatio

  Snowden, P.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gretton, John

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hill, Sir Clement

  O'Malley, William

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

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hunt, Rowland

  Parker Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Boland, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Joyce, Michael

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Keating, M.

  Reddy, M.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Renton, Leslie

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sheehy, David

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Stanier, Beville

  Devlin, Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  Starkey, John R.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Mooney, J. J.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dillon, John

  Moore, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Muldoon, John

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fell, Arthur

  Murnaghan, George

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Murphy, John

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Young, Samuel

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Younger and Mr. Goulding.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph

  Mr. YOUNGER Mr. YOUNGER moved (in A.—Manufacturer's Licences) to leave out "£15 15s.," and to insert instead thereof "£10."
  The case is exactly the same as, the last one, and I beg formally to move.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cases are not precisely similar. This is not a scale based on the amount of spirits treated by the rectifiers, but the present duty of £10 it is proposed to raise to a uniform sum of £15 15s. I hope the hon. Member will not press his objection.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: How many rectifiers are there altogether, and how much will they pay altogether?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It will bring in a revenue of £1,600.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Is that all. How much will it bring in this present year?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The revenue is about £3,000.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Is it considered worth while to upset the trade for £1,600?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether it is worth while to impose this, and why are you abolishing the revenue in the case of cider? I cannot understand why the five-

  1693
  guinea tax in the case of cider is abolished. Immediately some representation is made as in the case of football grounds, and that it is likely to catch votes, the Government put down an Amendment according as their supporters bring pressure to bear on them. If this revenue is so very small why can you not afford to abolish it, and how can you afford to abolish that on cider? I know it is very wrong to ask a question in this House, but I will be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what is the amount of revenue estimated for in each of these cases. It will be a great convenience for us to know.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) has yet appreciated the principles of the Budget. He asks a perfectly innocent question why the Government appear so obstinate in a duty which is bringing in £1,600, and why they hasten to abandon a duty which brings in a very great deal more, as I understand it, from cider. The answer is perfectly simple, and I am really amazed that the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it worth while to ask. A tax on cider affects a very large number of persons in the West of England, and there are only 300 persons engaged in the rectification of spirits. That is the answer. For the hon. and learned Gentleman at this time of day to appeal to the Government to relieve 300 persons who could not have more than 300 votes passes the understanding of an old Parliamentary hand like myself, and shows a degree of innocence which I could not have imagined possible.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) has made a very amusing speech which would have more influence with the Committee if he were really acquainted with the comparative statistics. The number of rectifiers of spirits who hold licences is 252. The number of manufacturers of cider who would have to take out licences under the Bill, with the exemptions allowed in the case of farmers who make cider from their own apples, is 10.
  Mr. BALFOUR: You are leaving out the farmers who do make cider.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The number of manufacturers of cider affected by the duty in the Bill which we propose drop-
  1694
  ping is 10. The number of rectifiers in England and Wales is 252, and there are a score or so in Scotland and Ireland. Our revenue from the rectifiers of spirits, the increased revenue, is £1,559, and the revenue from the manufacturers of cider would he £52.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: That is that there are only ten persons making cider. I think there are that number in Ireland. Why was it put in the Budget at all? In Lord Macaulay's history he speaks of Worcester as the great cider country, and Lord Macaulay thinks it worth his while in dealing with great political questions to bring in the effect on the cider industry. And yet we are now told by the Government that there are so few either in Worcestershire or Herefordshire that really there are only ten altogether. Where do the figures come from? When I was a boy in county Waterford there were ten makers of cider in that county alone, and to be told now that in all England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland there are only ten makers of cider simply capsizes me. I venture to say that we get circulars from 50 makers of cider in twelve months. I am really amazed at the action of the Government. I must acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition has given me a great store of information that I did not previously possess. I thought the ground of the Government's treatment of cider makers was different—that pressure had been put upon them by Liberal Members from Worcestershire and Herefordshire, and not in the least that it was due to any paucity in the amount of revenue. Now that the Government tell us that there are only 10 persons affected, I cannot see that they would turn any electoral scale; I can only believe that there are many more than 10 persons concerned, and that it has been found convenient on the eve of a General Election to wipe out the tax altogether.
  Mr. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where he gets the figures from as to the number of cider manufacturers?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think we had better leave that until we get to the Cider Duty.
  Question put, "That '£15 15s.' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 99.

  Division No. 758.]

  AYES.

  [4.50 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Alden, Percy

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Barker, Sir John

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rees, J. D.

  Beale, W. P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hodge, John

  Rowlands, J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Seddon, J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Seely, Colonel

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Clough, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Snowden, P.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Summerbell, T.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Verney, F. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Massie, J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Mond, A.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Montgomery, H. G.

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morse, L. L.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Furness, Sir Christopher

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Myer, Horatio

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  M'Kean, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Meagher, Michael

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Forster, Henry William

  Mooney, J. J.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Muldoon, John

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gretton, John

  Murnaghan, George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nolan, Joseph

  Banbury, Sir Francis George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Boland, John

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hill, Sir Clement

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Keating, M.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington).

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kerry, Earl of

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, J.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Reddy, M.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lundon, T.

  Renton, Leslie

  Dillon, John

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Fell, Arthur

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Sheehy, David

  1696

  1697

  Stanier, Beville

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Starkey, John R.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Young, Samuel

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Winterton, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Younger and Mr. Remnant.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Mr. YOUNGER Mr. YOUNGER moved to leave out the words "Duty specified in Scale 2" ["Beer:—By a brewer of beer for sale. Duty as specified in Scale 2"], and to insert instead thereof "£1 1s. 0d."
  5.0 P.M.
  Although the right hon. Gentleman may say that this tax represents only one-tenth of a penny on a gallon of beer, yet it means a very large sum indeed in the case of the brewers, varying from a few pounds a year to no less than £26,000 in one case. In that case, where the licence at present is only one pound, it will be £26,000 a year. It must, therefore, be admitted that this is an extremely important and very drastic change, and we are entitled to examine the reasons given in its justification. I have never been able to find any reason whatever to justify the tax except the desire to round on the brewers. In referring to these proposals a few weeks ago the Prime Minister made no bones about his own position. He accepted quite frankly the position he had taken up in answer to a question by the hon. Member for North Paddington some time ago. He said that the Government wanted money; that they were merely reverting to the position which obtained before 1880; that the brewers had now the benefit of cheaper materials than they had then; that he had repealed a portion of the Sugar Duty a year ago; that, generally speaking, the number of brewers having been greatly reduced, there had been a consolidation of business, an increase in economy, and a profitable development of machinery. Those were the expressions of the Prime Minister in dealing with this particular tax some weeks ago. In replying to that speech I endeavoured to show that, so far as regarded the system before 1880, the tax which then prevailed was absorbed by Mr. Gladstone in fixing the Beer Duty which he imposed in that year. I also pointed out that, although there had been for a certain number of years a considerable reduction in the cost of materials, that reduction had been more than counterbalanced by the increase of taxation; that prices were higher now than they were in 1880, and that therefore that particular argument did not hold good at all. Then we have the curious fact that in making these points in favour of the tax the Prime Minister omitted entirely to give the
  1698
  Committee any information, which he could easily have derived from the officials at Somerset House, as to the profits of this business now compared with the profits brewers were making in 1880. That was a very significant omission. In my short experience of this House I have observed that there are very few arguments which the Prime Minister omits to use when he is justifying any position he has taken up. He is extremely able and lucid in marshalling his arguments, and never leaves any unnoticed. On this occasion, however, the only argument which would really bolster up the case he attempted to make was wholly forgotten—at all events, it was not mentioned, simply for the reason, I am sure, that the figures which Somerset House could have given him would not have backed up the case he was making. It is no use going into arguments. It is unnecessary to point out that this is another Income Tax. I do say this: if the Prime Minister desired to get something more, out of the brewers he should have put the tax upon beer itself. One hears hon. Members opposite occasionally saying that the Licence Duties are wholly different in their incidence from the tax on the article which is being sold. That is perfect nonsense. The cost of both has to come from the same pocket, and from the same profits. You cannot alter the incidence of a tax by calling it by a different name. The Prime Minister says that this 3d. will be passed on. If that is to be the case, why impose it? If it is passed on, it will not be in the way of increased price, but in the way of weaker beer. Hon. Gentlemen like the Member for Appleby (Mr. Leif Jones) will no doubt be glad to hear that; but I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his position as guardian of our revenue, will be very pleased about it. What is the good of the tax if it is not to yield its quota to the revenue? Why, under the circumstances, should you impose an irritating tax of this kind? It is a tax which cannot be defended on any sort of arguable grounds, unless you are going to tax manufacturers on what they produce. If it were a general manufacturers' tax then it would be perfectly right that the brewer and distiller should pay like any other persons. If a general tax is not to be imposed, this tax is not right.
  The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER rose to speak, but gave way.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Before the Prime Minister speaks, I should like to say a word. In any answer the right hon. Gentleman is going to make, I would remind him and the Committee that I raised this question when the Clauses were under discussion, and gave him facts about the small Irish breweries. The right hon. Gentleman informed me that those facts were new to him, and that he had not had an opportunity of considering them, and he promised he would give his consideration to the matter. That raised hopes in our minds, especially when, later in the Debate, a Member of the Opposition twitted the Government with having given a promise of special consideration to Ireland in this matter. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, "That is not so," but that any concession that might be made would extend to England as well as to Ireland. That led us to believe that the arguments we had used had made some lodgment in the minds of the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. I trust that is so. I only desire to deal with the Irish part of this case. It is like all matters connected with this Budget. The case of Ireland is entirely different from what it is in this country. In Ireland there are only 29 breweries altogether. One of them is the great firm of Guinness, who manufacture something between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 barrels of beer yearly. The other 28 breweries are all small. Probably the whole of them put together brew only 700,000 or 800,000 barrels per year, against Guinness's 3,000,000. These little breweries are small industries scattered here and there over the country. They are centres of employment. They promote the growing of barley, and it would be a cruel thing—I am sure it cannot be the intention of the Government—to wipe out these small industries for no other object in the world than to enlarge and enhance the monopoly of Guinness.
  Let me give the figures again. Fourteen of the breweries in Ireland manufacture less than 10,000 barrels per year; five breweries each manufacture less than 20,000 barrels; five less than 100,000; two less than 150,000. Guinness's jump up to nearly 3,000,000. Well, now, I do earnestly press upon the Government and upon the Committee this view: What is the object of putting a crushing tax upon these small breweries? It is not with the object of
  1700
  revenue, because the revenue to be raised from these small breweries by this additional impost is necessarily very small. It cannot be in the interests of temperance, because if you destroy these small breweries you only enhance the power of that great monopoly—Guinness. You do not diminish the consumption of porter in the country by a single gallon. You do not help your revenue; you do not help temperance. What is the object of putting the tax on these small breweries? I defy anybody to give a single solid reason why these small breweries should be crippled or destroyed. I find on working it out that the total amount to be raised by these under the Bill is £12,474, a ridiculously small sum from the point of view of revenue, but from the point of view of the existence of these institutions a very large sum. I find in these small breweries where they manufacture less than 10,000 barrels yearly, each one of them, under the Bill, will have to pay £119 16s. additional duty. Those who manufacture less than 20,000 would have to pay £239 16s. each. Those who manufactured under 100,000 would have to pay £1,199 additional duty. Those who manufactured under 150,000 would have to pay £1,799 additional duty each. Now, it would be no use for the Government to point to the smallness of these figures and to say that they will not destroy all these industries. We who speak from these benches know the commercial position of these breweries. We know that at the present moment most of them are not paying a dividend; that they are barely struggling along, and we are assured by those who are connected with them—we know of our own knowledge—that this additional impost will absolutely destroy, at any rate, all the smaller of them. I do put it to the House no sufficient object, public or private, financial or political, or any other, can be gained by carrying out this operation. I have an Amendment upon the Paper later in which I propose to substitute another scale for the one that is on the Paper. When we come to that Amendment I will deal in detail with the matter. I do not desire to deal just now in detail with the subject, but to reserve my right to deal fully with the matter when my Amendment is reached. What I desire now is to raise the broad question as to whether you will impose this tax at all. I have confined myself entirely to the Irish aspect of the matter, and in view of the sympathetic way in which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy

  1701
  of Lancaster answered me when I spoke upon this before I am not without hope that they may make some concession to the demand I have made.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) has raised again all the relations raised when we discussed the clause which authorises this scale. I do not think it would be a reasonable way to spend the time of the Committee at this stage of the proceedings if I were to go back to the question as to whether or not it is desirable that an additional Licence Duty should be imposed upon the brewers. I think the Committee have decided that in the affirmative. I imagine the only practical question before us is as to whether or not the scale proposed in the Schedule is a just scale and meets the requirements of the case. I do not think the hon. Gentleman means or anyone on that side of the House would seriously contend that if we impose a duty of this kind at all that a firm such as that as has been referred to by the hon. Member opposite—that is Guinness', who brew nearly 3,000,000 barrels yearly—should escape with a payment of £1. I think, therefore, so far as it is a question of the substitution of some scale for the existing fixed charge of £1 the matter really and in effect has been decided. With reference to what has been said by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) I promised when this matter came up a few weeks ago to take it into serious consideration. That promise was repeated by the Chancellor of the Duchy with the proviso—a very proper proviso—that in a matter of this kind one cannot deal with Ireland on a different footing to the other parts of the United Kingdom. This is not at all an analogous question to the question that arose on the valuation of public-houses, or the application of a minimum scale of retailers' duty. In this respect all the brewers of the United Kingdom are practically upon a level footing. While I assure the hon. Gentleman I have given careful and sympathetic consideration to the points he put before us then, and which he has repeated to-day, I have felt compelled myself to come to the conclusion—at any rate as at present advised—that I do not see my way to make the concession which he suggests. The matter, of course, will come up more fitly when he proposes his own alternative scale. Let me point out generally what the state of the case is. There are in the
  1702
  United Kingdom brewing under 1,000 barrels yearly 3,300 persons; under 10,000–770; under 20,000–208; under 30,000–110; under 50,000–97; under 100,000–81; and 100,000 and over, 46. So that it appears from that enumeration that not merely in Ireland, but, what is more striking, in regard to other parts of the United Kingdom, that the vast bulk of the brewers are those who brew under 1,000 barrels yearly. The enormous majority brew under 10,000 barrels yearly. If you are called to exempt altogether by some preferential scale the persons in that category from the operations of this Bill obviously we should be introducing a most extraordinary and anomalous state of things. You would only have to sub-divide the scale of your operations in order to escape, or largely to escape, the payment of the duty. This is not like a duty upon the monopoly duty of licences. This is a duty which must inevitably tend, sooner or later, and in one form or another, to fall upon the consumer of the commodity.
  Mr. YOUNGER: So will the licence.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will not discuss that question with regard to the licensed dealer who has a monopoly. Here we admit there is no question of monopoly at all. Either in the form of enhanced price or, as the hon. Member suggested, in the form of a more highly watered commodity, the consumer will pay the duty in the long run, and it will not fall upon the brewer himself. We have recognised this by introducing, as the hon. Member for Waterford knows, into the body of our Bill a clause, already passed, which imposes a corresponding Customs duty, showing that we treat here this very imposition, not as an imposition upon the trade, not as an imposition which is ultimately to be borne by the brewer, but by the consumer. On the whole consideration of the question I think it will be found that there are almost insuperable difficulties, in the shape of discrimination, between a different tax on manufacturers in proportion to the different amount which from time to time they make. And while I have no desire to see a great business swallowing up small ones—
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: That will be the result.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Either in Ireland or anywhere else, I do not at the present see my way to establishing discrimination such as the hon. Member suggests;

  1703
  and perhaps, at any rate, we may reserve further consideration until we come to his own Amendments, to see what valuable arguments not yet used there are that would justify discrimination which at present seem to be impracticable.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not propose to urge upon the Government the imposition of discrimination in favour of one class of manufacturers of beer against another class. I think the anomalies of the new principle introducing strange changes already made in our system of finance are quite sufficient as they are without introducing further that a man is to be taxed on a higher scale, according as he turns out a larger amount of goods. However much you tax a manufacturer on a large scale I suppose there are many industries in which a manufacturer on a large scale is undoubtedly beneficial to the consumer, and is the only way of dealing with foreign competition. At any rate, to discriminate against large producers in the manner suggested would be an extremely perilous experiment, and I should not care to be responsible for it until I hear the question argued much more elaborately than it has been argued so far.
  Then we come to the question: If there is to be no discrimination against the large producer, is there to be a discrimination in favour of the small producer in one part of the United Kingdom? Again, I do not think that that is a practicable policy. But it is a policy which, I understand, the Government are going to accept in another part of the Schedule to which we have not yet come. I will not anticipate the discussion, but I certainly think the Government did introduce in deference to requests from hon. Members below the Gangway, and in consequence of arrangements come to, a provision intending to discriminate, and having the effect of discriminating, in favour of one part of the United Kingdom as compared with another. I do not know that this is a principle I can accept from the Government. Indeed, I must say one of the objections I have with regard to this Budget is that I think it discriminates in other respects, both with regard to Ireland and Scotland, and is most unfair to other parts of the United Kingdom. If the Government insist upon carrying out this principle of fiscal legislation, we may surely find ourselves in the sort of difficulty with which the Government are in vain endeavouring to cope. The right
  1704
  hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, has given the go-by to the arguments by my hon. Friend who proposed this Amendment. He accused my hon. Friend of having repeated the arguments he used in the Committee stage, and he absolved himself from the necessity of replying to them on the ground that he had replied to them earlier in our Debates. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has replied to them.
  These arguments were put by my hon. Friend before the Committee in a speech which was remarkable for its compression and gravity, and I should have thought at all events the right hon. Gentleman on a similar scale should have given us his reasons against the Amendment, and I should have thought so the more because nobody has committed himself more specifically against this tax than the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was appealed to last year or the year before by the hon. Member for North Paddington to impose a tax ad valorem upon general lines which the Government have now adopted, and the right hon. Gentleman was not content in saying he did not think it would find a fitting place in the Budget he was then introducing; he went much further, and said he thought that kind of ad valorem tax was objectionable in principle. I should think that if the late Chancellor of the Exchequer of the present Government and the present Prime Minister of the present Government told us a particular tax was objectionable in principle, when his own Government brought forward that tax the least tribute he could pay to his own arguments in the past is to offer some refutation of them.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I made a long speech upon the subject.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am aware the right hon. Gentleman addressed the Committee upon the general subject of these manufacturers' licences; but did he ever explain why he changed his views in the last 18 months or two years upon the principle of the tax? I believe the right hon. Gentleman will search his speech in vain for that. When challenged by the hon. Member for North Paddington he was not content to say that he would defer the consideration of that tax to a future time, but he told him he objected to it in principle. There are all these objections to-day, and these objections have been partly stated by my hon. Friend behind me and partly by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and I confess I am surprised that the Prime

  1705
  Minister has never taken the Committee into his confidence as to why it is that the opinion he held so strongly as to a recent financial principle should be one which is abandoned with such light-hearted felicity when it comes to be proposed by his colleague, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not like this particular form of tax, but I admit I do not see how it can be modified in the manner proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. I shall support my hon. Friend if he goes into the Lobby, but I shall wait until I hear the hon. Member for Waterford defend more elaborately his alternative scheme before I say anything further upon his proposal.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I ask the Committee to note that, so far as the Irish case is concerned, the Prime Minister upon its merits has given no answer. The right hon. Gentleman does not deny the statement of facts I put forward. He has not denied the effect of the tax upon small breweries in Ireland or the justice of the position I have taken up. In fact, he sympathises with it, as was indicated when he stated that he would be the last man who would desire to see one great monopoly eating up its competitors. So far as the merits of the Irish case are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman has attempted no answer. What is the reason? It is the old, old story. We cannot have justice done in Ireland because of some state of things in England. Because there are so many more breweries in England nothing is to be done to safeguard the existence of these industries in Ireland. There is the case. Because a certain state of things exist in England a great monopoly is to be allowed to eat up a number of small rivals in Ireland. That is the old story. It is the answer we get to everything in this House. Every Irish question is judged, not upon its merits, but by the interest and circumstances of England. Let me call the attention of the House to how that works out. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister at present could not see his way to meet our case, and he said he would not discuss it any further until he came to my Amendment. Am I to hope from that that when he comes to my Amendment he will do something to safeguard the interests of the small brewers in Ireland? The Leader of the Opposition does not like the particular form of my Amendment. My colleagues and I are not wedded to the precise scale set out in my Amendment. We
  1706
  simply want some Amendment put into the Bill that will save from destruction these small Irish industries. If the Prime Minister is willing to translate his wishes into acts, and will devise something when we come to this Amendment that will have the effect of saving these small businesses from being eaten up by Messrs. Guinness, my Amendment will not stand in the way for a moment. All I desire is to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of proposing some Amendment of his own that will meet the case. If he does that he will meet us, but if he does not he will cause widespread resentment and disappointment in Ireland. I ask everyone in Ireland and out of it to note that the injustice of which we complain is not denied, but because of something that exists in England we are told that that injustice cannot be remedied.
  Colonel WALKER: It has been pointed out by some Members that the increased tax can be met by reducing the gravity of the beer. Quite so. But that may have been done already, and there is a limit to that operation. You may also raise the price of your article, but I do not think it is necessary to point out once more the extreme folly of such a proceeding on the part of the Government. There is a further alternative which has not been spoken of, although I think it was hinted at by the hon. Member for Waterford. And it is this: that when there is a difficulty in meeting this extra taxation, economy must be practised in some direction. In what direction will you turn? Is it to be found in employing female labour? I hope not. The wages paid in the brewing industry are greater than any other. Let me tell the Committee where a saving really could be made. The extra tax will be shared by those who produce the article which the brewers manufacture. It therefore comes to this: that the extra tax will be placed once more upon land and upon the agricultural industries of this country. I think you will find that every kind of extra taxation placed upon beer means that the price of barley must go down. Why is that? It simply means that the brewer has to make his profit. He goes into the market, and he says, "What is the price of your barley?" He is told so much. He replies, "Oh! we cannot afford that," and he wants to pay less. The result is that the market price of the barley is made by the purchaser. It is the same with hops. If they cannot get the hops at a price which will enable them to get a

  1707
  profit, what is the result? They buy their barley and hops from abroad. Whose fault is this? It is the fault of the Government for putting this extra taxation on hops, and it is simply another nail in the coffin of Free Trade. What does the extra tax on whisky mean? Simply that more plain spirit from Germany will be blended with the malted spirit; and whatever you do in your absurd taxation simply means that you are putting another nail in the coffin of Free Trade.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Prime Minister, in answer to the cogent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, said the Government could not discriminate between various classes of brewers in Ireland and in England. I may inform him that the Government already discriminate against Irish beer. If you look at the War Office specification for beer in Ireland you will see that the Government require the Irish brewer who is delivering beer to the British Army in Ireland to maintain a certain specific gravity, which is higher than the English beer. The British Army in Ireland drink a good deal of beer, and why do you make this discrimination? It is done to give the English brewer a countervailing duty, so to speak, having regard to the carriage he has to pay coming from England. That is the action which has been taken by the Government of which the Prime Minister is the head. We shall probably be told that the Government have never heard of this, and that it is the action of some other Department. To us you are only the English Government, and you have only one head, and there is only one thing, namely, the tyranny you exercise in our country. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford has asked if you are prepared to see one huge monopoly established in Ireland to the detriment and the ruin of all smaller industries. May I point out that Guinness's have a railway rate from Dublin to Tralee, a distance of 200 miles, less than the railway rate from Cork to Tralee, which is only half the distance. The result is that Guinness is able to send his stuff to Tralee cheaper than the man who is practically a local man.
  Take another point. Guinness, with his huge reserve of £1,000,000, is able to weather this Government until the Bill is rejected in the House of Lords. What does Guinness do? He does not put up the price of beer. He says, "I will wait till the clouds roll by, or until the Government is changed." Ministers sitting on the
  1708
  Treasury Bench cannot expect to be in office for ever. What is the effect of that? My Constituency is a large barley-growing district, and it contains some of the best land in the whole country. What will the unfortunate farmers in my Constituency have to do? In consequence of this tax there will be nobody to buy this barley; the land will go to grass, and the labourer will go to America to swell your enemies there. In the name of heaven, what benefit will you have done to a single person by this tax? Even the extra dividend which Guinness will distribute will not be anything like a quarter per cent. You will have this great monopoly controlling practically the farmers of a place like Carrick-on-Suir. I want to have fair competition. You have in Carrick-on-Suir some 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants, and this tax will wipe out the little brewery there and throw 100 families out of employment. You howl about unemployment in London, and you have your soup kitchens on the Thames Embankment, but because our country is immeshed in this great British system you say, "Oh, this is a principle of logic. It is true the Irish industries will be injured, and we are extremely sorry, but Jevons on Logic is much dearer to us than Irish industries." Be hanged to your logic! We want our industries, and your logic is nothing to us. When an appeal is made to you in regard to some important matter you always apply to us some great British principle and crush us out absolutely without mercy. My loathing of English legislation has been greatly intensified by this Budget, which has been introduced without consideration and passed with every circumstance of cruelty. The Prime Minister forgets that before he came in the Secretary to the Treasury stated that the Government could accept no Amendment except those that were on the Paper in the name of the Government—as a matter of fact, he read this off a paper as if it were a Cabinet announcement. What use is it to say that when the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is reached, the Government will give it further consideration, because you cannot kick over a Secretary to the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stated that we had discussed this matter on the Clause, and he asked if it was worth while having a repetition of that discussion. I say solemnly that if ever there was a case that deserved consideration at the hands of the Government, it is the case of these small brewers in Ireland. It is a reason-

  1709
  able case to any man who lives in Ireland. Agriculture and labour is involved and the ruin you are going to create ought to induce any man—even an Englishman—to resent this tax.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 105.

  Division No. 759.]

  AYES.

  [5.42 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Myer, Horatio

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Alden, Perey

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Athertey-Jones, L.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barker, Sir John

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rees, J. D.

  Beale, W. P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robinson, S.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Hodge, John

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Seddon, J.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seely, Colonel

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Snowden, P.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jowett, F. W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Summerbell, T.

  Clough, William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Verney, F. W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Watt, Henry A.

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

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Maddison, Frederick

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Essex, R. W.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Massie, J.

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Mond, A.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morse, L. L.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Cullinan, J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Devlin, Joseph

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Bull, Sir William James

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Dillon, John

  Ashley, W. W.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Forster, Henry William

  Boland, John

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Gretton, John

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  M'Kean, John

  Reddy, M.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Meagher, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Mooney, J. J.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Moore, William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Muldoon, John

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Murnaghan, George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehy, David

  Hills, J. W.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nolan, Joseph

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Stanier, Beville

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Starkey, John R.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Keating, M.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  O'Malley, William

  Young, Samuel

  Lundon, T.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Younger and Earl Winterton.

  Question, "To leave out 'Cider: By a maker for sale of cider, £5 5s.,'" put, and agreed to.

  Amendment made: After "Licence on which duty is payable," etc. ["by a brewer of beer other than a brewer for sale"], to insert" 44 and 45 Vict., c. 12, s. 14, or 48 and 49 Vict., c. 51, s. 5."
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, to leave out the words, "Cider: By a maker for sale of cider, £5 5s."
  I rise to offer some explanation of this Amendment. The Bill proposes to impose Licence Duties on a somewhat higher scale on all manufacturers of and dealers in intoxicants, and among the intoxicating liquors of a mild order must be considered cider. We propose, therefore, to charge a Licence Duty of five guineas on manufacturers and wholesale dealers in cider. It was recognised at the outset that it would be oppressive to impose a duty of this character on a farmer who merely made cider from his own apples, partly, perhaps, for his own use and the use of his own neighbours and partly for sale; and it was also considered that it would be going beyond the necessities of the case if a farmer was prohibited from purchasing apples to make up any deficiency in any particular supply. A proviso was, therefore, added that—
  "An occupier of land may, without taking out a manufacturer's licence, make cider for sale from fruit grown on land occupied by him, and from fruit not so grown if it does not exceed in amount the fruit grown on land occupied by him and made into cider."
  Since that provision was made in the Bill it has been represented to the Government that purchases of apples for the manufacture of cider vary very considerably from year to year, and that a farmer one year may buy only a very few apples,
  1712
  whereas in another year there may be a windfall of apples in the district, and he may in that particular year purchase a large number of apples which cannot be used except for the purpose of making cider. Although this Budget has been described as a measure for the taxation of windfalls, it was only so described in a metaphorical sense, and not in a literal sense, such as now in question. It was clear that a modification would have to be made in this duty and in the exemptions from the duty in order to meet such cases as that if they were all to be properly met. The question then arose whether, after all, it is worth while to insist upon these Licence Duties. It is estimated that, if all the farmers are excluded, there will only be ten wholesale manufacturers of cider in the country.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: When was that found out?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: An estimate was made before the Bill was introduced. If, contrary to our intention, farmers who made cider had been brought in, then undoubtedly the number would be very considerably increased; but it was never our intention to bring in farmers making their own cider. The wholesale manufacturers of cider in the whole of the United Kingdom number ten, and the revenue to be derived would be £52 10s. 0d. The dealers in cider number 20, and it is estimated the revenue derived from them would be about £89. In those circumstances, the Government thought it unnecessary and, indeed, inadvisable, to insert a most elaborate provision in order to distinguish the farmer from the other manufacturers of cider, and consequently it was thought more suitable, and I have no doubt it will be acceptable to

  1713
  the Committee, to leave out these duties on manufacturers and wholesale dealers in cider, while maintaining the small alteration in the scale of the existing duties on retailers of cider. I trust the Government will not be blamed for sacrificing under this head a revenue of £141.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I shall certainly not blame the Government for this concession, late though it comes in the Bill. What we want to know is why the provision was ever put in the Schedule at all. This Budget has been thought over night after night before it was put on the Paper, and the Government knew perfectly well there were only ten men who would be charged this Cider Duty, amounting to £52 10s. 0d. in all. When there is a deficiency of £16,000,000, £52 10s. will not make much difference one way or the other. One is therefore driven to the conclusion that the cider makers were included as a matter of principle. If there is one thing the Government hold fast by in sunshiny and stormy days it is principle. No question of expediency will ever override principle. Therefore, if the cider maker was put in on principle, on what theory is he taken out? I hope I may have an answer to that question. We want a little more light. We are getting almost to the last stage of the Bill in Committee, and the Government are throwing over parts of the Bill here and parts of the Bill there. We all know why—to get votes; in fact, that is the principle of the Bill. Do let the right hon. Gentleman make a clean breast of it, and tell us what is the secret, what is the interesting little piece of history that has led to the elimination of the 10 cider makers. There must be a great deal more in it than meets the eye. I should like to know how many petitions or letters the right hon. Gentlemen has had from the West Country. I hope we are not going to be left completely in the dark. Principle has gone to the winds; it is mere political expediency.
  Mr. J. S. ARKWRIGHT: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy if he will tell us what circulars were sent out in order that some information might be gained by the Government with regard to this question of cider. Surely it is not too late even now to point out that we ought to be spared from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer once called these vexatious little taxes which give a lot of trouble, which are not understood, which
  1714
  cause a good deal of disturbance, and which have no justification whatever unless they are going to bring in some substantial revenue to the Government. The whole thing is a very much larger question than one merely affecting the cider making industry. I do not think that hon. Members representing the cider district or their constituents will be satisfied if this tax is simply taken off with just a few sentences of explanation by the Minister in charge for the moment. They think it ought not to have been put on at all, and it certainly ought not to be removed without some excuse, or explanation, or apology to those who carry on a legitimate industry which at the present moment is undoubtedly a struggling industry.
  6.0 P.M.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not propose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the reason for this change of policy; indeed, I do not think he could possibly give a satisfactory answer. He tells us that this only affects a small number of manufacturers, but I would remind him that it affects also a very large number of small farmers and manufacturers, and I know of the case of one man in my own Constituency who, as the result of the announced intention of the Goverment to put on this tax, disposed of the whole of his cider-making plant. I should like to ask if we are to understand that it is the settled policy of the Government, in the event of their being in a position to bring in a Budget another year, not to increase the tax upon cider. I agree with every word which has been said as to the undesirability of this tax, and I hope we may have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will never again propose to increase it.
  Mr. S. L. GWYNN: I am glad that the Government have, at all events, refrained from crushing one growing Irish industry, because, as a matter of fact, people are beginning to make cider in Ireland. I do not think the Government were aware of that fact. This is apparently the only Irish industry to which they are going to make a concession, and I think their reason for doing so is that they believed it to be a purely English industry.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made the extraordinary statement that cider is only slightly intoxicating. I understood, from certain evidence given in an inquiry on

  1715
  this subject, that cider produces the worst headache of all. If you turn to the definition of intoxicating liquors in the Licensing Acts you will find there is no distinction drawn in your own legislation between cider, whisky, wine, beer, or any other intoxicant. If that be the answer of the Government on this point, may I ask why are you raising the duty on the retailer of cider from £1 to £5? You cannot have it both ways. You are abolishing the duty on the manufacture of the article, but you are raising the duty on its sale. You are also raising the duty on the sale of whisky and beer, so that if cider is only slightly intoxicating, why should you raise the duty on that fivefold? I think it is a most monstrous proposal. This establishes an absolute want of logic on the part of the Administration. But I now come to the really serious part of the question. If it be true, and it is so stated by the Government, and therefore I am bound to believe it—I make it a rule to believe every statement made on behalf of the Government; I do not say this Government in particular, but I accept everything said from the Government Bench, which I look upon as a kind of Mount Sinai—if it be true the Government were aware that there were only ten makers of cider when they introduced this Bill, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget statement, why did they put this miserable tax on to raise £50? Was it worth doing? It could not be the case of a hen-roost or even a duck-run, and it surely was not worth while bringing in this tax. The Government must have been in possession of all the necessary information; they knew at the beginning what it would produce, and yet they deliberately made this proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "I must get money somewhere; whether it is £50 or £5,000,000, I must have it. 'Every mickle makes a muckle,' and £50 even is important from my point of view."
  I should like to know what happened subsequently. When did the cider drunk disappear from the mind of the Government? When did they say that, while imposing on the Irish and the Scotch distiller and the English and Irish brewer additional duties, it was not worth while pressing for this £50 Cider Duty? I am surprised that the Liberal Members from the cider country are remaining absolutely silent on this question. If this were an Irish tax that was being remitted we would grovel almost on our faces before
  1716
  the Government. Why is it that hon. Members from Worcestershire, Herefordshire and the West Country are remaining absolutely silent? They know very well that the withdrawal of the proposal is not due to the fact that the duty is so small, and that it is not because cider is only mildly intoxicating. I should like to know at what time the information impressed itself on the Government that it would be undesirable to press this tax. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that representations have been made, but has the Government not also had representations made to it about beer and whisky? Have we not worried them with deputations from our country? How is it that a handful of Members from Herefordshire and Worcestershire have been able to get this remarkable concession? Is it on the ground of its smallness in amount? Its smallness is its significance. How, I repeat, have they been able to get this concession? We have not been able to get this information so far. The Government knew the sum was small when they originally made their proposal. They cannot, therefore, have abandoned the duty because of the small product. They are abandoning it on some other grounds, on what I should call a football ground. They discovered that a tax on football clubs was far from popular, and they dropped it. They discovered that a tax on building societies was unpopular, and away that went. They also discovered that the tax on ungotten minerals was unpopular, and away that went, and in the same way away goes the tax on cider. "Bang goes saxpence." Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the name of the logicians who persuaded him to abandon this tax? If so, we will hire them for Ireland and Scotland. Will he also tell us what it was that persuaded him? We have 80 votes here from Ireland. If you reckon up the Members for Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Devonshire, what do they number? I believe it is a fact that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty represents a constituency in Devonshire. Was that an important part of the argument? I do appeal to the Government to let us know the precise moment of time at which they were forced to their present conclusion, and the precise character of the representation which induced them to yield. If they will do that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to taxes affecting our country, we will follow humbly in the footsteps of those who have adopted these persuasive doctrines. We

  1717
  wish to imitate the admirable manner in which they have induced the Government to drop this tax. Will hon. Gentlemen not let out the secret? Let them be generous, and impart to us from unfortunate Ireland the secret means by which they have extracted the dropping of this tax. It is a small matter, so far as they are concerned, but it is important to us. We have again and again referred to the ruin which is being caused to our country by the fresh taxes on whisky and beer; I can only suggest that a proper and good rallying cry for the Government to go to the country, as we understand they are about to do, would be "free feeding and free cider."
  Mr. DILLON: On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. John Redmond), I move, in Schedule I., Spirit Dealer's Licence, to leave out "£10" and insert "£1" instead thereof. The Chancellor of the Duchy said on the Clause which has already been passed, Clause 29, that the Committee had assented to the principle that there should be a graduated schedule of duties on manufactures of whisky instead of the present taxes. My Amendment accepts that principle, although I voted for and supported the more sweeping Amendment that has already been raised. I chink this is a second line of defence. My Amendment proposes that it should commence at £10, and increase, not at the rate in the Government scale, which is £10 for every 50,000 gallons, and after than £10 for every 25,000 gallons, but I propose it should be a £1 increase. The Chancellor of the Duchy, in objecting to the previous Amendment, made use of one of the most extraordinary arguments used in this House. He said how can you object to this small additional duty on the manufacture of whisky because we have put an enormous duty on the manufactures. That is the most extraordinary argument that I have ever heard in response to the appeal against taxation. I am afraid it will make no matter or very little matter to some of the small distilleries in Ireland, because the tax may kill them, or, at all events, seriously injure them. I cannot understand the logic of the Government in taking up the position they have taken up on this matter that because they have put a tax on the manufactured article—which I say is absolutely without parallel so far as taxation of that article is concerned—they therefore are justified in
  1718
  putting a tax on the manufacturers also. The first thing I would say with regard to this tax it that it is impossible to consider it without keeping in mind the immense and unparalleled tax on the manufactured article. The first thing to consider is the contract which the Government have set up between their dealings with the English national beverage, which is mainly manufactured in this country, and the special manufacture of Ireland. I desire, in dealing with this subject, to look at the question not from the point of consumption. I quite agree that a very large portion of whisky manufactured in Ireland is drunk in this country. I look at it not mainly from the point of view of consumption, but from the point of view of Irish industry. I say that the Government ought really to consider it seriously from this point of view: You must remember that in considering the different treatment of beer and whisky making you have to deal in Ireland with people who are exceedingly suspicious of the proceedings of the Government of this country. I think they are justified. I put it to any man whether the Irish people have not had in their past history only too good ground for suspecting the Government of this country, and especially this House, of an unnatural desire to discriminate against any industry in Ireland, and to discourage Irish industry. Over and over again, not once but twice and three times, industries in Ireland, which were rapidly rising and threatening industries in this country, were deliberately put down by this House. Therefore, you have to deal with an extremely suspicious people in Ireland, and, while I do not myself make a charge, I say if you proceed with the present scale of taxation of Irish whisky and of the manufacturers of Irish whisky, as contrasted with the fact that you put no tax on the English beer, tens of thousands of people in Ireland will believe that it is the deliberate purpose of this House to strike down an Irish industry. I think in view of the past history of this country it is not an unnatural suspicion to be in the minds of our people. There cannot be the slightest doubt it will have this effect that by the operation of those two factors you will destroy or almost entirely ruin some distilleries in Ireland, and seriously cripple an industry. I have already pointed out the grossly unjust discrimination in this practice. You have put no tax on beer. Why did you not put a tax on beer? A small or moderate tax on beer would have brought

  1719
  in an enormous revenue. It would have brought in such an immense revenue that you might have reduced the tax on tea as well as done justice to the whisky industry in Ireland. If you had put a just proportion on English beer of what you have put on Irish whisky I, for one, would have been very slow to resist the tax. But you have done nothing of the kind. You have discriminated against the poorer country in a most indefensible and scandalous way. There are two other aspects of the matter. First of all, we are told it is a good tax. I know many Members opposite will consider it in the light that it is a good tax, because it promotes sobriety. These are the temperance people. I do not think it is a wise policy to attempt to promote sobriety by such a tax as this. Really, when you come to look into the matter, it does not do so. We hear already that the decrease in the consumption of Irish whisky has been enormous—far beyond what the critics of the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed for, and far beyond what he himself allowed for. I am not going into the figures, but the decrease has been so great that instead of producing a revenue up to the present moment the tax has injured the revenue. Making full allowance for the anticipation of the great quantities which would be taken out in March and April I believe the returns are not equal to what they would have been if the duty had been left. There is no doubt that the falling off in the consumption of whisky has been very great, but has the falling off in the consumption of drink been equal to it? I think that the falling off in the consumption of whisky means that the people have taken more and more to the drinking of porter. Some people may say that that is a very good thing. I doubt it very much. I think it is a question for very serious consideration whether getting drunk on porter or getting drunk on whisky is the worse thing of the two. I do not believe, from any opportunity I have had for observation or medical study, that there is any choice between the two. I think the one is as bad as the other, and I am not quite sure if getting drunk on beer is not the most degrading of the two. I do not believe that this falling off in the consumption of whisky has had any serious improvement in temperance. The Chancellor of the Duchy said nothing would give him greater pleasure than to remove this tax or any other tax, but the revenue, he added, must be collected and the de-
  1720
  ficit must be met. Are you quite sure that you are contributing anything towards the deficit? I have seen enormous estimates made in Ireland of the frightful amount of money that is to be taken out of Ireland by this increase in the Whisky Duty. I have always inclined to the view that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is much more sanguine in his anticipations than his critics are. I do not believe you are going to get an enormous sum out of Ireland by this Whisky Duty. What you are going to do is to destroy an exceedingly important industry. I say, again, that one of the most indefensible things the Government can do is to place a tax on an industry which is tolerated by the law, and a tax of such a character that you will not get revenue, but will very seriously injure or destroy the industry. Therefore I say that in my opinion the answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy is no answer at all. If the revenue must be raised some tax ought to be devised which would be sure to bring in revenue and not destroy industry. With regard to the question of manufacture of whisky, a great deal of opprobrium has been thrown upon the manufacture of whisky. Is whisky such an abominable thing? I know some Members opposite really approve of this tax because it will destroy the manufacture of whisky. What is the particular evil in the manufacture of whisky? Is whisky, when taken in moderation, a worse drink than wine or porter? I think not, and I know medical men in this country have been in the habit of advising gentlemen who go out to dine to prime themselves with good Irish whisky and soda-water. Many men in this House have been taken off wine for the good of their health and ordered to have a drop of Scotch or Irish whisky. If it is taken in moderation, it is one of the most wholesome of all intoxicating drinks. All intoxicating drinks are evil if taken in excess. If you take champagne to excess, I believe it will undermine your health more rapidly than Irish whisky. I, therefore, protest against the idea that there is any evil or crime in the manufacture of whisky. The only evil I know of is that it is an Irish industry. I would ask that you should not inflict this gross injustice upon Ireland. If the Government are determined to persist in placing this crushing tax of 3s. 9d. per gallon on whisky, I ask that they shall not add to it by placing this considerable tax upon the manufacture of Irish whisky. Surely 3s. 9d. a gallon is quite enough duty on whisky. Although it may be true that the calcula-

  1721
  tion is correct that this is only one-tenth of a penny additional, I assure you it will raise a great deal of feeling, because it is taken from distillers in a different way. The sum at stake is a small one, and I would urgently impress upon the Government that they would not add to the very great irritation and anger that exist in Ireland already on this question of the Whisky Tax and the Tobacco Tax by persisting in this utterly unreasonable and unfair tax on the manufacture of whisky.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member's speech would have been more appropriate upon a Debate on the new 3s. 9d. duty on spirits, and speeches such as that have been made, of course, by many hon. Members on several occasions when that duty has been under discussion. I do not think this Licence Duty on distillers can be considered as in any degree comparable or to be discussed on the same footing as the new duty on spirits. The hon. Member said the operation of these two taxes taken in combination would destroy a good many Irish distilleries, one being 3s. 9d. and the other one-tenth of a penny. Is it really possible to conceive that a tenth of a penny is a serious consideration in the case of an industry which is already taxed 11s. and will be taxed 14s. 9d.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The duty is imposed because the Government have, in revising the whole scale of the Licence Duties, except in regard to cider, imposed graduated scales on the manufacture of those liquors. The scale is graduated in the same fashion as the brewers' Licence Duty, but the brewers' Licence Duty imposes a charge of a very different amount from this. The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) said you are discriminating most unfairly between the Irish and the English national beverage, and he asked why not impose a duty such as this upon beer. We are now discussing the Whisky Duty. If you take the Licence Duty on the manufacturer the distillers will be called upon to pay about £16,000 a year throughout the whole country, and the brewers will be called upon to pay £419,000 a year throughout the whole country. I am limiting myself to Licence Duties upon manufacturers. The burden is infinitely larger upon the manufacturer of the English national beverage than the Irish,
  1722
  and that should properly be so when you take into account that there is no Beer Duty comparable with the Whisky Duty Further, the Licence Duties press far more heavily upon the brewing firms who own public-houses in England than in Ireland. The revenue to be derived from retail licences, many of which are owned by the brewers, is out of proportion heavier in England than in Ireland owing to the much lower valuation of the Irish houses, and that also must be taken into account when considering this matter. I think the Government may fairly claim that they have endeavoured not to discriminate in any degree against Ireland in respect to the new duties imposed by this Bill. The hon. Member says that in Ireland the impression is created that the new Whisky Duty is deliberately intended to crush out an Irish industry, but he is surely aware that there is a country called Scotland, and that there is such a commodity as Scotch whisky, and that Scotch whisky is affected precisely in the same degree as Irish whisky by these new duties, and if there were any discrimination against one part of the United Kingdom compared with another that unfairness is shared equally by Scotland, which under no consideration can possibly be regarded as an object of any venom or ill-will on the part of the Government. This duty which we are now discussing is an exceedingly moderate one. The principle of it has already been sanctioned by the House and passed in the Clauses of the Bill. The duty is a tenth of a penny per gallon, and the duty which the hon. Member proposes is 1–100d. per gallon, and I trust the Committee will sanction the scale as it stands in the Bill.
  Mr. GRETTON: We now know the reason of this duty on the distilleries. The Chancellor of the Duchy has let the cat out of the bag. He is going, on the ground of principle, to sacrifice the distillers to the tune of £16,0000 in order that he may raise on a false pretence £419,000 from the English and Scotch brewers. There is no principle whatever in this tax. He wants an excuse to call the tax which he proposes to get out of the brewing trade a manufacturers' tax. He therefore places on the distillers a tax of a similar kind, though less in amount, in order that he may go on with his excuse and have a colourable case to call the tax upon the brewers a manufacturers' Licence Duty. That is the real meaning of the tax. The Irish and Scotch distillers are to be sacrificed for a false principle, and the

  1723
  Government have not even the courage to maintain their principle. Their Cider Tax they sacrifice straight away. That was a matter of principle, and they are going to sacrifice the distillers in Scotland, Ireland, and England for this false principle to the tune of £16,000. I think this tax deserves the utmost reprobation of the House, and I hope those gentlemen who represent constituencies where distilleries are situated will press the matter to the utmost and carry their opinions into the Division Lobby.
  Mr. JOHN J. MOONEY: In former times, when the House wanted to destroy an Irish industry, they recited the facts of the case in the preamble of a Bill. It is left for the present Government to attempt to destroy an Irish industry by introducing a few lines, without any preamble at all, and to impose a tax on the industry so as to crush it out of existence. The Chancellor of the Duchy has made a defence of the tax on most extraordinary lines. He first of all says, when we are discussing the tax on the distiller, in his opinion it is out of order to discuss the tax on the commodity itself, but you cannot discuss the taxation of the distiller without discussing the taxation of the article itself, and it is perfectly in order to discuss the extra tax of 3s. 9d. He then says that because he is going to tax the article heavily it does not matter whether he puts on the additional tax or not. I do not know where that doctrine comes from, but it seems most extraordinary to say to a man, "if I put a tax on you and call it A I am taxing you so heavily under B that it does not matter." The Government are going back on the policy of Mr. Gladstone in 1880 when he did away with the graduated form of the tax, which was found to work badly, and which did not bring in the revenue it was meant to bring in, and only spoilt the trade. What will happen under this duty is that you will crush out the small distilleries all over Ireland. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that a tenth of a penny makes no difference. The business in which the distillers engage is cut so fine that the whole difference between a profit and a loss or between sale or no sale may turn on a twentieth of a penny a gallon. It is no argument to tell the distiller, "I am not putting a penny a gallon on you, but only a tenth of a penny," when that tenth may make the whole difference between the distiller being able to conduct the transaction at a
  1724
  profit or a loss. It is admitted that the consumption of whisky is going down in the most alarming manner. We were first told there was no falling-off in the consumption, but when the figures were given this afternoon they show that there has been a steady falling-off up to the present date. On the top of this you are going to put increased taxation on the distillers, and the small man must go to the wall. That means that the agricultural industry all through the district where the distillery is situated must also go to the wall. You cannot destroy a distillery without destroying the market of the farmer in the district.
  I really think that with the increased taxation you are putting on you might have left the distiller alone, and if the Government persist they ought to find a slightly better argument than to say to the distiller, "You ought not to grumble, because we are putting so much on the whisky." That may be logic, but if it is I do not understand it, and I do not want to. I think the Government will be wise if they withdraw this tax or modify it as suggested. You are always talking about keeping people on the land. If you crush out these small Irish distilleries either the trade will go into the towns or else these people, being bereft of their employment in the country districts, must emigrate. You are piling taxes on the remaining industries which exist in Ireland. There are other industries which you could get a large amount of revenue from. Is the distinction that liquor is the only thing that ought to be taxed? If not, why not tax some other large industries—mineral water, for instance. You would get a much larger revenue from that, though it is quite possible that the pressure which would be put on the right hon. Gentleman would be so great that they would probably withdraw it. The Government might consider the scale that we put down. It is a much more reasonable one, because, as it stands at present, it will undoubtedly tend to crush out the small distilleries. If that is what the Government want to do, they are going a very good way about it. The figure I have of the yield of the whole tax is £169,000. I do think the Government might see their way to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. H. CECIL LEA: I would not have intervened in the Debate but for the extraordinary speech made by the Chancellor of the Duchy, who showed a lack of knowledge of the conditions governing the

  1725
  wholesale spirit trade of this country. The right hon. Gentleman said it was an absurd thing to couple the additional duty of 3s. 9d. per gallon with the one-tenth of a penny which would be incurred through the infliction on distillers of the Licence Duty. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the 3s. 9d. per gallon only comes into operation when the spirit is duty paid in this country. A lot of the distilleries in the Lowlands of Scotland and also in Belfast turn out spirit of a very cheap character, and they have to compete with a very cheap spirit which is made under bounty-fed conditions. Therefore this extra 3s. 9d. does not come in at all, but the addition of a tenth of a penny would be a great factor in the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman has any doubt about that, I can bring to him 20 or 30 dealers from Mark-lane who would tell him that 3s. 9d. would make it impossible to sell in some neutral markets altogether. The production of 100,000 gallons with the extra licence works out at an increase of 7 per cent. Two or three years ago there was an export duty of 1s. per ton on coal. That only meant an added factor of 5 per cent. on the price in Baltic ports, but that resulted in a tremendous loss of trade there.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at 7 per cent.?
  Mr. H. CECIL LEA: If you take the production at 100,000 gallons, that means a Licence Duty of about £30, which is a trifle over 7 per cent.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: What is the value of the liquor?
  Mr. H. CECIL LEA: The liquor you put the addition on comes out at 10d., 10½d., or 10¾d. This very stuff is sold in decimals of a penny, so that an addition of a tenth of a penny is a tremendous factor in the sale. A lot of the distilleries in the North of Ireland even sell this liquor at a loss, and they can only keep going by their sale of yeast. It is a known fact that the price is cut so fine that distillers could not keep their doors open but for the sale of by-products. I would strongly urge that the right hon. Gentleman, before this matter is passed, should appeal to some of his advisers in the City and in the North of Ireland, and also among the grain dealers of Glasgow, in order to find out what the effect would be in the neutral markets.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: It is impossible to deal with the question without at the same time considering the state of trade both in Ireland and Great Britain. I was rather surprised by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy when he alluded to a place called Scotland. He asked if there were such a place as Scotland where whisky and porter, the articles we are now discussing, were also manufactured? The manufacture of spirits in Scotland is not Scotland's only manufacture. Unfortunately it happens to be the only manufacture you have left in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, is is one of the few industries left in Ireland. This tax does affect not only that particular industry, but all the cognate and surrounding industries. For example, it has been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford that it affects agriculture. How does it affect agriculture? The growth of barley has decreased in the last year by 16,000 acres in Ireland, and, not only that, the import of barley has been decreasing during the past two or three years in Ireland, showing that you are attacking not a flourishing but a declining industry. It may be stated with absolute confidence that the manufacture of whisky and beer in Ireland is a declining industry, and it is on that you are putting what the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) called the last straw which will break the camel's back. It has been pointed out by the Chancellor of the Duchy that it is a very unimportant tax which is under discussion. It is a very important tax when you consider that the increase in the duty on spirits is no less than 44 per cent. An increase of 3s. 9d. on 11s. is 44 per cent. I am thankful to the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Belloc), the only English representative in this House to-day who has pointed out to the Committee that Ireland has been left with this languishing and only industry on account of the iniquities of English laws. There has not been a word spoken about Ireland on the Ministerial side of the House except by him, although many hon. Members on that side must be convinced that Ireland has had her industries crushed, that she is overtaxed, and that she is about to be further overtaxed. I would have expected something to be said by Liberals, who must have thought out the subject. I would have expected a friendly word to be spoken by the right hon. Gentleman

  1727
  the Member for Islington who has written whole treatises on the subject of the over-taxation of Ireland. One would have expected a word to be spoken by hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite, who have studied the financial position of Ireland, and who know well that this tax upon Irish industry is going to drag more money out of a country which is admittedly overtaxed. On this subject I should have liked to hear a word spoken by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on this side of the House from Ireland. They have not, so far as I have heard, spoken a single word on the subject of the over-taxation of Ireland. They used to join us in protesting against the over-taxation of Ireland. They claim to be as devoted sons of Ireland as hon. Members who sit around me, and yet they witness Ireland put on the taxation table and again bled beyond endurance, and no word of protest is spoken by them. I submit that there is great differentiation between Ireland and Great Britain in this matter. Ireland has the misfortune to be tied to Great Britain, and when we raise a protest we are told by such masters of language, unsympathetic language, as the Chancellor of the Duchy, that there is nothing unfair to Ireland in the proposed tax. I do not expect sympathy from him. There is no sympathy in that kind of nature. There are figures and the logic figures. There is no sympathy with nationalities. There is no sympathy with poor people. There is only a comparison by the right hon. Gentleman between the condition of a poor people and that of a rich people. There is only a comparison which is not just and genuine. I would point out that there is no comparison between the people of Scotland and the people of Ireland. Scotland has abundance of industries of all descriptions. Scotland has been blessed by nature with mineral wealth. Scotland has, I might also say, by reason perhaps of her better political conditions as compared with those of Ireland, been a pampered country. At all events, by reason of her mineral wealth she has grown rich, and yon cannot compare a poor country like Ireland, which has one or two industries, with a country which has the great mineral wealth of Scotland. Therefore it was entirely beside the mark, and I have only to urge with whatever force is at my command the suggestions that have already been offered, that with regard to the taxa-
  1728
  tion of these two articles, whisky and porter, Ireland is suffering an injustice, and that the condition of the country with regard to its taxation was not taken into account when this Schedule was proposed. I hope, therefore, that the suggestions of my hon. Friend and the Amendments that are on the Paper will be accepted by the Committee.
  Mr. T. H. SLOAN: I do not intend to comment on the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. O'Connor) who has just sat down, but I may point out to the Committee that as regards the over-taxation of Ireland we are all agreed, or I think we were unanimous until the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act, when we discovered that Ireland was run at a loss of over a million pounds. If there is any other way of reducing taxation in Ireland we shall be very pleased, but we think that the best service can be rendered by the taxation of this particular industry, and if before this Committee it is seriously proposed that the only way that Ireland can prosper is by increasing whisky drinking and porter drinking, then I say Ireland must be in a very bad state. I do not think in this particular case that the hon. Member will get a single Member from the North of Ireland to support him. Hon. Members below the Gangway enter their protest against this tax, and this is not only natural, but desirable, from their point of view, because it must not be forgotten by this Committee that the best supporters of the party who are now representing a particular trade are the liquor trade.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: Not at all The distillers of Ireland are nearly all strong Unionists.
  Mr. SLOAN: The distillers of Ireland may be nearly all strong Unionists, but it does not alter the truth of the statement which I have made that a large amount of the support to the party representing this particular trade comes through the liquor trade. My point is that Ireland may be overtaxed, and while it is desirable if possible to reduce the taxation of Ireland, I believe honestly that the majority of the people of Ireland of all religious denominations and all political parties would be in favour of the taxation which the Government now proposes.
  Mr. DAVID SHEEHY: That is a wild assertion.
  Mr. SLOAN: The hon. Gentleman can rise up in his place and disprove it. The

  1729
  hon. Gentleman one of the Members for St. Pancras made certain statements about the North of Ireland.
  Mr. LEA: They are quite true.
  Mr. SLOAN: It is very easy to make these statements about Ireland, but if the hon. Gentleman would come over to Ireland and investigate the matter, as I have for years, he would speak with better knowledge. I do not wish to speak at any greater length, but merely desire to emphasise the point that not a single Member from the North of Ireland can be found to oppose this particular tax in regard to the particular industry affected. For my own Constituency I can honestly and sincerely say that this tax is one of the most popular taxes that can be imposed.
  Mr. J. C. FLYNN: The hon. Member who has just sat down has invited the hon. Member for St. Pancras to come over to Ireland.
  Mr. SLOAN: And the hon. Member for Salford.
  Mr. FLYNN: He invites both to come over to Ireland if they want to know what the people of Ireland think about these taxes. I have just come from Ireland, and know the feeling of opposition to them, outside the extreme advocates of temperance reform, who, like the hon. Member, only look at the matter from one point of view. Of course, the Government can declare that this is a bonâ fide temperance measure of a repressive character, involving in its Clauses sumptuary laws. There may be something to be said for it. But there is another and a different view, which the hon. Member for East Mayo put forward. It interferes not alone with the possible consumption of whisky in Ireland—that is a small part of it, and the decreased consumption is a matter I observe with pleasure—but it also interferes with an Irish industry of a legitimate character, which has been severely handicapped in a double sense. I claim that the conjoint effect of the increased duty of 3s. 9d. a gallon and this additional duty on the distiller is to penalise the small distiller, who makes an honest Irish malt spirit, and similarly with regard to Scotland, while it puts a premium on the larger distillers in Belfast and elsewhere, who, as the Customs' Returns will show, are importing German silent spirit and other deleterious products and exporting them at a great profit as Irish whisky. You crush
  1730
  out the small man who encourages the growth of barley in his district, and who makes an honest whisky. I remember the late Sir Wilfrid Lawson asking me years ago if there was such a thing as honest whisky. I will not repeat my reply, which extends to half a column, but if whisky is to be drunk at all it is better for the community and better for the individual that they should have an honest malt spirit, which is not deleterious in its effects and which does not produce these bad results that follow from the use of bad spirits. But you are crushing that out to a large extent and encouraging the large distiller, who does not care a thraneen if not an acre of barley were grown in Ireland. He can get all the fusel oil he wants in silent spirit imported from Germany, which is sometimes made from damaged grain, or, as a wag has suggested, it might be made from sawdust. You can extract it from almost any substance, and palm it off on the credulous, gullible, thirsty English people.
  You are absolutely crushing out the small distiller who has inherited the traditions which have come from generations of experience, and you are playing into the hands of large distillers in other places, not confined to Belfast alone or the North of Ireland, and you are placing in their hands a monopoly which was never intended. On the Resolutions with regard to these taxes before the House some months ago, I ventured to make that argument against this portion of the Budget, and I repeat it now. I voted for every section of the Land Clauses, and for all their proposals, but I repeat that these portions of the Bill should be looked at in this way. Do you really mean as temperance reformers, for whom I have the highest respect, by these Clauses in the Bill to so encourage temperance as to crush out this industry altogether, or do you mean to raise revenue? The result is to penalise the honest malt distiller. Is not this, if you look at it in another way, an exhibition of British intolerance by a British majority exercised against a Celtic minority? Reference has been made over and over again to the fact, which is not disputed, that many other Irish industries were crushed out by you either by direct legislation or by special taxation of this character. Are you now going to repeat that action? With regard to this industry, which, apart altogether from the question of home consumption, we regard as an important Irish industry of a most beneficial

  1731
  character, I was really rather disappointed to find that our Scotch Friends in this matter did not take a more independent course. No doubt the hon. Member recently, a Member of the Government whom we all respect, did at an earlier stage, at any rate as far as putting Amendments down on the Paper is concerned, show some indication of a desire to join with his Irish colleagues in protecting a legitimate Irish and Scottish industry. But he has fled from the scene. He may have bade his troops keep fighting, but he has abandoned us. Our case is then really that by the operation of this and the 3s. 9d. duty you are penalising and discouraging, and in a short time you will find you are absolutely crushing out a large number of the small industries of Ireland, which make a good article not alone for home consumption, but for consumption in this country, and you are encouraging that which leads to drunkenness, insanity, and many other great social evils—an increase in the manufacture of the poorer and the worst and the most deleterious forms of alcoholic liquor.
  Mr. BELLOC: I only rise because my name has been twice brought into the discussion. I have very little more to say than to repeat what I said on the former Amendment and also to beg hon. Members who sit opposite to believe that, apart from the professional politicians who approach the consideration of these matters in a spirit of caution, there is a very strong body especially of educated Liberal opinion in England on this matter of over-taxation in Ireland—a body which does not express itself through the political vote, but which expresses itself, as I think Irish Members know, through the pen, and must ultimately do its work. I would further ask these hon. Gentlemen, such as the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Sloan), whether they have considered that the extra taxation now being levied is being levied only because this country got into a financial mess through the Jewish war in South Africa? Was there any body of men who protested against the military finance of that time with the zeal and honesty of the Irish Members? It is the first time I have heard any man claiming to be patriotic when he defended a tax, no doubt ethically a beautiful tax, which was imposed en his own people. As to his challenge to come over to Ireland, I may say
  1732
  that if he will get some Irish Member to show me that he will be quite safe in any Nationalist part of Ireland when he goes on a platform to defend this extra taxation of Ireland to pay for this particular financial crisis into which the City of London, which is still largely English, got itself through the South African War, and advocate on that platform the imposition of this tax for that purpose, then I will argue the opposite, and we shall see which side will gain the approval of the meeting. I have seen the Irish race not only in Ireland but in many parts of the world, and I think their logical faculty will take the view that I, who am not Irish, had shown more sympathy with their patriotism than the man who claims to support them. Nevertheless, it is the business of an English Member of Parliament to vote for this small tax. It represents a tax which does not weigh much upon us in the condition of our finance, and of the large sum of money which we have to meet it forms a small part, and it forms a useful part.
  Mr. SLOAN: Why do you support the tax?
  Mr. BELLOC: The explanation is quite clear. According to my theory of politics a Member is sent to this House to represent a certain number of people called electors. If, in his opinion, they would support him in a particular course which would make the country better and wealthier, then he must take that particular course on the floor of this House. Therefore, holding that view, and representing an English constituency, I vote for this tax. If I represented an Irish constituency I should without hesitation vote against it.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I should not have intervened in this Debate, seeing that an irresistible case has been made out for Ireland, but for the challenge thrown out by the hon. Member for the Southern Division of Belfast (Mr. Sloan). The individual who should accept that challenge is one of his colleagues in the representation of that city, and I rise for the purpose of stating that the hon. Gentleman does not speak for Belfast in this matter. He does not speak for any division of that city, and the whole of Belfast is opposed to this taxation of Ireland. There was recently held in Belfast a meeting in reference to this Budget, which was addressed by the Lord Advocate, and I am given to understand it was one of the most enthusiastic meetings in favour of the land taxation clauses

  1733
  of this Bill. I do not believe there is a city in Ireland or in the United Kingdom where there are so many capitalist organisations as in Belfast, yet, owing to some singular circumstances, there has not been a single public meeting held in Belfast in favour of the licensing proposals of the Budget. The hon. Gentleman is rather flippant in his charges against my colleagues and myself, as to our representing the licensing interest in Ireland. We represent every interest in Ireland. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman thinks, but a publican is not necessarily an outcast to be tracked and hunted down. He is engaged in a legitimate trade, and to simply say that you are to impose most outrageous exactions on that particular trade in Ireland because you have certain views in regard to moral questions is a form of ethics to which I, at all events, cannot subscribe. The hon. Member has said that we are representatives of the licensing interests. I have not a single distillery in my own Constituency. If there were distillers there they would be—as are distillers in Sandy-row and everywhere—opposed to the national aspirations of Ireland. We defend every interest irrespective of politics. I have received circulars from many of those engaged in the distillation of liquor in Belfast and elsewhere, and they state that these proposals will undoubtedly destroy, or go a long way to destroy, the business of the distilleries. The argument has been advanced that whisky made in Ireland is largely exported. The hon. Member, because of his temperance principles, is going to destroy a great industry.
  I wonder whether, if he were to go to South Belfast or anywhere in Ireland, he would find any support in endeavouring to destroy the industry carried on in the distilleries of Sandy-row in order to promote a similar industry in the Fatherland? I wonder how many votes would come to him from the working classes of that large community in which so much employment is given to the people engaged in this trade? The hon. Member said that no Member from the North of Ireland would come forward in support of this tax. Where are the hon. Gentlemen's colleagues in defence of the sacred union? He will find that not even the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) will come here to defend this tax. Not a single Member from the City of Belfast will defend it, nor will a single Member for Ulster, with the exception of the hon. Member himself and perhaps one hon. Gentleman opposite. I
  1734
  think it is unfair that the hon. Member for South Belfast, or the hon. Member for Antrim, should use the isolated political positions they occupy here, not to save Irish industry, but to lend themselves to a nefarious transaction of this character. I listen to an hon. Gentleman opposite often with more intellectual pleasure than conviction, and I heard him say that new whisky was far better for people than old whisky. I do not drink whisky myself, but I will accept the hon. Gentleman's judgment on the point.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to me, I did not say that new whisky was good for people. I said that new whisky was bad for people, and that I had no evidence to show that old whisky was any better for them than new.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I did not charge the hon. Gentleman with speaking from experience. I merely stated that it was a somewhat extraordinary statement to come from the lips of one of those temperance reformers, who, by their attitude on this and other questions, seem to imagine that they are to enjoy not only the luxuries of this world but of the next. I came to the conclusion, from what the hon. Member said, that it would be better to drink new whisky than old, and I think that was the only conclusion to which I could come.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: If that is the only conclusion the hon. Member arrived at, it was not what I said.
  Mr. DEVLIN: If it were anybody but a temperance orator who spoke I should say he was a bit mixed in his observations. I am a believer in temperance either in the House of Commons or anywhere else, but I hate cant. I am an admirer of the Liberal party of England, and there is no one who more keenly feels how much the British working classes owe to that party. Nor is there anyone who more greatly appreciates the great services it has rendered to the cause of the poor; but I object to the publican being ruined for the purpose of paying an old age pension to some person who desires it. This question should be adjusted on right lines, and therefore I take up the challenge of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast. I had not intended to speak in this Debate, but I feel that all my colleagues in the representation of Ulster are bound to protest against the allegation of the hon. Member that they are in favour of this tax.
  Mr. GWYNN: I am glad that the hon. Member for South Belfast has raised this question as to the link between the party of which I am a member and licensed interests. Every great liquor lord in Ireland is our enemy, politically, from Lord Iveagh down to the smallest distiller who associates himself with the political party which is opposed to us. Nevertheless, we, as a party, are here to support the industry which is affected by this Bill. I am glad also that this discussion should have drawn from the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Byles) the statement that there should be an adjustment of separate interests in the taxation of the two countries. I hope the House will realise how different a thing it is to impose a new and heavy tax in a country whose revenue is yearly increasing by leaps and bounds from imposing a new and heavy tax in a country whose income is absolutely fixed and, perhaps, in many cases, is tending to decrease. Let the Committee consider plainly what the proposal is. At the present moment whisky is taxed as much as 200 per cent. ad valorem. It costs between 3s. to 4s. a gallon to make the best whisky, and you put on that at present 8s. per gallon in taxation. Under this Budget you will add another 100 per cent. ad valorem to the taxation of whisky. What is the proposal that we are discussing here? To manufacture whisky a State licence is needed, and the State proposes now, at a time when it is adding 100 per cent. ad valorem to the article, to increase the tax on the manufacturer. The thing is contrary to common-sense and common justice, and I do not see any attempt to defend it, except on the ground that the Government want money, and I do not feel confident that the money is forthcoming. One thing that has been gained from the extraordinary length of time that these Budget discussions have been prolonged is that we know the mischief that has been done, and we are able to point to the statistics of consumption, and show that our fears for the distilling industry, with its inevitable results on the agricultural industry, are justified; and, what is not at all certain, is that there is going to be any increase in the revenue. You may get more money possibly from the big distillers, but I think that a great many of the small distillers will not in two or three years be paying Licence Duty at all. These proposals may possibly be well adapted to this country, but they are entirely ill-adapted to the circumstances of Ireland. I do not believe there is one
  1736
  man in this House who believes that an Irish Parliament would impose taxation of this sort, and that is, from our point of view, a sufficient condemnation of it. I really do not know that one could argue the case from the point of view of strict logic, because the whole position is fundamentally illogical. The assumption is that the conditions of the two countries are analogous, and that the position is identical. That is not so, and therefore when you set out on a parity of treatment in any of these taxes you land yourself in a false position.
  Mr. HORATIO BOTTOMLEY: I desire to disassociate myself from the extraordinary doctrine of representation in this House which was expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Belloc), with whom in nine cases out of ten I have the intellectual privilege of being in agreement. As far as I understood his argument, it was this: This is a tax which may be, and probably is, very unjust to a certain section of the British Empire, but it was favoured by his particular constituents, and therefore he feels justified in voting for it. The hon. Member is a much greater authority on constitutional theories and doctrines than I am, but I was under the impression that although we are sent to this House by what we all term electors, and though we nominally represent constituencies, that that is only machinery for the convenience of election, and that when we are once here my impression is we are all equal as Members of the Imperial Parliament and that each of us is charged with the fullest responsibility for the interests of every section of that Empire. The very fact that Ireland says by an overwhelming number of her representatives that this tax is unjust and injurious to it, throws upon me a sense of absolute responsibility for considering the justice and expediency of that tax. To my own knowledge that tax is revengeful in its character, and injurious for a certain industry, which also leads me to the conviction that I have no other course but to vote against it. What amazes me most is the extraordinary conspiracy of silence on the part of Members on this side, in view of the fact that every one of these taxes almost has undergone fundamental and material changes since it was first propounded, and that every one of the Members on this side was equally enthusiastic with the taxes in their original form as they appear to be with them in their amended form. I cannot help thinking that we on this side are

  1737
  suffering from the application of a party discipline which, however good it may be for party interests, is not good in the interests of the country at large. I cannot understand why it is that some of us who speak so freely in the Lobby and in the Committee rooms cannot come here and say what we say there. We are very bold and candid in our criticism behind the Chair, but the moment we come here we have not the political pluck to say boo to a gosling, a much less a Chancellor of the Duchy. Because I regard these taxes as unjust and vindictive, and because they are peculiarly injurious to my Irish constituents—I use the phrase advisedly—I shall vote against them, as I have been reluctantly compelled to do against other sections of the Budget.
  Mr. THOMAS SCANLAN: It strikes me that to pass off this Bill as a temperance Bill is an attempt to impose on the credulity of innocent people in this country. I think the Government know that by this time the people of Ireland are unlikely to be imposed upon in this manner. This country has been governed for a series of years by Prime Ministers who came from Scotland representing Scotch constituencies. The late Prime Minister was shrewd enough to point out at a meeting which he addressed in his own country that real temperance was not to be promoted by legislation, but was to be the effect of education. No one can contend that the proposals of this Bill are intended to make the people of Ireland or of this country more sober than at present, but if it is meant to promote sobriety in Ireland the Government must know that there are other agencies for the promotion of temperance at work in Ireland, and that those great agencies are not likely in the least to be promoted or encouraged by proposing taxation such as is contained in the Government's proposals. Indeed, one cannot understand the taxation imposed in this measure in any other light than an attack on the trade, which, after all, must be regarded by the promoters of this Bill, and even by the Chancellor of the Duchy, as a legitimate trade. Can the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy say that it is not a legitimate trade, because if the distillation of spirits is not legitimate the way to oppress it is not by imposing taxation but to forbid it altogether. The Chancellor of the Duchy has justified this measure in two ways. He says that the amount to be derived from this tax is not important.
  1738
  The amount of the tax as to its importance is to be viewed not only in relation to the revenue derived from this method of taxation, but as to its effect on the producer of spirits and the distiller. It has been pointed out by hon. Members who are well acquainted with the effect of this tax that on large distillers it will be most serious, while, as to small distillers and a large number of the small distillers in Ireland, there is no doubt whatever that the effect of this tax will be to sweep their trade away and to ruin and destroy an Irish industry.
  I also, with hon. Gentlemen who sit with me, object to anything in the nature of increase of taxation of Ireland, as it is well known to hon. Members in all parts of the House that Ireland is at present enormously overtaxed, and on that account alone we are justified in protesting against this increase in Irish taxation. We are also justified in protesting against it because it can possibly do no good. It is an odd thing for a responsible Government Minister to justify a tax because, he says, the amount that is to be derived from it is relatively unimportant. He made the point, for instance, that the amount to be derived from the imposition of this tax is considerably less than the Licence Duty to be gained from the Licence Duty on the manufacture of beer. It is very little consolation to the distillers in my country to hear that while they are being fleeced the manufacturers of beer in England are to be fleeced for licences to some extent. It is very small consolation to be told, as we have been told, in the way of argument, the force of which does not appear to me in the least, that Scotland is also to be taxed just as Ireland is. There are a great number of industries in Scotland, and through the mastery which Scotland has always obtained in the Government of this country Scotland is well able to protect her other industries, and Scottish Members, if they wish to express their views of their constituents who are engaged in the distillation of spirits, or other industries, may do so, but whatever may be said by hon. Members representing Scotch constituencies according to hon. Members in all parts of the House, the people of Ireland are frightfully overtaxed already, and as this is an attempt to raise a tax which is unjust, and which cannot be argued for on any grounds that appeal to any person in this House, and as it is purely vindictive and an attempt to destroy a trade rather than to increase revenue

  1739
  I protest against it, and I suggest that the Amendment that is down in the name or the hon. Member for East Mayo should be accepted by the Government.
  Mr. P. J. POWER: Despite what has been said, I believe that the temperance party is against this increased taxation. I know that there are some extreme men who think that this will decrease drinking, but I believe that the vast majority of reasonable temperance men who regard this matter from a reasonable point of view are against this increased taxation. I believe myself it puts a premium on the worst class of drink, which will do infinitely more harm than the genuine article. I believe also it will have the effect of increasing largely the amount of "potheen" there is now distilled in Ireland. "Potheen" is a drink which I think hon. Members would not care very much for, because as a rule it is impure, and the people who distil it get rid of it as quickly as possible. When I read and hear these Debates purposing to increase the indirect taxation of Ireland I often ask myself, was there ever a Financial Relations Commission? By your action in adding 3s. 9d. per gallon to spirits you must enormously increase the indirect taxation of Ireland. At present the indirect taxation of Ireland is far greater than the indirect taxation of Great Britain. We all know that indirect taxation hits a poorer country harder than a richer country, and the poorer individual harder than the rich. I believe even from the revenue point of view this tax will pay to bring in the money that was expected from it. I well remember Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, speaking at that Table and proposing to increase the taxation on spirits by 6d. per gallon, said he did not believe it was capable of producing more than that, and that he doubted whether it could stand any further increase. I also remember Sir William Harcourt saying exactly the same thing, and that a further increase on the duty on spirits in Ireland would kill the industry.
  I think it has been shown that at present we are paying a great deal too much on the few industries that we have. I will not repeat the arguments which have been put forward from the agricultural point of view, but I firmly believe that further taxation of spirits will decrease the area of tillage in Ireland. Statistics prove that next year you will have a much smaller area under barley than you have had in years past. It is our duty as Irish repre-
  1740
  sentatives to make our protest on this matter, and to do everything we can to, prevent any further increase of taxation on a country already overtaxed.
  Mr. J. P. NANNETTI: I wish to join in the protest against this additional impost on my country, and I do so from the point of view that by this taxation you will destroy some of the distilleries in Ireland, thereby throwing on the labour market a great number of men who are now employed in that industry. The effect of this tax will be to throw an additional burden on the City of Dublin in its endeavour to provide work for the unemployed. I have the honour of being chairman of the distress committee in Dublin, and last year we received something like £7,000 from the Government to provide work for those who were out of employment. I cannot look forward with any equanimity next year or the year after to facing the number of men who will be out of employment in a city where we have no means of finding fresh work for them. I look at the matter also from another point of view. By this tax on whisky you are also taxing the industry of the farmers of the country, and as a natural result of its effect on barley-growing there will be an exodus of farm labourers and others from the country to the city to swell still further the number of unemployed. It is new to me to find men on the other side, who profess Free Trade principles, yet putting a tax on a home-grown article and allowing German spirit and foreign maize to come in as a substitute for the barley grown in our own country. I have been a consistent Free Trader all my life, but if you are going to destroy all the industries of my country I do not see the use of being a Free Trader any longer. Irish Members will have to take into consideration whether we are obliged to support a Government pledged to Free Trade when we find them doing all they can to kill their own arguments and to give protection to German spirit and American maize. Will any member opposite, who knows what a glass of whisky is, contend that when he gets a glass of patent spirit he is drinking a wholesome or decent article? I have heard some Members say that they do not snow the difference between the two kinds of spirit. I would like them to have a debauch on patent spirit one night, and the next night, when they were trying to cure themselves, to drink the Irish article. They would be able to tell in the morning which of the two is the better. Will any Member who

  1741
  knows good Irish or Scotch whisky say that it is fair that those manufacturers should be placed at a disadvantage in competing with the American maize whisky or patent still whisky? You will not promote temperance by this legislation; you will simply madden people if they are forced to drink patent whisky. The man who wants whisky will have it, whether it is patent still or anything else. You will do much more good by preaching in a proper way and by appealing to the respectability and intelligence of men. I am sorry that my hon. Friend from Belfast (Mr. Sloan), who has taken a great interest in the unemployed question, should give his assistance to the Government in passing a tax which he must know will throw a number of men out of employment both in Ireland and in England. I do not know what on earth the Government mean by these proposals. I am anxious to see the Government get money for old age pensions and to meet the proper demands of the country, but I think they might get it in other ways than by attempting to destroy the very source from which the revenue is derived. It is the duty of every Irish representative, Liberal or Tory, Unionist or Home Ruler, temperance man or otherwise, to protest against anything which will tend to destroy another of the industries of our country. I attended a big meeting in my own Constituency the other day—one of the largest held in Dublin for some time. On the platform there were temperance men as well as men who could take their glass of grog. They all entered their protest against this tax because it will not only destroy this industry, but will drag from our country an amount of money which ought to be left there for the purpose of encouraging struggling industries, many of which are being killed by British legislation. As an Irish representative, and having to voice the feelings of my constituents, I say that there is no portion of these proposals that will meet with greater condemnation in Ireland than the attempt to impose additional taxation on the beer and whisky manufactured in our country.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. DAVID SHEEHY: This tax is a most peculiar one; you are imposing a tax on the manufacture itself of Irish whisky, the greater portion of which whisky is exported. Free Traders are not saying anything to-night on the question of Free Trade for Irish whisky. On the contrary, they are imposing a tax on Irish whisky
  1742
  which has to compete with the bounty-fed whisky of other countries. That is absolutely contrary to the principles of Free Trade. It is said that this tax is imposed for the purpose of keeping up equality of taxation between this country and Ireland. Between a poor country like Ireland, which has been deprived of nearly all its industries, and a rich country like England, which is creating new industries, there is no equality. I, for one, would not object to any tax if my country was to benefit from it in any way, and, in so far as this Budget in general is concerned, I admit that, out of the proceeds, we are to get something in connection with our land legislation. But I do not believe in the doctrine of robbing Peter to pay Paul, or of destroying one industry to assist another. That, however, is what you are likely to do. This is not merely robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is killing Peter for the purpose of giving a dole to Paul. I do not believe in that. You are not genuine Free Traders in this matter, because you are imposing a tax on a home-manufactured article which has to compete in other lands with a bounty-fed article. I contend, on these grounds, that you have no right to impose this miserable tax, for miserable it has been proved to be. It is a small thing so far as revenue is concerned; but, small as it is, it will be sufficient practically to destroy this one industry, and, in so doing, to inflict serious damage on the agricultural industry. Barley is not the only article that is malted; oats also are malted. You will destroy practically the whole of the grain-growing industry which we are endeavouring to bring back to Ireland. We want to create competition between grains grown in Ireland and grains imported, so that more employment may be given in our country. But by these proposals you will destroy every effort to grow grain and frustrate all our endeavours. You are putting obstacles in our way, and you will not gain anything by it. The sort of equality of taxation, which you say you wish to keep up, has been the cause of many a wrong inflicted on Ireland, and I protest against this tax as being hurtful to one of our few remaining industries. No man from Ireland will say that the people engaged in this particular manufacture are supporters of ours. It is not for that reason we enter our protest. We protest against this tax, because of the hurt it is likely to do not merely to that particular industry, but to many other

  1743
  industries which are associated with it. I do hope before we go to a Division upon this that better counsels will prevail with the Ministry, and that they will reconsider this question, and allow these little manufacturers, at any rate, to escape from the burdens that are being imposed. Is it not sufficient for you to have your 3s. 9d. if you can get it. I am afraid you propose to give us no Amendment; that no concession will be given beyond those which have been placed on the Paper by Members of the Government. In imposing this tax you are not merely hurting one small industry, but the agricultural industry, and in doing that you are certainly preparing difficulties for Ireland for the time when we get an opportunity of managing our own affairs.
  Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: We have been bombarded with suggestions from the other side of the House, and I think it is time someone on this side arose so as to suggest that there is not a conspiracy of silence not to answer arguments of hon. Members opposite. May I ask first of all the Chancellor of the Duchy what is the amount that Ireland is going to pay towards this Licence Duty of which we have heard so many complaints during the last two or three hours?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We shall probably derive from it under £5,000 a year.
  Mr. MARKHAM: In view of that fact, is it right that hon. Members opposite should come down to the House, and put forward their epithets because we are taking some £5,000 in respect of this particular license—because that is the one tinder discussion now, and not the one dealing with the 3s. 9d. per gallon. We are discussing this Licence Duty qua Licence Duty. One hon. Member from Ireland tells us that this tax is going to destroy industries in Ireland, going to bring about unemployment, and various other ills. Why cannot hon. Members really do justice to the English and the Scottish people, and say something of the sum of £2,000,000—
  Mr. WILLIAM FIELD: No, no; you are wrong.
  Mr. MARKHAM: As I understand the amount previously stated, Ireland receives £2,000,000 for the purpose of old age pensions.
  Mr. FIELD: We have paid for them.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Very well; you are making a contribution towards this great expenditure in Ireland which will be the means of spreading far more good than the miserable sale of liquor, because you have two millions spent amongst your agricultural industry. That will find employment for shopkeepers, and in other directions. I myself am a Home Ruler, but I say, though a Home Ruler, that if this is the kind of treatment we are going to get from Ireland when we have given her money and everything almost that she has asked for—
  Mr. D. KILBRIDE: And sometimes what we did not want.
  Mr. MARKHAM: You have not got much of recent years that you did not want. The position is this: Where this amount that we are asking is so small a one, I think we ought to have the money granted, and I think Irish Members should co-operate with the Government in giving that money to the State, instead of opposing in the manner they are doing.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: The hon. Member who has just sat down has correctly stated the view that from one standpoint this is a small tax.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Why not pay it?
  Mr. KILBRIDE: The hon. Member said it is a small tax. I shall endeavour to tell him why this tax will do an immense amount of injury, and far beyond anything commensurate to the £5,000 which the Treasury will get out of it. You have 14s. 9d. under this Finance Bill on a proof gallon of whisky. The price of that to produce is 2s. 6d. or 3s., and you are putting on a tax five times the value of the article. We have had the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Financial Secretary for the Treasury day by day answering questions as to the decreased consumption of whisky and the decrease in the revenue. That will show us that it is possible to tax a commodity to such an extent for revenue purposes as to tax it almost out of existence. Hon. Members are most anxious to know why we oppose this small tax. I am sorry the Chief Secretary for Ireland has left the Treasury Bench, but the Chancellor of the Duchy knows very well that in the county of Wexford more land has been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts than in any other county in Ireland. Wexford is the largest barley-producing

  1745
  county in Ireland. In that area is the largest barley-producing Poor Law union area in Ireland. That area is in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. Almost the whole of the land in my Constituency has been purchased from the Duke of Leinster. All the tenants of the duke are now annuitants of the Treasury. At the present moment the distillers in Wexford and South Kildare have to pay a duty of 14s. 9d. upon a proof gallon of whisky. £5,000 was said to be a very small sum. It is quite sufficient to keep the distillers from making any profit. When you put this £5,000 solely, as it may be, upon those who make pot-still whisky in Ireland, that affects Irish barley, oats, and wheat. As everybody knows, the best whisky in Ireland is produced, 80 per cent. from barley and 20 per cent. from wheat and oats. When you put this tax on pot-still whisky you drive it out of existence. It is 14s. 9d. on the article, the cost of production of which is 3s. That brings it to 17s. 9d. You put 14s. 9d. duty upon a proof gallon of whisky, the cost of which to produce is between 10d. and 1s., but that is the stuff which is made from German spirit or from Indian corn. You penalise the pot-still distiller by every proposition in the Budget, and you put a premium on the man who manufactures patent-still whisky. The latter does nothing whatever for the farmers of Ireland or those who are annuitants of the British Government; those who have been transformed from the position of tenants of an Irish landlord to tenants of the British Treasury. £5,000 a year, small as it may be—and as I think it is—will, in my opinion, be almost sufficient to drive those who are producers of pot-still whisky out of existence altogether in Ireland. Take the case of John Jameson and Mr. Power, who buy a great deal of farmers' produce. They cannot produce a whisky except it is an expensive one. Everyone who knows anything about whisky sales knows that if you put 14s. 9d. on to the 7s. 6d. you will drive them practically out of existence, in view of the fact that you can buy patent still whisky at 10d. or 1s. a gallon. In the first case the article produced is no longer a commercial article.
  Mr. MARKHAM: You cannot buy Jameson's whisky in the London market at less than 24s. a gallon.
  Mr. FLAVIN: 7s. 6d. is the short price at the whisky still.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: To put that on the 14s. 9d. runs it up to 22s., and I am surprised that the distiller should be so modest as to accept 2s. profit as the hon. Gentleman opposite suggests. Then, of course, you propose to put another 3s. 9d. on. What then will be the effect of this small tax? The patent-still distiller will be able to pay it. The pot-still distiller will not be able to pay it. You penalise the pot-still distiller in favour of the patent-still distiller. Of course, I know there is no barley grown in Ulster. Therefore the hon. Member for Belfast is not interested, I suppose, in this aspect of the case. Whatever effect this proposition may have on the barley-growing districts of Ireland will not affect one man in a thousand who occupies any land in the Province of Ulster, for the simple reason that there is practically no barley grown there.
  That is the reason I am interested in this matter. It will be a serious thing for the Treasury if the farmers of Wexford and of South Kildare will not be regular with their annuities and come to the Chief Secretary with the excuse that his own Government, having killed the industry by which they paid their annuities, he cannot expect them to be punctual in their payments in the future. It is for that reason that I am opposed to any tax, no matter how small it may be, the effect of which will be to handicap the pot-still distillers in favour of the patent distillers; or, in other words, that will handicap the article produced from home-grown material in favour of the article produced from foreign patent spirit.
  Mr. FIELD: I support this Amendment as a temperance man, and I do so for the simple reason that those who drink whisky, in my opinion, ought to drink good whisky. I do not pretend to be versed in the mysteries of whisky-making, but, like some of my expert friends, I have had considerable experience of men drinking bad whisky and men who drink good whisky, and the difference is enormous. Anything that could be done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the Treasury to diminish the evil ought to be done in the direction which would lead to a decrease in the manufacture of the patent whisky or German spirit. Therefore, I hold it is the duty of the Government, instead of endeavouring to tax such men as Jameson and Power, it is the duty of the Government, in their endeavour to promote public utility and also to promote temperance and good health, to avoid taxing men like those I have

  1747
  mentioned who used the native material. Undoubtedly it ought to be made clear that the majority of the people of Ireland, whether they are teetotallers or moderate drinkers or men with what is called a perpetual thirst, are all opposed to this tax. I assisted at a public meeting at Dublin not long ago, which was one of the largest that ever assembled at that city, to protest against these taxes. Of course, I know the Dublin people can drink their share as well as anybody else, and, although we are constantly taunted with the accusation that Irishmen are more thirsty than Englishmen or Scotchmen, if you look into the statistics you will find that Irishmen really drink less. That is one of the calumnies that goes about and become sanctified by usage, that Irishmen are fond of liquor. It seems to be a comfort to the minds of some people to think that Irishmen are not as good as they are in any single way, but that is one of the fallacies which has to be exploded when we get Home Rule for Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield laid great stress upon the fact that this increased taxation would only amount to £5,000 a year. I object to pay another extra halfpenny, because we are overtaxed already to the tune of £4,000,000 a year. Governments have given us coercion, over-taxation, disarmament, a perpetual Coercion Act, and every other evil that could be thought of. Yet we find hon. Members in this House who talk about the generosity of England towards Ireland. It is about time this argument was given up, and the sooner the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary come to know that the Irish people are thinking seriously about this matter the better, and that in the near future that they are going to tackle this question of over-taxation and coercion—and this is a matter of financial coercion. I am not in favour of the consumption of whisky, but all the whisky made in Ireland is not consumed in Ireland. What would be thought of a British Member who stood up in this House and proposed something that would interfere with the ordinary export of this country? You live upon your export trade, and any Member who stood up here to advocate a tax upon articles that were exported would be regarded as a lunatic. We are in the position here of representing Ireland. This is not a question merely of £5,000 a year. There is a matter of principle involved in it, and we intend to fight it out by going into the Division Lobby.
  1748
  We are in a minority, but minorities are, often right, and the voice of the minority often obtains support when people really come to understand the question which they advocate. We want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to realise that we are quite in earnest about this, and that Irish Members one and all, whether temperance men or so-called moderate drinkers, are all united against the imposition of this tax.
  The Irish Members are entitled to voice, the opinions of the Irish people. That is what we are sent here for, and we would be lacking in our duty unless we stated plainly what exactly we require for the country we represent, and I go further, and say that the business of this House is to listen to the reasonable demands either of the Irish, English or Scotch Members upon subjects which touch their country vitally. Otherwise there would be no use in our coming here at all. I was talking this matter over with a man engaged in the spirit trade the other day—and whether a man is a teetotaller or a moderate drinker, when a question affects the whole community he has a right to put his own feeling on one side and represent the feelings of his constituency—and he told me he had made a calculation as to the number of people that will be thrown out of employment if these taxes are passed, and he assured me that there would be something like 14,000.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The effect of the Licensing Clauses generally is not under discussion. The question before the Committee is the Amendment.
  Mr. FIELD: I am only wandering a little. In my own Division the people are very much affected by this proposal, and I am rather a curious anomaly in this House, because, although I am a temperance man, and have been all my lifetime, I represent a Constituency in which there is more drink manufactured than probably in any other constituency in the world. I think it shows the liberality of the opinions of my Constituency when they return me, as they have done twice, without any opposition, and I hope that will occur again. I hope the irrefutable arguments we have put forward will be seriously thought over by the occupants of the Treasury Bench. There are only two Ministers present, but they make up in brains what they lack in number. The Irish Members one and all are determined to oppose this portion of the Bill, and I

  1749
  hope the views we have expressed will meet with the consideration they deserve at the hands of those in charge of the Bill.
  Mr. JOSEPH NOLAN: Attention has been drawn to the fact that the amount under discussion is small, and it has been stated that it might be allowed to pass almost without discussion. I should be inclined to favour that view if this tax of £5,000 a year stood by itself. Unfortunately it happens that it does not, because it is added on to other taxation upon this particular industry to an extent which is out of all proportion to what is right and just under the circumstances. To-morrow the people in Ireland will read with very great attention indeed the result of this discussion and the decision of His Majesty's Government. The hon. Member for South Belfast spoke about the representations made from Ireland, and I think he invited hon. Members in this House to go to Ireland and ascertain on the spot what the views of the Irish people are with regard to this tax. I wonder what the hon. Member could have been thinking about, or what was in his mind's eye? It is a notorious fact that ever since this Budget was introduced this question of the Licensing Duties and the Whisky Tax has been before the people of Ireland, and all through Ireland the people have risen up like one man to denounce the proposals of His Majesty's Government. I do not suppose that outside one narrow little corner of Ireland there is a single public body elected by the popular vote which has not passed resolutions condemning the proposals of the Government. Public meetings have been held up and down the country, at which resolutions have been passed condemning this and other taxes contained in the Finance Bill. In my own county I attended two meetings—one in the northern and the, other in the southern division—and at both those meetings attention was drawn to the fact that never before, perhaps, in the memory of living man had such representative meetings been held. They were thoroughly representative, and included people belonging to every creed and class. Those meetings unanimously denounced these taxes. I would like to ask the representatives of the Government who are present what they think the effect of these proposals will be upon the people of Ireland. Already Ireland is admittedly overtaxed, and taxed largely beyond her resources, and, although this tax of £5,000 is regarded as a small matter, I contend
  1750
  that under the circumstances it may have a most disastrous effect. There are a large number of whisky distilleries in Scotland and there are a number in Ireland.
  I wish, however, to draw the attention of the Committee to a fact which is well known to everybody who possesses a superficial knowledge of the trade, that in Scotland the distiller is a small man connected with the liquor trade, and the big men in the liquor trade in Scotland are the merchants. In Ireland it is different, because there the distiller is the big man and the merchant and the distributer is the small man. If you take the distillers of Ireland, you can count them almost on the fingers of one hand. If you take five distillers in Ireland, you have not got outside that number many that need to be taken into account. Taking this small tax and distributing it amongst these five distillers, £1,000 taken from the revenue for each of these distilleries may bring one or more of them to grief. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that there may be a number of employés thrown out of employment. What will be felt in Ireland to-morrow will be that here we have got a Government which professes to sympathise with the Irish people, who admit the Nationalist claim that Ireland is already overtaxed, and yet, without the slightest regard for the effect which will be produced upon this industry in Ireland, the Government propose to increase this tax. I should just like to say one word upon the effect this tax is likely to produce upon the agriculture of Ireland. I represent one of the greatest tillage counties in Ireland, and I have made it my business to inquire into the effect the proposals of the Government will have upon the agricultural population. The distiller converts 2s. worth of produce into a liquid gallon. The Government propose to increase the duty of 11s. per proof gallon to 14s. 9d. The liquid gallon, however, produces 125 instead of 100 degrees of alcohol, so that the distiller who pays 2s. to the agriculturist for the raw material of a liquid gallon will pay to the Government 18s. 5d. This may be regarded as a matter of small importance, but those best acquainted with the trade and the position to which it has been brought by the legislation of successive Governments are under the impression that it will irretrievably damage a great industry in Ireland and lead, in addition, to a diminution in the revenue of the Government. For these reasons I, as one of the representatives of

  1751
  the Irish party, protest. I shall go into the Lobby against the proposal of the Government, feeling that I am only discharging a duty, not only to the whisky consumer and manufacturer, but also to the farmers and labourers whom I represent in this House.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 97.

  Division No. 760.]

  AYES.

  [8.40 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Grady, J.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Barker, Sir John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Henry, Charles S.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Beale, W. P.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hodge, John

  Rees, J. D.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robinson, S.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rowlands, J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Clough, William

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamont, Norman

  Seddon, J.

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Seely, Colonel

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Snowden, P.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Summerbell, T.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Elibank, Master of

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Essex, R. W.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Watt, Henry A.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Massie, J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Mond, A.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morrell, Philip

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Morse, L. L.

  Winfrey, R.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Myer, Horatio

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Napier, T. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Ambrose, Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bull, Sir William James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Keating, M.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cullinan, J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Dillon, John

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Reddy, M.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Lundon, T.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Fell, Arthur

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Field, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Sheehy, David

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Kean, John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Foster, P. S.

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanier, Beville

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Starkey, John R.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Muldoon, John

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Gretton, John

  Murnaghan, George

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

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

  Haddock, George B.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Winterton, Earl

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nolan, Joseph

  Young, Samuel

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Younger, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Hazleton.

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Question put, "That £10 stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 98.

  Division No. 761.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Elibank, Master of

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Essex, R. W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Armitage, R.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lynch, H. B.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs),

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Barker, Sir John

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Callum, John M.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Beauchamp, E.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Marnham, F. J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Massie, J.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Mond, A.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morrell, Philip

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morse, L. L.

  Brigg, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Brodie, H. C.

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen)

  Myer, Horatio

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henry, Charles S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Bytes, William Pollard

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Grady, J.

  Clough, William

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

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

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S

  Jackson, R. S.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jowett, F. W

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rees, J. D.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Robinson, S.

  Snowden, P.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rowlands, J.

  Summerbell, T.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe)

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

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Thomas Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Seddon, J.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Seely, Colonel

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Morton.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Haddock, George B.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, H.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Malley, William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hill, Sir Clement

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hills, J. W.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hunt, Rowland

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bull, Sir William James

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Keating, M.

  Reddy, M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, T.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cullinan, J.

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Sheehy, David

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stanier, Beville

  Dillon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Starkey, John R.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  M'Kean, John

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Meagher, Michael

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Field, William

  Mooney, J. J.

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Muldoon, John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murnaghan, George

  Winterton, Earl

  Forster, Henry William

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Young, Samuel

  Foster, P. S.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Younger, George

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Hazleton.

  Gretton, John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Mr. STAVELEY-HILL Mr. STAVELEY-HILL moved to leave out "25,000" ["for every further 25,000 gallons"], and insert instead thereof "50,000."
  I think the subject-matter of this Amendment has already been discussed sufficiently in Committee. My Amendment proposed to reduce the duty on distillers' licences by one-half. The arguments in favour of this Amendment were put forward in the discussion on an Amendment which preceded it. The Government will only be doing justice to the distillers if they accept this Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am obliged to the hon. Member for the Kingswinford Division for the succinct way in which he has moved this Amendment. The Committee, as he says, has given prolonged and minute attention to this proposed new
  1756
  duty, and it is no discourtesy to the Committee if I do not elaborate the arguments against this Amendment. Briefly, they are the same as those advanced against the previous Amendment. The Government could not consent to a decrease of one-tenth of this duty, and they could not now consent to a decrease of one-half.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: It is the old cry we hear on every Clause of this Bill. The Government want money. There is no logic in their arguments. I will have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend if he carries his Amendment to a division.
  Question put, "That the first 25,000 stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 96.

  Division No. 762.]

  AYES.

  [9.0 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Myer, Horatio

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Napier, T. B.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Armitage, R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Grady, J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvill)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Barker, Sir John

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Beale, W. P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rees, J. D.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Hodge, John

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Robinson, S.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Brigg, John

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rowlands, J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jowett, F. W.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Clough, William

  Kekewich, Sir George

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Seddon, J.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Summerbell, T.

  Crossley, William J.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Watt, Henry A.

  Essex, R. W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Massie, J.

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mond, A.

  Winfrey, R.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morrell, Philip

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morse, L. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Kilbride, Denis

  Ambrose, Robert

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Field, William

  Lea. Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, T.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Forster, Henry William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Foster, P. S.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gretton, John

  M'Kean, John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Haddock, George B.

  Meagher, Michael

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harrington, Timothy

  Muldoon, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Murnaghan, George

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Healy, Timothy (Michael)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Helmstey, Viscount

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dillon, John

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

  Keating, M.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  1758

  1759

  O'Malley, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Valentia, Viscount

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Winterton, Earl

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Young, Samuel

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Younger, George

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Reddy, M.

  Stanier, Beville

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Staveley-Hill and Mr. G. D. Faber.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Starkey, John R.

  Mr. JOHN REDMOND Mr. JOHN REDMOND moved, in Scale 2 (licence
  to brewer for sale), to leave out:ߞ

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding 100 barrels—

  For the first 100 barrels

  1

  0

  0

  For every further 50 barrels or fraction of 50 barrels

  0

  12

  0,"

  and to insert instead thereof:—

  Not exceeding:—

  "1,000 barrels

  1

  0

  0

  5,000 barrels

  3

  0

  0

  20,000 barrels

  5

  0

  0

  50,000 barrels

  10

  0

  0

  100,000 barrels

  25

  0

  0

  For every further 50 barrels or fraction of 50 barrels

  0

  12

  6."

  I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy will be able to make some concession in this matter, although after what has occurred I have not very great expectations. The argument against us which was used by the Prime Minister, namely, that there are a number of small breweries in England which under this Amendment would practically escape from the tax, is not a sound one. We are not proposing in this scale to remit the tax. We are admitting the principle of the tax and an increase of the tax. At present, as I understand, the brewers' licence is only £1 all round. We admit the principle that that should be raised, and the only thing I propose in this Amendment is that, instead of it being raised according to the scale in the Bill, it should be raised in accordance with the more moderate scale that I propose. My scale is drafted with the object of letting down easier the small breweries in comparison with the large ones. It is no use quoting for us the case of England and telling us about all the small breweries in this country. The small breweries in England if they were extinguished to-morrow, while no doubt it will inflict hardship upon individual brewers, would not inflict upon England as a country the same kind of injustice and hardship as would be inflicted upon Ireland if the Bill was carried in its present shape. The destruction of these small breweries in Ireland will be something in
  1760
  the nature of a national calamity. You cannot judge Ireland by English standards, and I think it is a cruel thing that, when you do not want this provision so far as Ireland is concerned for the purposes of revenue, you should inflict this hardship upon these small businesses and in that way do an injury to the whole population of Ireland. The Amendment, if carried, will mean a very considerable increase of the present system of taxation. It will just safeguard the small breweries and prevent their utter extinction. It is a moderate Amendment, and the least we can ask is that in a matter of this kind, where revenue is not concerned, and where the interests of England are not concerned, the Goverment should accept our proposal and safeguard these small industries.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Prime Minister said the Government would be glad to listen with sympathetic minds to any fresh arguments which might be advanced in moving this Amendment, but the Government have heard on this occasion no new reasons why they should alter the decision which they previously arrived at. The hon. and learned Member has realised that the latter part of the Amendment, as it stands, would have been out of order, because it would have imposed a rate of duty above what the Resolution authorised.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The Amendment as originally put down was open to that criticism, but as it appeared on the Paper it is not. I altered it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am informed that in certain cases it would meant an increase of the tax above what the Resolution authorises. As it stands, it would mean a loss to the revenue of about £100,000 for the whole Kingdom. I cannot agree that Ireland stands in any peculiar position in this respect. The number of breweries in Ireland is only about 30 altogether. In England they are numbered by thousands, and there is a vast number of small brewers here whose disappearance would seriously affect the well-being of the towns in which their businesses are situated. After all, England and Scotland

  1761
  ought not to be omitted altogether from the purview of the Government in dealing with a matter such as this, but we suggest that neither in England nor Scotland nor in Ireland will the brewers be seriously affected by this new Licence Duty. Comparing the present time with the times which have gone by, there has been a very large decline in the cost of materials used for brewing. It has not been so in the immediate recent past.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Two years.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am speaking of a much more considerable period of time. There has been a progressive and steady decline in the cost of material, while at the same time there has been no appreciable decline in the price charged to consumers in the public-house or to home consumers for the product which the brewers manufacture. Furthermore, I would emphasise the fact that the brewers got relief of taxation last year on the Sugar Duty, and this affects a certain number of brewers in Ireland as well as in England. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which of them?"] Does the hon. Gentleman expect me to give names? I have made inquiry, and I am told a considerable majority of the Irish brewers do use sugar in brewing. The relief on the Sugar Duty last year gave relief to the brewing trade generally to the extent of 1¼d. per barrel. It may be slightly less in Ireland, but certainly some relief was obtained by brewers there as well as in England. This duty proposes an increased charge of slightly over 2½d. per barrel, so that the Sugar Duty would be equivalent to half of that. The Beer Duty at present is 7s. 9d. per barrel, and I really cannot accept the argument that the small brewers in Ireland or in England are not able to carry on business with the duty at the increased amount. We propose to treat them all alike and make the duty 7s. 11½d. It is absolutely unjustifiable to say that the small breweries would be closed, and that the persons they employ would all lose their work. For these reasons the Government think that a case has not been made out for the Amendment. We believe this duty will be shifted in one way or another on to the consumers. The small brewer will be able to relieve himself in that way, and therefore no graduation in this particular case is required.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I would not have intervened in the Debate but for the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy in regard to the brewing trade at the
  1762
  present moment. That statement is inexcusable. The same arguments were used by the Prime Minister, and they were promptly contradicted on this side of the House. The position with regard to the cost of material is not as the right hon. Gentleman says at all. I have not the figures here, but I can tell pretty nearly what the position is. Ten or twelve years ago the price of barley of the kind which is largely used in brewing had fallen to something like £1 per quarter from an average of 27s. That lasted for a certain time, but only for a very few years. At that time there was a simultaneous reduction in the price of beer, certainly in Scotland, and I know that in London the brewers took 3s. per barrel off the price of beer. The reduction which then took place in Scotland still continues. Since then there has been a gradual appreciation in the value of material. Barley has gone up from 18s. or 19s. to 33s. or 34s. per quarter. The price of hops goes up and down. They were cheap last year, but were again dear this year. They have risen from £2 or £3 to £7 or £8 per cwt., and yet the right hon. Gentleman, with all the information at his disposal, stands up and tells the Committee that the material is so low and the change in the cost of production so great that the Government are justified in taking more out of the unfortunate brewer, who has been "salted" up to the present, and who has a diminishing trade. Apparently the brewer is supposed to have a very large measure of original sin, and therefore he is to have another atrocious tax added to those which he had already to bear. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) has not endeavoured to confine his proposal to Ireland. It is a proposal which affects the whole kingdom, and although I am not sure that I agree entirely with the way his scale is drawn, still there is an element of fairness in it, and if he goes to a Division I shall support the Amendment. The largest brewers in Ireland are not very much affected by the hon. Member's scale; Under the Government's scale they will pay £26,000 a year, while under the hon. Member's scale they will pay £23,500, so that they will be very pleased if the hon. Gentleman's scale is carried. I am bound to say that although the great brewing concern in Dublin has a commanding influence in Ireland, it has, so far as I am aware, never taken up an unfair position towards other breweries. I think the firm have acted fairly and honestly as regards their

  1763
  competitors. They have never attempted to lift up a finger against other brewers. They have always acted upon the principle, "Live and let live." Under these circumstances, I think the Chancellor of the Duchy has wholly failed, as the Prime Minister failed, to make good any kind of case for the retention of the scale which appears in the Schedule.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have referred to the Resolution, and I find there is a slight variation between it and the Amendment. If the hon. and learned Member will leave out 12s. 6d., and insert 12s., the Amendment will be in accordance with the Resolution.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I think that is a mistake. The Amendment is not beyond the scope of the Resolution, if you will allow me to say so.
  Mr. J. REDMOND: I am willing to alter my Amendment as suggested.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN read the Amendment, leaving out 12s. 6d. and inserting 12s. in the last line.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not propose to deal with the question of how Ireland is affected under the Bill, but it has been pointed out in the course of this Debate that this tax will affect a large number of small breweries in this country. The Prime Minister admitted in the course of the Debate that the output of the majority of brewers in this country was 1,000 barrels and under during the year. This Debate disposes of the contention that this brewing trade is composed of big businesses and great local interests. It is obvious that the brewing trade, certainly as regards the South of England, is in the hands of small people, whose trade compared with persons engaged in other businesses is comparatively restricted. You are not merely hitting the small breweries that happen to be in Ireland, but you are hitting a large number of small breweries in England at the same time, and when the brewers are badly hit the trade of the local town is seriously affected. The trade of many small towns is absolutely dependent on the prosperity of the small brewers. So that this tax will affect not merely a large number of individual brewers, but will hit the majority of small country towns in the South of England. The question has often been asked, but has never been answered—
  1764
  where is either the justice or the financial equity of increasing largely your tax on an article of decreasing consumption, which is likely to decrease still more in the immediate future? It is a well known fact that as far as the South of England is concerned that the trade done by the bulk of brewers is decreasing. Every year far more people are drinking lemonade and mineral waters than formerly. There can be only two objects in such a tax as this—either the Government are so hard up for revenue and this country has come so near the end of its resources for raising revenue that it is compelled to put a largely increased tax on an article decreasing in consumption every year, or else the Government are frankly putting a tax on the brewing interest because they dislike the brewing interest and wish to revenge themselves upon it. There is no other solution of the question. The decrease in brewing is beyond all doubt, and if it goes on at its present rate in 10 or 15 years there will be no beer left to tax.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs has challenged a question of fact in a speech of mine; and I should like to give the information in my possession. He said that if I had consulted the expert advisers I should have been prevented from falling into the error that the price of brewing materials had fallen and that, therefore, the new tax would not be onerous. Some time ago I did make inquiry from the Board of Excise on this very point, and I received these figures from them. Although the materials used fluctuate to some extent, some brewers using more of one substance and some more of another, yet taking brewers' material generally, and taking the year 1878 at a standard of 100—
  Mr. YOUNGER: A case made in 1878 has nothing to do with the matter; 1880 is the proper year.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Take from the repeal of the Malt Tax.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I took the year 1908 as the last year for which figures were available, and then I took periods of 10 years back to 1898, 1888, and 1878.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is founding his argument on the last year at which they were at very high prices, and I object to that altogether.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That year has 100 as a standard. For the year 1888 the figure was 71.3, for the year 1898 it was 64.4, and for 1908 it was slightly higher, 68.8. Those are the figures on which I relied for the statement that, taking a series of years, proves that the materials as a whole had fallen in price.
  Mr. YOUNGER: The whole point of the case depends in starting with 1880 and not with 1878, because there was an extraordinary fall from 1878 to 1880 in the cost of materials. The fall was so great that I remember distinctly myself buying a class of barley which at present costs 34s. 6d. to 35s. for 18s. 10½d. in 1880, so that the House will see at once that 1878 is a ridiculous year to take; and, moreover, that is not the question, because the Prime Minister's whole argument was that since Mr. Gladstone altered the tax there had been this fall in materials, and I frankly admit a decrease for a certain number of years. What I say is it has gone up again, and, at the present moment, prices are higher than they were then very considerably. That is my argument, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to controvert it. He cannot do so. Besides this, he forgets that since that time extra duty on malt, equivalent to 7s. a quarter, or 1s. 9d. a barrel, has been imposed on brewers.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: In listening to the Chancellor of the Duchy's reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford, I attribute what he said to ignorance on the part of the Government as to the conditions of Irish life. When I heard him talk of breweries in Ireland as being only 28 in number, and ask why they should be considered, I was really appalled to think that a man of such intelligence should be capable of using such an argument. The mere fact that there are only 28 breweries in Ireland brings out in tragic relief the meaning of this tax on that industry. The fact that there is a large number of breweries in England and a small number in Ireland is not a fact against the proposal of my hon. Friend—it is the strongest fact in its favour. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly never lived in a small Irish town, or if he had done so he would know what a small industry of any kind means to that town. I remember seeing a small town in Ireland illuminated, with banners flowing from every window, simply because a small sack factory was to be opened. Unemployment was so frequent and so terrible a calamity
  1766
  in that town that the erection of a small sack factory was regarded as a great civic event, promising a new future to the town, and it was celebrated by men of all creeds, the Catholic bishop at their head. That will give some idea of what even a small factory means to small towns in Ireland. I could certainly go, I think, through most of the towns in which these small breweries are established and show that they are the hope and support of a large portion of the people of those towns. I think, when the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a small matter, it shows, with all due respect to him, that he is in a state of most tragic ignorance as regards the realities of life in Ireland. Another point which the right hon. Gentleman made struck me as showing that insensibility which, I am sure, does not come from anything like natural malignity, but from what I may call ignorance of the facts: He said this was a question of farthings and pence.
  If the figures which have been handed to me are correct, the observation that this is a matter of farthings and pence would really appear to be, if I did not know that it was unintentional, and arose from unconsciousness of the facts, something like adding a gross insult to a great injury. There are 14 breweries in Ireland that brew less than 10,000 barrels. That will mean in their case an addition to the tax of £119 16s. each. There are five that brew less than 20,000 barrels, and that means £239 16s. There are five breweries that brew less than 100,000 barrels. But before dealing with the large breweries I should like to say another word about the small breweries. Does the Committee realise what the character of the small brewing business in Ireland is? The small brewer in those small towns of Ireland does a mixed trade; he does not make his living solely by his brewing; he is a manufacturer of mineral waters, he makes a living by selling stout and other liquors, and he does a mixed trade in the full sense of the word, his brewing being only a portion of the small living he gets. To put a tax of £239 on a small brewery like that I should say in some cases would absorb a very considerable portion of his profits; indeed, in some instances I believe the profit would almost disappear. I say to put £239 on a small brewery like that is practically to ruin, or threaten to ruin, the business. As I understand, some of my hon. Friends around me have connections in the brewing trade who hold some of these small breweries in Ireland, and they are already

  1767
  preparing to close up some of them. This is a question the right hon. Gentleman says of farthings and pence. Some of these people who have small breweries in Ireland belong to the middle classes, who are often much poorer in reality than in appearance, and a tax such as that which is now proposed to be imposed would affect their livelihood. There are five breweries that brew less than 100,000 barrels, and two that brew less than 150,000 barrels. On the first class the tax under this Clause which my hon. Friend proposes to amend will be £1,199 16s., or £1,200 a year. Farthings and pence, with an additional tax of £1,200 a year in the place of £1, upon a comparatively small brewery? It is not a question of farthings and pence; it is a question of life and death. Take the case of two breweries brewing less than 150,000 barrels. The tax on them will be £1,799 16s.—an increase of £1,700 instead of £1. A matter of farthings and pence! Such an argument could not be advanced if the right hon. Gentleman were not, by the fact of this deplorable want of opportunity, in ignorance of the conditions of Irish life.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member misunderstood what I said when I stated that it was a matter of farthings and pence. I did not mean that the total tax amounted to farthings and pence, because altogether it would bring in nearly half a million a year to the Revenue. What I said was that the Sugar Duty was a question of 1¼d. on the barrel, and I was apologising for advancing an argument which dealt merely with 1¼d., as the whole of this tax raised questions of farthings and pence. May I ask the hon. Gentleman how much is the Beer Duty which is now being paid by these small brewers?
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am talking of the Licence Duty, of the brewer's licence; and I do not want to be diverted into any other question from the particular argument I am now using. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has referred to another issue. I have no desire to misrepresent him, but the words he used and the general tenour of his speech certainly seemed to convey that the duty with which we are dealing was comparatively a trumpery affair, and that we were really making a tempest in teapot. I am entitled to say, in the case of a speech of that character, that when you increase the tax from £1 to £1,199 a year, and from £1 a year to £1,799 a year, it is really a very serious
  1768
  matter indeed. Some allusion has been made to the fact that these taxes touch the small breweries in England as well as in Ireland. So far as we are concerned we would spare the small brewery in England as well as the small brewery in Ireland. We do not regard it as an objection to this Amendment that it would spare the small brewery in any country whatsoever. We think that in these days of the gigantic syndication of capital, the preservation of small industries is to the interest of the community and a protection to the community in Ireland. Now, of course, at the same time we quite understand it applies to England. But the case of the small brewer in Ireland is a much more poignant case than that in England, though I do not wish to dispute what has been brought forward by hon. Members above the Gangway. Twenty-eight breweries do not form a great artery of industry in England as they do in Ireland.
  I look on this question purely as a trade matter. I am not discussing it as a matter of beverage, as a matter of temperance or anything of that kind. I am discussing it purely as an industry giving employment in a country where employment is one of the most terrible facts that faces everybody. I gave an instance the other night of the old town of Galway, which I had the honour of representing for five years in this House, and which I think is one of the most deplorable examples of bad and stupid legislation the world has ever seen. I gave a case where 100 people were actually turned out of employment, and the closing of one of those breweries in any one of those small towns in Ireland will mean an addition to the already vast and hungry army of unemployed of hundreds of people. Allusion has been made to Guinness's brewery, but we have made no case against Guinness's brewery, and the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend does not make any case against it. It is a very gigantic and very opulent business, and it is a business, therefore, which might very well be asked to pay a large proportionate share to the expenditure of the country, and as I understand nobody on behalf of that great firm has come forward and made any objection, I think it is very much to their honour. While I say all that, everybody knows that the very vastness of the business of Guinness is a standing menace to the smaller men of the country. It has not, I am glad to say, been guilty of the folly and stupidity of tying a number of houses, but at the

  1769
  same time I understand that, in order to obtain a supply of Guinness's stout there are certain restrictions, which, of course, must operate to the disadvantage of the smaller breweries, and, therefore, you have by the action of this Licence Duty an extraordinary state of things brought about. On the one hand you overtax a number of small people, and on the other hand you increase the enormous power already existing in one gigantic business to destroy and exterminate those small businesses. If it were a question of Guinness's alone, I must say that I would not feel so strongly upon this, but with my knowledge of Ireland and of the country, for, with the exception of a small period, I lived in small towns, with my knowledge of the momentous part that even a small brewery plays as to the question of unemployment, I regard this proposal as one of the most pernicious and one of the worst submitted.
  Mr. GRETTON: While it is exceedingly interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman's recollections of Ireland, I do not think they bear very greatly on the question of this Amendment. The Amendment is entirely drawn up to suit particular cases in Ireland, and, as I am informed, it is so graduated that every brewery in Ireland except one comes within the lower scale and pays £25 only—at least so I am informed. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment has forgotten that there is an option under this Bill of paying the duty either on the standard barrel or the bulk barrel. I am informed that only one brewery under the bulk measure would come over 100,000 barrels, the standard which has been fixed in this Amendment, so that this Amendment hits one brewery only, and the others get off practically scot-free. I wish to say a word in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger). The Government again and again said that the breweries ought to pay more because their material is cheaper. It is always a source of great mystery to us engaged in the trade how they make up the price of material. Their figures are not the experience of anyone connected with the trade. They seem to be the result of some mystification in the method of those who compile the statistics. It is a matter of very common knowledge that between the year 1880 and the year 1900 there was a fall in the price of material. The Government have taken all advantage of that fall, because
  1770
  they have been constantly increasing the rate of taxation in the brewing trade.
  I am prepared to show the figures to any Member who cares to look into them to prove that whenever there has been a fall in the price of material, the Government have put on increased taxation, with the result that the decrease in prices has been taken by the tax imposed by the Government. Then, to come down at this time of day, when that fall in material has ceased, and when anybody who has any experience of brewing knows that they are paying more day by day and week by week for the material, to come down and say that they are entitled to put on this tax and call it what it is not, a manufacturer's licence upon the brewing industry because their materials are cheaper, any man who says that must be absolutely misinformed as to the facts, and is stating what is absolutely contrary to the truth. That argument is really not worthy of being used by anybody who studies this question. I have always found the Chancellor of the Duchy very careful in his statistics, but I have found him here in this matter abandoning that great caution. He has insisted on the year 1878 as the standard year for the price of materials. Everybody who knows anything about the brewing industries in this country or in Ireland, or anywhere else, knows that 1878 was a dear year and the year 1880 was a cheap year. He should have taken care to look into these facts, and to know that the year he selected was a fair average year and was not a dear year. There was a rapid fall in the two succeeding years. It appears to me that the Debate which has taken place has shattered the whole case for this tax. I cannot say the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment improved the matter very particularly by the Amendment which he has proposed, but I admit there are advantages in the Amendment compared with the proposal of the Government, but I cannot see that it is any real mitigation of the hardship which the Government proposes, and I shall certainly vote against the tax, and shall oppose it strenuously on every possible occasion.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Chancellor of the Duchy has more than once referred to the trifling character of these taxes. In the case of whisky it was "only a tenth of a penny"; in the case of beer it was "so small as not to be worth talking about." What does the City of London

  1771
  say about slight taxes? The City of London is the richest community in the world. In the Act of 1891 the tax put upon marketable securities and Bank of England stock was for every £10 and any fractional part of £10, 1s.; and on marketable securities for every £20 or fraction of £20, 6d. A Resolution of this House was passed to double that tax. Up rose the City in arms, and we got as the result Clause 52 of this Bill, which, while it doubled the taxation on everything else, had this provision with regard to the richest community of the world: "Provided that this Section shall not apply to the conveyance or transfer of any stock or marketable security as defined by Section 122 of that Act." That is what the City of London thinks of putting an extra sixpence upon the transfer of marketable securities and of stock in the Bank of England. Then take what happened when a Tory Government was in power. Sir M. Hicks-Beach, I think, proposed to put a twopenny instead of a penny stamp on cheques. The trained bands almost were called out, and down came every banker and every Crœsus from Lombard-street, declaring that we were going to rob the City by putting another penny on a cheque for a million of money. But when you come to the distillers the right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, it is only a tenth of a penny, and you should forget that because you have been taxed 15s. on the whisky itself." I think it was Josh Billings who said that tight boots were a blessing, because they made you forget all your other troubles. Because 15s. was put on whisky we are to forget the tenth of a penny put on the distiller. When we come to beer, we have exactly the same argument. According to the figures of the Chancellor of the Duchy, there are 29 brewers in Ireland, and they are to be taxed. There are ten makers of cider in England; they are to be absolved. Where was the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) when we were taking off the tax from that abominable drunken beverage, cider? Where was the hon. Member for Appleby (Mr. Leif Jones)? Each of these hon. Gentlemen is particeps criminis in this transaction, because, sitting silently behind their Government, they have been parties to taking the tax off an article to make men drunk. They do not say a word when a tax of £5 5s. a year is being taken off one drunken commodity; but there is a wholly different
  1772
  story when you propose to take a tax off whisky or beer. That is the extraordinary position occupied by hon. Gentlemen opposite—for their own country make as much intoxicating liquor as you like without tax, but when the breweries of England and Scotland are spoken of they must shade their chaste visages. That is the way in which this Debate is being conducted. Whence does the Chancellor of the Duchy get his figures with regard to production? In any other business when an expert gives you instructions you always suspect him because he is an expert; but when a Government are getting loaded to the muzzle with figures from their experts you are expected to believe every word they say. I do not. These Bills are the Bills of the experts. They first get the Government to propose these taxes, and then they invent the figures to support them. The Prime Minister referred to the repeal of the Malt Tax in 1880, but the Chancellor of the Duchy introduces the year 1878 when dealing with materials. Do the materials include coal? Let temperance men remember that coal is the root of all evil. You would not have a mash or a brew without coal. Why do you not tax it? The first thing the Government did when they came into office was to remove the tax from export coal. I say that every argument put forward by the Government has been met in Debate. Finally take the Irish case. The right hon. Gentleman said that his exports told him that sugar was used in Ireland. We all take it in our tea. The truth is that the materials used in brewing and in distilling in Ireland are far more expensive than those used in this country. Leave aside for the moment any question of alcoholic liquor. If you ask any tea merchant in England he will tell you in regard to the quality which suit the taste in our country that even the very poor prefer the more expensive if they can get it. I will tell you why. It is because the mass of the people are without any other food. The English can afford to take more or less coarser stuffs, because they have plenty to eat; but the men who live, as I have seen many of these unfortunate men in Ireland live, on a cup of tea in the morning, or stout in the middle of the day, or some whisky at night, are in a very different position. Be that as it may, the taste of the people is consulted by the manufacturers, and nothing but the best barley in many cases goes into the mash.

  1773
  They have not used these deleterious compounds whch have been palmed off on this country. For another reason also: there is the question of carriage at stake. English people get the substances practically at their doors. With us there would be additional carriage to bring them into Ireland. It is cheaper for those concerned in the end, at all events not dearer. What we have been met with to-night, both on the question of distilling and on the question of brewing, is the Closure. We have not been met in Debate. I do say this: It is a significant and remarkable thing that the Government have thrown a cold chain of silence over every one of their supporters below the Gangway, and all through this Debate. Why, Sir, it is not a Debate on these subjects; it is a Treasury Bench monologue. You do not allow your men to attack. It is no longer the House of Commons discussing this matter; it is some paid Minister. Some paid Minister stuffed with expert figures! In Debates such as we have had upon the promotion of the foreign policy there is an attack, reply, there is repartee, and so forth; but in this business, which concerns not foreign politics, not China, not South America, but the dearest interests of our own people, is a question—a tax upon the subject—which the Treasury Bench would not allow one of their men to take up. If a Liberal Member were to get up and support the Irish position, the Liberal Association in his Constituency would be ransacked to-morrow by the Whips. The Whips would send out to that Association that that Liberal Member was a traitor to the Liberal party in supporting the ignorant Irish against the beneficent Liberal Government. We knew that; we know that! A Liberal Member might, at least, if he believed in these things, get up and say so. Remember you cannot waste the time of the House, because it is all going to come to an end on Wednesday. Remember another thing, that if you Liberals were to waste the time of the House you would be the first to be closured by your own Government. We opened this Debate by a statement from the Secretary to the Treasury that no Amendment whatever would be accepted by the Government, and at all events, though the Government have shifted and juggled the figures, they have been true at least to that one statement.
  Mr. E. B. BARNARD: So far as I can understand this discussion it amounts to
  1774
  this: that there is one brewery in Ireland that brews 2,730,000 barrels of beer, and there are a number of other breweries that brew 700,000 barrels put together. So that the figures that we are really discussing at the present time amount to about £8,000 odd. I do not go into that. But there is another point where I think the Irish party, or the Irish brewers, have a distinct grievance if it had been brought forward. It is to me a matter of great astonishment that not one single one of the Nationalist leaders referred to it. It was just referred to by one hon. Member. The paragraph in Scale 2 says: "For the purposes of this scale, barrels may be taken at the option of the brewer either to be bulk barrels or standard barrels, and a standard barrel shall be," etc. I find that the Irish brewers have paid on standard barrels, which are many more than the actual barrels which they turn out. So that in effect they are serving a much stronger article, and they are really paying very much more per barrel than English and Scottish brewers, who apparently give more water and less malt. If it had been made a case, I should certainly have considered that there was a very tangible Irish grievance to argue upon that point.
  Mr. H. CECIL LEA: Two reasons the Chancellor of the Duchy gives for the imposition of this licence. First of all, the progressive decline in the price of brewing materials, and I am bound to say if that is true—and I believe it to be true—that that progressive decline equally favours the producers of beer abroad and within our Colonies. Then he went on to say that the effect of this licence would amount to about 2½d. per barrel, and as the present Excise Duty was 7s. 9d. per barrel, it was a mere fleabite, and, there fore, could be disregarded. As a matter of fact, I believe some 33 to 34 millions of barrels of beer are brewed on an average in this country. Several hundreds of thou sands are exported. On every one of those barrels exported there is a drawback of 7s. 9d. handed back to the brewer, whereas this simply means that on every barrel of beer which is exported—if this Licence Duty is passed—there will be additional taxation of 2½d. Although I am bound to say I am not a believer—
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps I may shorten the Debate by saying that the point raised by the hon. Member is already dealt with. As most of the

  1775
  Members of the Committee are aware, in Clause 62 there is an additional Customs duty upon beer imported, and a 3d. drawback on English beer exported.
  Mr. DILLON: I should like to say a word or two in reply to some of the statements made by the Chancellor of the Duchy. He said that the Government listened to hon. Members on this side with a sympathetic mind. That is very small comfort for a reply refusing absolutely to grant any of our requests. Then he went on to point out that this was a very trifling matter, and amounted only to a duty of 1d. in the quarter on a barrel of beer. That is not our complaint at all. On the contrary, we say that the Government have put too little on beer, and too much on whisky. It is not the case that we are not raising any complaints against the extent of this taxation, but we do say that this particular tax on the, brewers will discriminate against the small brewers in favour of the monopoly of the Guinness's in Ireland. It will probably lead to the extinction of a very large proportion of the 29 breweries that exist in that country. Some hon. Members above the Gangway appear to make out that we have been attacking Messrs. Guinness. I must confess that neither I myself nor any of my colleagues have made any attack upon Guinness's. On the contrary, I am of opinion that Guinness's is an enormous monopoly in Ireland because of Guinness's splendid way of doing their business, and the excellent material they turn out. It is a monopoly—and this is a thing I have never quite forgotten—to the firm of Guinness; their monopoly has been earned through the quality of their goods, and has been the means of rescuing Ireland, and saving it from the abominable system of tied houses. Probably all our houses would have been tied but for the fact that no house can do without Guinness's, and Guinness's has not tied a single house. Most of the breweries in England are half ruined, but Guinness's is more prosperous than ever, and they have continually increased their business. There was one observation made by the Chancellor of the Duchy worthy of special notice. He said the breweries can pass this tax on to the consumer. How is that to be done? How are you to pass on to the consumer a duty of 2d. per barrel on beer. There is only one way, and that is by watering the beer or shorten-
  1776
  ing the measure. The Irish brewers have not resorted to that trick. They have not cut down the specific gravity. That is a practice that may be carried on in this country, but the specific gravity of Irish beer has been kept up in spite of these taxes, much to the honesty of the Irish brewer, whereas here it has been watered down. It is a nice thing that a Treasury Bench should advise the brewer of this country to pass this tax on to the consumer by cheating the consumer of what is his due. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Barnard) reproached Irish Members for not having brought forward this point. It was brought forward, and most emphatically, too, by a deputation that waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Malone, one of the most important Irish representatives of the trade, pointed out to the Chancellor that the great bulk of the trade consisted of stout or porter, and that the gravity of this article had been maintained all through, no matter what the changes, and therefore in that respect the position of the Irish brewer was quite different from that of the English brewer. I did not like to allow the Debate to close without pointing out that we had a grievance, or rather I should not say "we," but that the Irish brewers who are our political opponents have a grievance. The comfort which the Irish brewers get for endeavouring to do the right thing in not watering their beer is that they are now told they can hand this tax on to the consumer.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: The method of taxation as proposed by the Government compared with the method as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford shows clearly that the English condition of the trade only was had regard to when they were composing their Schedule. The Government datum line, if I may say so, is 100 barrels. There is no brewer in Ireland who brews 100 barrels of beer. There are a great many in England who brew 100 barrels or who may brew two barrels, which they sell over their own counters, and they can water their beer as much as they like. A man who makes 100 barrels or 200 barrels to sell to his own customers over the counter may make it of any specific gravity he likes, but where the line is drawn by the hon. Member for Waterford is at 1,000 barrels. The difference between 100 barrels, for which the licence is £1, and the 1,000 barrels, as proposed by the hon. Member for Waterford, is 900.

  1777
  On every 50 barrels there is to be charged 12s., that is 24s. for every 100. So that a man in Ireland who brews 1,000 barrels—and no brewer brews less in Ireland—will have his licence extended from £1 to £1,800. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At all events, there is some enormous difference. There are no small brewers in Ireland, and
  therefore the tax will fall much heavier on the large brewers in Ireland than on the small brewers in this country.
  Question put, "That '100' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 111.

  Division No. 763.]

  AYES.

  [10.25 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Agnew, George William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Grady, J.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Armitage, R.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Barker, Sir John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Beale, W. P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rees, J. D.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Hodge, John

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robinson, S.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Brigg, John

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Poe, Sir Thomas

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rowlands, J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Clough, William

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Summerbell, T.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Crossley, William J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Elibank, Master of

  Massie, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Essex, R. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mond, A.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morse, L. L.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fullerton, Hugh

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

  Winfrey, R.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Myer, Horatio

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Napier, T. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Ambrose, Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Malley, William

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Keating, M.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ratcliff, Major F. F.

  Cullinan, J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, M.

  Devlin, Joseph

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, T.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

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

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Field, William

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Fletcher, J. S.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Sheehy, David

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Foster, P. S.

  M'Kean, John

  Stanier, Beville

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meagher, Michael

  Starkey, John R.

  Gretton, John

  Mooney, J. J.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Valentia, Viscount

  Haddock, George B.

  Muldoon, John

  Walker, Col W. H. (Lancashire)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Murnaghan, George

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

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nannetti, Joseph

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Winterton, Earl

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Young, Samuel

  Heaton, John Henniker

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Younger, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, W.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

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

  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask if this Division stands? I believe the doors were not locked.
  The CHAIRMAN: I called in the usual way for the doors to be locked. It so happens, on this particular occasion, I inquired whether they were locked, as I was not sure if my words were heard, and I found that they were.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in Scale 2 ["Provisions applicable to manufacturers' licences"], to leave out the word "place" ["holder of the licence at the place"], and to insert instead thereof the word "premises."
  Question, "That the word 'place' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS, in Scale 2 ["Provisions Applicable to Manufacturers' Licences"], moved to omit the following words: "And elsewhere by a servant or agent of the manufacturer if the liquor is supplied direct from the premises where it is manufactured."
  I move this Amendment in order to get some information from the Government, as I think the effect of these words has not been appreciated. The paragraph proposes that the Manufacturer's Licence Duty should frank the manufacturer for
  1780
  wholesale dealing at the place of manufacture. That is fair. But the words which I propose to omit would frank him also for wholesale dealing in any other place, provided the wholesale dealing is conducted by his servant or his agent, and the liquor is supplied direct from the place where it is manufactured. That practically means the total abolition of the wholesale dealer's licence, because every wholesale dealer will, in that case, regard himsef as the agent of the manufacturer. Now, the wholesale dealer's licence produces £200,000, and that sum will be severely cut into, as many retailers who now take out dealer's licences will not require to do so in the future. In addition to that, the brewer or distiller will be able practically to establish his agent anywhere free of duty; indeed, I do not see that there will be any necessity to take out wholesale dealer's licences at all. Consequently, from a revenue point of view, it is worth while the attention of the Government to look into the matter. There is one other point which attracts my attention in reference to this matter. Such dealer's licences are, I must say, often a nuisance in those districts—they are pretty common in the country districts and not unknown in the towns—where licensing justices have kept areas in which there is no licence at all. There was a case in Newcastle some time ago. We have found in some of those no-licence

  1781
  areas an attempt has been made to break down the no-licence area by means of those dealers' licences. At the present time there is a certain check on it—the check that the dealer's licence requires payment of ten guineas in the case of spirits, or £3 6s. 1d. in the case of beer, but in the future, if this provision goes through, there will be absolutely no safeguard in the case of those no-licence areas, and any brewer or distiller who really wishes to break down those few cities of refuge which are left to us in the country will simply have to send down a servant, or agent, to supply him direct from the brewery, and he can do that without paying one penny. I really think this is a matter which requires the attention of the Government. I personally rather welcome the indirect effect of the raising of the dealer's licence, which comes on in the next page of Amendments, but that is perfectly valueless if there is a means under this provision whereby the dealer's licence can be utilised for this purpose in a way which, I am quite sure, it would be used. I should ask the Government to be good enough to look into the matter. If I am wrong they will correct me, but I think the matter requires attention. There is really an important point to dealers involved.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has really so detailed a knowledge of the law that I should hesitate to say he was in error in saying that an important point of policy is involved here. Our view is that the Bill as drafted merely repeats the provisions of the existing law. The fact is that the brewer now has precisely the same right preserved to him under the Brewers Licensing Act, 1850, chap. 67, and the law with regard to distilleries is precisely the same. They are able to supply to servants or agents or to sellers liquor which is the produce of their brewery or distillery direct from the place of manufacture without the taking out of any dealer's licence for that purpose. If my hon. Friend can show that an improvement can be made without making a difference in the law that matter shall be carefully considered. I shall not be prepared to go beyond the present law, as an hon. Member opposite wishes to propose by an Amendment on the Paper, which enables brewers to make stores in any place and supply from their brewery without taking out any additional licence for those stores. That is
  1782
  quite a different matter. It goes quite outside the provisions of the existing law and ought not to be accepted without more powerful arguments being advanced than I can foresee. There is one slight Amendment which I shall ask the Committee to make if they will be good enough to do so. We say that the liquor may be sold by the servant or agent of the manufacturer. The present law allows the manufacturer himself to sell the liquor, and it will be obvious that if the servant or agent of a manufacturer can sell the liquor the manufacturer or small man should be entitled to the same right, without the necessity of employing a servant or agent for the purpose.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in his statement of the law. At present the brewers, who have stores in other parts of the country, have to take out a wholesale licence, which costs £3 6s. 1d. When the Government were putting on brewers such an enormous tax—instead of the £1 they now pay, a tax varying from £10 to £26 a year—I thought they were at least going to have the decency to save them the expense of paying the wholesale licence of £3 6s. 1d. in the various parts of the country in which they store and sell their beer. Apparently that is not the object, and the word "elsewhere" has crept in by mistake. My Amendment, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is intended to make it quite clear that where the actual brewery is the only place in which the beer is stored, this should apply. Now the right hon. Gentleman carries that a great deal further, and says it is intended to cover the case of a brewery—say, in Edinburgh, having stores in London or Liverpool. The Government put upon the brewer this enormous tax and ask him in future to pay £10 10s. for each store instead of £3 6s. 1d. There is nothing like piling up the agony, I suppose. That is the principle on which they seem to act. I do not know when they are going to stop, but I really thought there was a glimmering of decency in this proposal, and I am very sorry to find that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend it in that way at all, but to put another penalising tax on an industry which already has had a deal of his attention.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: What I object to is the power to sell 4½ gallon casks, which is a distinct infraction of these no-licence areas. For once I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member (Mr. Younger) because I certainly have never

  1783
  come across these cases where the brewers use these wholesale dealers' licences without paying. I think it has hitherto been understood, at all events, that it is the law that they should pay. It may not be a very large matter in reference to revenue, but I think the Chancellor of the Duchy has assured me that, if that is the case, between now and the Report stage he would look into the matter, and if he finds that this point does require safeguarding, he might perhaps see his way to find some method of doing it. Under these circumstances I should ask leave to withdraw, but I think if this is a mere repetition of the Act of 1850, circumstances have arisen in many districts owing to the action of landowners, some of them Members of this House, in clearing their estates of licences altogether, which have made some safeguard necessary, and on that ground also I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy will look into it and see what can be done.
  Mr. GRETTON: It would be desirable, before we put in these words, that we should know the exact bearing of the word "elsewhere." I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite realises that every brewer who has more than quite a local trade must have stores where he can put his beer and distribute it where his trade carries it. I take it this Clause is meant to cover such a case. I imagine that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to look into this he will find that the Clause covers the cases. The question raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Charles Roberts) is entirely different. It is a question of retail dealing, and has nothing to do with wholesale dealing. I think we should have an explanation from the Treasury as to what is exactly meant by the words in the Bill.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We do not mean to impose additional restrictions or give enlarged facilities by this paragraph in the Bill. I will undertake to look into the matter, and compare the provision with the existing law.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It must be borne in mind that these men are being made to pay a considerable burden of taxation, and for that reason pettifogging restrictions should not be put upon them.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I think it would be monstrous to put that charge of £3 6s. 1d. on men you are charging thousands of pounds a year.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In paragraph 1, after the word "by" ["and elsewhere by a servant"], to insert the words "the manufacturer or."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel].
  Amendment proposed: To leave out—
  "(2) An occupier of land may, without taking out a manufacturer's licence, make cider for sale from fruit grown on land occupied by him, and from fruit not so grown if it does not exceed in amount the fruit grown on land occupied by him and made into eider."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Mr. R. L. EVERETT: I desire to thank the Government for the concession contained in the three previous lines of the Bill renewing to the cottage brewer the privilege of brewing without any tax beer for his own consumption, which was given him in 1886, and which is highly valued.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: In paragraph 3, after the word "year" ["at any time during the preceding year"], to insert the words, "or in respect of which a licence has been in force but no spirits have been distilled or beer brewed under the licence during the preceding year, as the case may be."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Amendment made: In paragraph 3, to leave out the word "bulk" ["or the number of bulk barrels."]
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move at the end of paragraph (3) to add "(4) For the purpose of the duties under Scales 1 and 2 the preceding year shall be taken to be the year ending the thirtieth day of June or such other day as the Commissioners may fix either generally or as respects any particular manufacturer."
  The Licence Duty is payable on 1st October, and if the words in the Bill stood without the Amendment they would be understood to mean the 12 months up to that date. Consequently it is proposed to date back to June. The 12 months' period of licence is always from 1st October to 1st October, and the duty is payable from that period. The only question is what previous year is to be taken as the basis on which the licence is to be assessed. In some cases it might be a convenience in order to save them additional book-keeping, to have another day than 30th June, but if the representatives of the trade

  1785
  object to the proposal, certainly the Government would not wish to press it.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: As I understand the Amendment the proposal is to enable the Government to take this taxation from 30th June last.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Which 30th June is it? Is it the proposal of the Government that this Bill for this purpose shall not come into operation until 30th June next?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Therefore it must be 30th June last. The right hon. Gentleman, who is largely skilled in finance, says that this Bill is not to date from 30th June next. Then it must be 30th June last, unless it is going to be 30th June, 1912, which the House of Lords may provide for.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Licence Duty is payable as before for a 12 months' period from 1st October this year to the 1st October next year. This Amendment makes no difference whatever in that respect. The only question is on what basis is that duty to be paid? What year is to be gone into for the purpose of assessing the Licence Duty payable for the period from 1st October to 1st October. Instead of taking from 1st October, 1908, to 1st October, 1909, we take it from 30th June, 1908, to 30th June, 1909. It makes no difference whatever to the amount of revenue which is paid or to the period for which the revenue is raised.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not consider that a particularly graceful wriggle. Let us understand exactly where we are. On 1st October last the money was due and will be payable. What money would be due and payable? The money that was payable before this Act passed, and when this Bill proposes to insert the 30th of June it must either be 30th June, 1909, or 30th June, 1910. The Government are going to collect this tax as from 1st October last. On that date these wholesale brewers were entitled to take out their licences at the old rate. You could not compel them to do anything else. This Bill has not yet become law, and the Resolution does not affect the licences. Either the Amendment is of some cogency or it is not; either it was brought in for some purpose or it was not. Is the Government content with the law as it is? That is the question. On 1st October, according to the right hon.
  1786
  Gentleman, the licence expired, and then the new licence ought to be taken out. There is a large number of brewers in London. On what rate had they to pay on Friday last for the new licences? On paying a pound, or whatever it was, they were entitled to carry on their business. As I understand the Amendment, the Commissioners may make it 30th June, 1909, or 30th May, 1909, and they may antedate the whole of these charges so as to make it include 30th January last. Sifted down, it comes to this, that the duty may be collected at such a date as the Commissioners may appoint. I for my part decline to give any such power to any Commissioners.
  Mr. ARKWRIGHT Mr. ARKWRIGHT moved, in Scale 2.—B (Wholesale Dealers' Licences), to leave out "£15 15s.," and to insert instead thereof "£10."
  I think we should have some explanation from the Government why they have increased the tax, and why they have chosen this precise amount. I simply move the Amendment in order to have an explanation from the Chancellor of the Duchy, and to ask whether he has obtained any estimate of the amount of taxation which will be derived from this particular tax?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In this case the Government are of opinion that when you are imposing fresh taxes on the manufacturers of intoxicating liquors, and also on the retail dealers, that it is not unreasonable to ask a slightly increased revenue from those who stand between them, the wholesale dealers of intoxicating liquors. The increase is a very moderate one. With reference to spirits, the increase is from 10 guineas to 15 guineas. It is very difficult to ascertain the amount of revenue, as it is not known how many persons will find it necessary to take out licences. It is impossible to give any precise estimate, but I can give an estimate of the probable loss the hon. Member's Amendment would involve. It is only a very rough estimate, for reasons I have given, but it would probably be somewhere about £30,000.
  Mr. YOUNGER: There does not seem to be any real scheme in this proposal, because while you add 50 per cent. to the wholesale spirit dealers yet when you come to the brewer you treble his duty. I do not know why you do so, but the brewer always comes off worst. This is

  1787
  proposing a very considerable alteration of the law so far as Scotland is concerned, because it will restrict the retailer of spirits and beer to the sale of certain quantities. I rather think it penalises them in this matter. While I do not suppose
  it is possible to object to 50 per cent. being put on, I hope when they come to breweries they will take the same course.
  Question put, "That £15 15s. stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 116.

  Division No. 764.]

  AYES.

  [11.5 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Armitage, R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barker, Sir John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Beale, W. P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rees, J. D.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robinson, S.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rowlands, J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lamont, Norman

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Clough, William

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Seddon, J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Compton-Rickett Sir J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Summerbell, T.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Crossley, William J.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Massie, J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Mond, A.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Elibank, Master of

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Essex, R. W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morse, L. L.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Evans, Sir S. T.

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Myer, Horatio

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Napier, T. B.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Winfrey, R.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Nuttall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  O'Grady, J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Boland, John

  Ambrose, Robert

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Ashley, W. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Keating, M.

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Crean, Eugene

  Kerry, Earl of

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, J.

  Keswick, William

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Lundon, T.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Rutherford, John Lancashire)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Field, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Fletcher, J. S.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Sheehy, David

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Kean, John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Foster, P. S.

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanier, Beville

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Starkey, John R.

  Gretton, John

  Muldoon, John

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Murnaghan, George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Harrington, Timothy

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Winterton, Earl

  Heaton, John Henniker

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Arkwright and Mr. Younger.

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Mr. G. D. FABER (for Mr. Arkwright)Mr. G. D. FABER (for Mr. Arkwright) moved, in Scale 2—B (Wholesale Dealers' Licences), to leave out "£10 10s. 0d." (Beer), and to insert instead thereof "£5 5s. 0d." The existing beer dealer's licence costs only £3 6s. 1d., with 5 per cent. off. The last Amendment dealt with an increase of 50 per cent.; this is an increase of 200 per cent. Have the Government any principle at all in this matter? What is the reason for this enormous increase in the wholesale dealer's licence?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is a very moderate increase. The present duty is £3 6s. 1d., a very odd sum, and an exceptionally low sum. The justification for this increase is simply the justification for other increases—that we need more revenue, and must increase the duties accordingly.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: The only reason the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Committee for this extraordinary increase of 200 per cent. is that he wants a round sum for revenue.
  Mr. ARKWRIGHT: The Chancellor of the Duchy has not answered the question which my hon. Friend put to him, namely, why you should have an increase of 50 per cent. in one case and 200 per cent. in another? That is a startling, simple and obvious fact, and considering that we
  1790
  are not discussing these questions at any great length, and only asking a question which we really think ought to be answered, we ought to have some reply. The reason I put down five guineas in my Amendment was that, working out the increase on beer at the same rate of proportion as the Government have worked out the increase on spirits, I find that the increase on beer would come to £4 19s. 1d. So that I have given them something more. If the Government are anxious for round figures, I suggest they might accept this Amendment.
  Mr. REMNANT: Of all the extraordinary reasons that have ever been put forward by a responsible Minister for increasing a tax, I think that given by the Chancellor of the Duchy is the most absurd. He is asked to explain why, in the case of the wholesale beer dealers' licences, the Government have made an increase of 200 per cent. as against 50 per cent. in the case of the wholesale spirit dealers, and the reason he gives is that the present licences amount to £3 6s. 1d. So we have got the everlasting copper. The odd penny seems to have struck the right hon. Gentleman as being an extraordinary amount, and accordingly, for the sake of getting round figures, he proposes to increase the £3 6s. 1d. to 10 guineas, because the Government want money. We know they want money; they want

  1791
  a great deal of money, but they are not going to get it in the way they expect from the licensed trade. How much does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get out of this increased Licence Duty? The right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us what he expects to get from this tax. Will the Solicitor-General give us the information? We have got to the condition of dealing with different Ministers from day to day on this Bill. Instead of having a right hon. Gentleman who understands the subject and could give us the information, we have a Minister who cannot—
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member's remarks are very uncalled for. I was not asked to say how much the increased duty will bring in. It will bring in about £49,000 increase.
  Mr. REMNANT: Well, we have certainly advanced a point. We have it now that the Government expect to get an increase of £49,000 from this increased duty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will get it, but I do not believe he will.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): The Licence Duty was fixed as far back as 1855. There was an increase of 5 per cent. in 1840, with the result that the £3 3s. was increased to £3 6s. 1d. When we require more revenue is it unfair to ask £10 10s. from those who are entitled to deal wholesale in liquor?
  Mr. REMNANT: Why not treat them the same way in the case of spirits?
  Mr. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these wholesale licences are taken out by brewers and how many by independent people. He will find that they are nearly all taken out by brewers, and the wholesale dealer is more and more disappearing. In so far as they are taken out by brewers it is a monstrous thing to put £10 10s. on to them because they are heavily taxed in
  other ways. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep to the old licence.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I point out that the brewer can sell direct from his brewery without a licence. It is only if he wants a different depôt for a wholesale sale that he is required to take out this licence. Probably a certain number of grocers in Scotland will find it necessay to take out these licences.
  Mr. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman knows a good deal, but he does not know everything, and he knows very little about the brewing trade. Does he suppose that when a brewer has a store in another part of the country he wants it to do anything but carry on his business? It is perfect nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to talk as he has been talking.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: This proposal puts upon the wholesale licence the £5 5s. which it is proposed to take off the wholesale makers of cider. That may be Liberalism, but it is not sense. The right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General say there is only one answer to the question, "Is it fair to put £10 10s. on the brewer," and that answer is "Yes." At what moment does it become unfair to put £5 5s. on the wholesale distributors of cider. If the Government have no object on earth except to raise revenue, why do they propose to take off the £5 5s. which they originally proposed to put on cider. I will make a sporting offer to the hon. Member for Appleby (Mr. Leif Jones). He made an offer to me a moment ago from which I rather shrank, but when we come to the next Amendment I will, with pleasure, tell with him against the proposal to abolish the duty of £5 5s. in the case of wholesale makers and sellers of cider.
  Question put, "That £10 10s. stand part of the schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 114.

  Division No. 765.]

  AYES.

  11.25 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beale, W. P.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Armitage, R.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clough, William

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Barker, Sir John

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bowerman, C. W.

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

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Brigg, John

  Cooper, G. J.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crossley, William J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Robinson, S.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maddison, Frederick

  Seddon, J.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Seely, Colonel

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Massie, J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Mond, A.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Summerbell, T.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Morse, L. L.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Myer, Horatio

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Napier, T. B.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Verney, F. W.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Grady, J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hodge, John

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rees, J. D.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Mooney, J. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

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

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Muldoon, John

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murnaghan, George

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Murphy, John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nolan, Joseph

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Healy, T. M. (Louth, North)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid.)

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Boland, John

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Keating, Matthew

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Keswick, William

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Cullinan, J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, M.

  Devlin, Joseph

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dillon, John

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

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

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred (Clare, W.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Field, William

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kean, John

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanier, Beville

  1794

  1795

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Starkey, John R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Younger, George

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gretton and Mr. Hunt.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in Scale 2—B [Wholesale Dealers' Licences], to leave out "Cider, £5 5s."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Surely we are to have some explanation of this. Here the Government, needing money enormously, actually proposes, without a word of explanation, to drop a tax of £5 5s. upon cider—one of the largest and most lucrative industries in the whole country. I appeal to the hon. Member for Appleby to join me in condemning this absence of virtue on the part of the Government. I shall be most delighted to tell with him against the proposal. I really do not see why one class of intoxicating liquor should be loaded with taxation and another class exempted. As this Clause was originally drawn it was logical. Intoxicating liquors were defined to include cider, but now the Government are proposing to drop not only the manufacturers' tax as regards cider, but also the duty for wholesale dealers. Whenever we claim exemptions for Ireland we are told that the Government must raise money somehow; yet, without a word of explanation, they are dropping the entire tax upon one form of intoxicating liquor, after having imposed it upon Scotch, Irish, and one form of English intoxicating liquor named in the Bill. I do not propose to say any more, but I wait for any explanation that can be offered for the dropping of this tax. The case made for the dropping of the tax on the manufacturer was that there were only 10 of them and it would bring in only £50. We stated in reply to that that there are only 29 brewers of beer. There are more than 10 persons who are wholesale sellers of cider. Whether they are 10 or 100, the Government have not made any explanation. Therefore, they condemn their own Budget. With full knowledge of the facts of the case, they are now proposing to slink outside, without a word of explanation. I trust I shall rally to my side moralists of the Liberal Party—and certainly if it be true that this is a Budget which makes for temperance and not for vengeance, we should have very large support in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The challenge of the hon. Member for North Louth is one which I cannot resist. I certainly do not understand why a Government who has told us
  1796
  they are in want of money should have refrained from putting on this tax when they are putting a tax on beer and spirits. I am not surprised that they have thereby thrown themselves open to the taunts of the Member for North Louth who, however blind he may be to the evils whisky is doing in Ireland, has his eyes open to the evil which cider is doing in certain parts of this country. I agree cider is doing great evil. Certainly the same arguments which apply to whisky and spirits apply in lesser degree to cider. I shall have pleasure in voting with the hon. Member for North Louth against the Amendment.
  Mr. S. BALDWIN: When any Member says that cider inebriates it is time for a member of a cider constituency to raise his voice. I should like to challenge the learned Member for North Louth, and ask him if he ever saw a man the worse for cider drinking.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I never can tell what they have taken.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I consider, and those I represent consider, that cider is a non-intoxicating beverage. It is an exceedingly healthy beverage; it is purely English, and domestic manufacture, and it has various subtle action on the internal economy, that are batter described in medical treaties, perhaps, than on the floor of the House. I do most earnestly thank the Government, on behalf of my constituents, for this concession. As no answer is forthcoming from the Chancellor of the Duchy to the query put so frequently by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) I should like to offer him my own solution, which is that the Government always turns its face towards the light, and at last, having been in a condition of tenebrosity, the light has penetrated, and they have learnt something about the facts of cider manufacture, about which they were in ignorance when they proposed these duties. I should like to comfort the hon. and learned Gentleman and assure him that in time, perhaps, more light may come into their minds on the subject of beer and whisky duties and, if not in this Budget, in some future Budget he may obtain the relief which he seeks.
  Mr. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend seems to think you cannot take too much cider. That is an unprofitable subject of discussion, and I believe it to be perfectly irrelevant. I tried to explain to the hon. and learned Gentleman earlier in the afternoon what so puzzles and embarrasses him. It is not that hon. Gentlemen opposite think cider is a temperance drink. They have not altered their view as to the effect that cider has on the human constitution. They agree, as they always have agreed, with the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones). Their motive is really quite plain and quite different. I suggest that their motive is electoral. The right hon. Gentleman said there are only 10 persons concerned in the manufacture of cider, and they could have no electoral motives. It is obvious that what the Government mean to do is to exclude cider altogether from this Bill—at all events, all these collateral industries connected with cider, and for a perfectly plain and simple reason. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks why they have not done this for Ireland. They know exactly how Ireland is going to vote. Every constituency in which the Unionists are in a majority are going to vote against them. Every constituency in which the Unionists are not in a majority is going to vote for them. At all events Irish politics are understood. We know where the Irish are. They are one side or the other, and they are not going to be altered either by this Budget or by anything else. That is quite a simple issue. But the issue in the cider country is in doubt. Constituencies which manufacture cider have to be won or lost, and the Government proceeded to do their best to win them, and this is part of the electoral campaign. It practically does not pretend to be anything else. Neither the Chancellor of the Duchy nor any other Minister has suggested any reason for this exclusion, except the one which I have just given. The right hon. Gentleman was careful not to suggest that reason, though it is obvious enough. The member for the Appleby division (Mr. Leif Jones), so faithful a supporter of the Government, and a man of ingenious mind, had no suggestion to make. My hon. Friend made the suggestion that nobody got drunk on cider. That is a different point, into which I do not mean to go. But the Government themselves make no defence of this exclusion, and there is no defence except the one I have attempted to make on their behalf. I have endeavoured, to the very best of my humble ability, to defend the Government,
  1798
  and to show that the Budget is not the irrational collection of illogical and inconsistent propositions which hon. Gentlemen appeared to suppose. It is perfectly coherent and logical. The Government are animated by motives which are perfectly easily explained and understood, and if I have done anything to contribute to the general understanding I shall not have spoken in vain.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman, speaking with long experience as the leader of a party, has given an explanation of the motives that underlie the action of Governments in the framing of Bills, and he assures us that it is merely for vote-catching purposes that this Amendment has been put down. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) said that there were probably more than ten votes in question here. He is quite right. There are twenty, and as many of these persons would be able to get a reduction in the duty they have to pay, having also a licence for the sale of beer, the revenue to be derived is not twenty times five guineas but £89. I think the "Dreadnoughts" may be able to spare £89. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you put it in your Bill?"] These duties were placed in the Bill through, perhaps, excessive devotion to those principles of consistency and logic on which the hon. and learned Member for North Louth lays such stress. It is quite true as to cider being a very mild intoxicant, but still it is an intoxicant which, if taken with sufficient industry and perseverance, will produce a state of inebriety. It has always come within the scope of the Licensing Acts, and, consequently, when we were framing a Bill dealing with the sale of in toxicating liquors, cider was included. But the number of persons affected is small, and the revenue to be derived is infinitesimal, seeing that any person who holds a beer seller's retail licence can retail cider without any additional licence. When we took into consideration the smallness of the number of persons concerned, and the smallness of the revenue, it was considered unnecessary to press the proposal contained in the Bill, and to complicate our system of licensing by the introduction of a new form of licence for twenty persons. That is the plain and simple story why the duty was put in. I would point out, further, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Somerset (Sir A. Acland-Hood) has put down

  1799
  an Amendment for the omission of this duty. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we ought not to press the Amendment, we shall be happy to take that view into consideration.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there are only twenty persons concerned in this matter. Observe the fallacy of that. It is twenty after you exclude those who have beer licences, but if you were to require that all retailers of cider should have a separate licence, as is the case for the retailing of wine, the number would be many more than twenty. It is only 20 because a man who sells both beer and cider can do so under the same licence.
  Mr. REMNANT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he arrived at the figure 20? Is it another random shot of the right hon. Gentleman in charge? He has been asked a definite answer to a definite question. I am quite sure that if the Prime Minister had been present he would have given us what we asked for. The hon. Member for Louth has proved conclusively what everybody has admitted all through in reference to this Budget Bill, that it is a Bill of robbery and jobbery.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 42; Noes, 228.

  Division No. 766.]

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Seddon, J.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hills, J. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hodge, John

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Watt, Henry A.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Leif Jones.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Forster, Henry William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Clough, William

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cooper, G. J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Armitage, R.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Balcarres, Lord

  Crean, Eugene

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Crossley, William J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cullinan, J.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Barker, Sir John

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Harrington, Timothy

  Barnard, E. B.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dillon, John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H

  Black, Arthur W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Boland, John

  Essex, R. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Field, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Joyce, Michael

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Keating, Matthew

  Charming, Sir Francis Allston

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Keswick, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rowlands, J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Lamont, Norman

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seely, Colonel

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Lever, A. Levy Essex, Harwich)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sheehy, David

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Grady, J.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Stanier, Beville

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Lundon, Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred (Clare, W.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Summerbell, T.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  M'Kean, John

  Pollard, Dr.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir. C. B. (Leices.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Verney, F. W.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Reddy, M.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Massie, J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Mond, A.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Worrell, Philip

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Winfrey, R.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Robinson, S.

  Morse, L. L.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Muldoon, John

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Murnaghan, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Murphy, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  12.0 P.M.
  Mr. ARKWRIGHT Mr. ARKWRIGHT moved in B (Wholesale Dealers' Licences) to leave out "£10 10s." [proposed Wine Licence Duty] and to insert instead thereof "£5 5s."
  I move this Amendment in order that I may get from the Chancellor of the Duchy an answer to one or two questions which I find it rather difficult to answer myself. The Amendment is to halve the duty for the licence to be taken out by the dealer in wine. The duty is at present, as far as I can gather, £10 10s., and I propose that it should be £5 5s. in order to ask whether the Government have taken into their consideration what I believe to be the case, namely, that as the law at present stands the wine dealer has been allowed and authorised to sell in quantities however small, while if this Bill passes he will not be able to sell in smaller quantities than either 12 bottles or two gallons at any one time. I ask whether the Government have taken into consideration—if I am right as to the alteration—the worse position in which they have put the dealer in wines?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I wish to ask why there is no increase in the wholesale wine dealer's licence. There is, as far as I can make out, £5 5s. on the wholesale spirit dealer's licence, and £7 3s. 11d. on the wholesale beer dealer's licence, and why is the wholesale wine seller's licence to escape any increase of taxation?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In answer to the hon. Member's question, it is the case that hitherto the wholesale dealer's licence carried with it the privilege of retail sale. That is not the case with regard to the others. That has now been taken away, because this Bill draws a clear line of distinction between the wholesale licence and the retail licence. It is for that reason we do not propose any increase in this particular licence. We leave it as it stands, and we cannot accept the proposal to reduce it by one-half.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the wholesale wine dealers all over the country can sell wine by retail also?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in paragraph 1 of "Provisions Applicable to Wholesale Dealers' Licences" to leave out all the words after the word "licence," and to insert instead thereof the words "authorises sale at any one time to one person of liquor in the following quantities, namely:—

  (a) In the case of spirits, wine, or sweets in any quantity not less than two gallons, or not less than one dozen reputed quart bottles; and

  (b) In the case of beer or cider in any quantity not less than four and a-half gallons, or not less than two dozen reputed quart bottles;

  but not in any less quantities."
  This Bill greatly simplifies the whole of our licensing system, which hitherto has been very involved and confused. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I think the Committee and all persons interested owe a great debt of gratitude to the officials who have worked out, with infinite labour, this new system, which is an immense improvement on the old, and carries with it a remarkable simplification. In this simplification there was intended to be a clear cut division between wholesale and retail licences, so that they should not be allowed to overlap in certain points as they had frequently done under the previous system. In order to compensate, in a slight degree, the retailers for the largely increased duties placed upon them, it was proposed to make certain concessions with regard to the quantities they might sell. The present law is that a retailer may only sell less than one dozen bottles of spirits or less than two dozen bottles of beer. We proposed to allow the retailer to sell one dozen bottles of spirits and two dozen bottles of beer. That would, in a very large number of cases, absolve the retailer from the necessity of taking out a wholesale as well as a retail dealers' licence. In order to keep the line between wholesale and retail licences, it was proposed to restrict the wholesale dealer a little beyond the present limit. Instead of being allowed to sell two dozen bottles of beer or one dozen bottles of spirits, it was proposed to allow him to sell only more than two dozen and one dozen respectively. That, however, led to a great deal of opposition on the part of the wholesale dealers. We have, therefore, given up the exact symmetry of our system, and propose to permit both wholesale and retail licences to carry with them the right
  1804
  of selling the exact number of two dozen bottles of beer or one dozen bottles of spirits. It is in order to effect that that I move this Amendment, with one or two consequential Amendments.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I should like some further explanation of this proposal, especially in view of the discussion which took place in the Standing Committee, of which. I was a member, that was dealing with one of the Sunday Closing Bills quite recently. It was pointed out, what I think is the general opinion, that the entire failure of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales is due to the fact that wholesale licensed dealers can sell any time on Sunday, providing they supply the man who calls for the drink at a wholesale rate. Many and many a time I have stood at the bottom of a well-known moor at Barry, and watched men go to the wholesale dealers' places—though it was Sunday closing in Wales!—and fetch barrel after barrel out and take it up on to the moor, and there get hopelessly drunk. Then hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway say that that shows that Sunday closing in Wales has been a failure. As a matter of fact, it shows that Sunday closing has been only partially carried out in Wales. If it is going to be effective, it ought to be properly applied. Now, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is practically agreeing to the same thing which has been criticised time after time in this House when temperance Debates and discussions of the kind have been going forward. I did think that now that the Government were dealing with this proposition that they would at least have given some different interpretation of the powers of the wholesale dealer. Nobody knows this case better than the Solicitor-General. He knows cases—and photographs have been published in the South Wales daily papers—where a body of men can meet together, and under this arrangement with the wholesale dealer, buy a 4½ gallon barrel at any time they like on the Sunday, though the retailer is not allowed to sell at all. While they were dealing with the subject the Government at least ought to have dealt with that phase, which, after all, is a very serious subject to the people of this country, and especially at this place where Sunday closing has been passed.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am very happy to tell the hon. Member and the Committee that the state of affairs described by him have to a large extent disappeared. But

  1805
  I do not think it would be possible to deal with this matter of Sunday closing, essentially a temperance matter, on a schedule of revised Licence Duties.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In paragraph 2, after the word "licence" ["of the manufacture and the holder of the manufacturer's licence"] to insert the words, "at the premises where the liquor is manufactured, and elsewhere by the manufacturer or a servant or agent of the manufacturer, if the liquor is supplied direct from the premises where it is manufactured."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  To leave out paragraph 3.
  A person holding a licence to be taken out by a wholesale dealer in beer may deal wholesale in cider as well as beer without taking out any further wholesale dealer's licence.—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  To leave out paragraph 5.
  An occupier of land may, without taking out a wholesale dealer's licence, deal wholesale, in cider made by him from fruit grown on the land occupied by him, and from fruit not so grown, if it does not exceed in amount the fruit grown on land occupied by him and made into cider.—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  In paragraph 6, to leave out "twenty-five" ["the duty payable on the wholesale dealer's licence shall be reduced by twenty-five per cent."] to insert instead thereof "fifty."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  In paragraph 6, after the words "reduced by fifty per cent." to insert the words, "Provided that this provision shall not operate so as to reduce the total amount payable for the wholesale dealer's licence and the retailer's licence for any liquor below that payable for the wholesale dealer's licence alone."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I suggest the right hon. Gentleman should now move to report Progress, as we are entering on an entirely new phase of the subject raised by an Amendment standing in my name.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: Does not the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall division of Sheffield (Mr. Samuel Roberts), come before
  1806
  the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes; the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield does come first.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: As long as my Amendment is safeguarded, I am satisfied.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford is safeguarded.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: Then I will move the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel Roberts).
  Amendment proposed: In Scale 2.—C. Retailers' on-licences (spirits—publican's licence), to leave out the words "A duty equal to half the annual value of the licensed premises," and to insert instead thereof "duty specified in Scale 3."
  Question proposed, "That the words 'A duty equal to' stand part of the Schedule."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday, 5th October).

CHILD MURDER (TRIAL) BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged—Bill withdrawn.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
Whereupon Mr. Deputy Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Twenty-three minutes after Twelve o'clock.

  Federated Malay States (Indian Indentured Labourers).
  Federated Malay States (Indian Indentured Labourers).
  Registrars of Births and Deaths (Pees).
  Registrars of Births and Deaths (Pees).
  Treasury Remembrancer (Ireland).
  Treasury Remembrancer (Ireland).
  Customs Regulations.
  Customs Regulations.
  Customs (Statistical Office).
  Customs (Statistical Office).
  Duty Paid on Spirits, Beer, and Wine.
  Duty Paid on Spirits, Beer, and Wine.
  Spirits Taken out of Bond.
  Spirits Taken out of Bond.
  Death Duties (Capital Value).
  Death Duties (Capital Value).
FINANCE BILL.
  ANNUAL COMPENSATION VALUE.
  ANNUAL COMPENSATION VALUE.
  QUART BOTTLES.—AMENDMENT.
  QUART BOTTLES.—AMENDMENT.
  Corporal Punishment (National Schools, Ashford, Middlesex).
  Corporal Punishment (National Schools, Ashford, Middlesex).
  Flogging of Children (Elementary Schools).
  Flogging of Children (Elementary Schools).
  Second Division Clerks (Post Office Departments).
  Second Division Clerks (Post Office Departments).
  Sub-Postmasters (Annual Leave).
  Sub-Postmasters (Annual Leave).
  Ballycroy Postal Sub-District (Dismissal).
  Ballycroy Postal Sub-District (Dismissal).
  Army Contracts (Scotland).
  Army Contracts (Scotland).
  Army Engineer Services (Staff Surveyors).
  Army Engineer Services (Staff Surveyors).
  Punishment for Poaching (Welshpool Petty Sessions).
  Punishment for Poaching (Welshpool Petty Sessions).
  Deaths from Hydrophobia (Great Britain and France).
  Deaths from Hydrophobia (Great Britain and France).
  Vaccination (Death following Erysipelas).
  Vaccination (Death following Erysipelas).
  Suffragettes in Prison.
  Suffragettes in Prison.
  Life Insurance Companies (India).
  Life Insurance Companies (India).
  Indian Army (Officers' Service).
  Indian Army (Officers' Service).
  Unemployed Workmen Act (Leeds Distress Committee).
  Unemployed Workmen Act (Leeds Distress Committee).
  Maxwell Estate, Geragh, Fermoy.
  Maxwell Estate, Geragh, Fermoy.
  National School Teachers, Ireland.
  National School Teachers, Ireland.
  Untenanted Land (De Salis Estate, County Limerick).
  Untenanted Land (De Salis Estate, County Limerick).
  H.M.S. "Dreadnought."
  H.M.S. "Dreadnought."
  Battleships (Capital and Annual Cost).
  Battleships (Capital and Annual Cost).
  H.M. Ships (Two Years' Commission).
  H.M. Ships (Two Years' Commission).
  Labour Exchanges.
  Labour Exchanges.
  H.M. Office of Works (Staff).
  H.M. Office of Works (Staff).
  Farmer Gored to Death.
  Farmer Gored to Death.
POLICE BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
KILKENNY, CASTLECOMER, AND ATHY RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, &c., BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, upon the Motion which has just been submitted by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, I desire to call the attention of your Lordships to an incident which occurred at the very end of the Committee stage. Almost at the very end, after the ordinary means of communication with the outside world were more or less ineffective, the noble Earl moved a clause exempting from the operation of the Bill Crown lands in Scotland, and it appeared in the course of the discussion that the clause was rendered necessary, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, because the practice of the Constitution in England and in Scotland are different. In England the Crown and that which belongs to the prerogatives of the Crown are not included in any Act of Parliament unless the Crown is specifically mentioned, but in Scotland it is not so, or, at any rate, there is a doubt as to its being so or not. And therefore in order to exempt the Crown lands of Scotland it was necessary to insert a clause specifically mentioning that.
But the moving of the clause had a very different effect from that which was anticipated by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill,
636
for it served to call the attention of your Lordships to the fact, which your Lordships had not at that moment realised, that the Crown lands of England were not within the purview of the Bill. That was a most astonishing confession for the noble Earl inferentially to make. The Crown is a very large owner in many parts of England of town property. The Crown is also a very large owner of rural property, which is, of course, covered with habitations of all sorts. One would have thought that there was no reason on the face of it why Crown lands should be exempt from the housing part of the Bill, for if it is necessary that people should have good houses upon the property of private individuals it is equally necessary that they should have good houses when they occupy them upon Crown property. When we turn from the housing part of the Bill to the town-planning part, the case is still stronger. The property of the Crown—I have not been able to lay my hand upon any Report which exactly describes it—exists in a great many counties of England, notably Lancashire, where there is the property of the great Duchy of Lancaster. That county especially, and other counties too, will be most specifically concerned in the town-planning part of the Bill, for there are the great spreading urban communities. They will have to do in this respect with Crown lands quite as much as with anybody else's lands, while the Crown lands are exempted from the operation of the Bill.
As I said before, that was a most astonishing admission for the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to make. We on this side of the House were so much astonished at the proposal that Scotland should be exempted that several of us at once rose in our places and protested in the warmest manner, and your Lordships were good enough to accept the advice we tendered and the clause was at once rejected. His Majesty's Government must have done it by inadvertence, because if they had had time to consider the effect of their policy, they would have taken a very different course. So far from desiring to exempt the Crown lands in Scotland, I hope they will be prepared to include the Crown lands in England. I ask His Majesty's Government to-day, specifically and on behalf of a great number of noble Lords on this side of the House, to include the Crown lands wherever they may be found in the United Kingdom. I need not say I am not

637
referring to that property of the Crown which is set apart for the amenity or convenience of His Majesty himself in person. That, of course, ought to be exempted from the operation of such a Bill. I am speaking of the Crown lands as they are known generally in legislation, those properties of the Crown which are transferred to the administration of Parliament at the beginning of every reign, and are administered, as your Lordships all know, by the great Public Departments. Such lands, we submit, ought to be included in a Bill of this kind.
The noble Earl used language about half-past eleven o'clock of a most remarkable kind, for he seemed to think that such a power, if granted in a town-planning Bill, Might be used to the disadvantage of the Crown lands. What interest can the Crown have in being a bad landlord? What interest can the Crown have in resisting the legitimate expansion of these great urban communities? Why does His Majesty's Government desire to narrow to this extent the operation of the Bill? I see it publicly stated in many parts of the Press that the House of Lords has been engaged in narrowing the operation of the Bill and confining it, but it seems that the greatest sinner in this respect is His Majesty's Government itself. The noble Earl seemed to think when he spoke that the operation of the Bill might be exercised to the detriment of the property of the Crown committed to the charge of the various Government Departments. Well, my Lords, what is this doctrine of detriment? Are we to say that the Bill itself is to be exercised to the detriment of the property of private individuals? Is it the contention of His Majesty's Government that the Bill is to be exercised if passed into law to the detriment of the property of private landowners? It will only be to their detriment in so far as they are bad landlords, and why should the Crown be the only owner privileged to be a bad landlord? No, it is quite clear that what is good for other landowners is good for the Crown, and if protection is required for certain great national interests—property, for instance, in the hands of the Admiralty or of the War Office—let those great Departments signify their pleasure to the Local Government Board, and when the Provisional Order comes before the Board they will know how to deal with it. That is quite sufficient protection. As to other properties, there should be no exception
638
made, and the Crown lands ought to be treated like any other lands.
I ought to apologise to your Lordships for having addressed you at this length upon this occasion, but the reason is this. I understand it is not within the power of any private member of your Lordships' House to make this alteration in the Bill. I know it is the rule in the other House, and I believe it is the rule here. No private Member can include the Crown in the operation of any Statute, and such a change or amendment in the Bill can only be carried into effect by a Minister of the Crown. Therefore, the only opportunity I have of urging this matter is at this stage when the question is put that the Report be received. I ask your Lordships to join with me in pressing on His Majesty's Government the importance of consistency in this matter, and the necessity of remedying this defect in the Bill.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I think the position of His Majesty's Government with regard to the special matter which the noble Marquess has brought before your Lordships is really the same as the attitude which they have decided to take up with regard to the various other matters which your Lordships dealt with in the Committee stage of this Bill. May I say, in passing, that I believe it is a matter of accuracy that there is no provision in your Lordships' House with regard to matters affecting the Crown being dealt with on the initiative of the Crown. It is open to the noble Marquess to take such steps as he thinks necessary in the matter. But the position of His Majesty's Government with regard to those other Amendments is plainly this. Your Lordships saw fit to make certain Amendments in this Bill during the three days it was being considered in Committee, and although His Majesty's Government naturally do not agree with a large number of those Amendments still they hardly thought it would be respectful to your Lordships' House to ask you to deliberately reverse on Report conclusions which you came to during the Committee stage. That is why I say we are unable to accept the invitation of the noble Marquess, as it is open to him to make those suggestions which he thinks right but which we do not think His Majesty's Government could be expected to suggest after having made suggestions in the Committee stage which were rejected.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can only speak again by leave of your Lordships, but after the intimation the noble Earl has been good enough to give, I beg to give notice that on the first opportunity, which I think will be on the Third Reading, I will put down words to meet the point.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I imagine this Clause comes from a Department which is not a very popular Department, yet is a very useful one—the Treasury. But I think it went too far. I entirely agreed with the noble Marquess Who has just spoken in objecting to the clause as it stood, but unquestionably certain kinds of Crown property should be exempt from this Bill. A Bill of this kind ought, so far as my judgment goes, not to interfere with Crown property which is in the nature of Post Office buildings, or Admiralty dockyards, or War Office buildings, or anything of that kind. All I think the noble Marquess desires is to bring within the scope of the Bill Crown property of the nature of farm lands or cottages, so that the same law may apply to them as would apply to private property. That seems to me a very fair proposition, and I hope His Majesty's Government will agree to it in due course.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved the first of a series of five Amendments to Clause 10, and said he would read the clause as it would appear when amended. It would run—
"Before deciding that a local authority have failed to exercise their powers under Part III of the principal Act, the Board shall take into consideration the necessity for further accommodation for the housing of the working classes in such districts, the probability that the required accommodation will not be otherwise provided in the other circumstances of the case, and whether having regard to the liability which will be incurred by the rates it is prudent for the local authority to undertake the provision of such accommodation."
He said no doubt their Lordships would remember that there was some discussion in Committee with regard to this clause and that an Amendment was inserted on the motion of the noble Viscount who had just addressed the House. The proposal was accepted in substance by His Majesty's Government, but they were anxious to secure some further amendment of the words. He desired to say, with regard to
640
this and further Amendments which he would move, there was no point of principle or contention between noble Lords opposite and themselves. They had been careful, he thought, without exception to put down Amendments only of a somewhat drafting nature. With the consent of the noble Viscount he also desired to insert the word "not," so that the phrase would read "the probability that the required accommodation will not be otherwise provided." The word "not" did not appear in the notice of his Amendments on Report.
Amendments moved—
"In page 5, lines 35 and 30, to leave out the words 'be satisfied that there is a' and to insert the words take into consideration the'; in line 36, to leave out the words which is likely to be permanent'; in line 38, to leave out the words 'that there is no' and to insert the word 'the'; in line 39, to leave out 'that' and to insert the words 'and the other circumstances of the case, and whether'; and in page 5, line 40, and page 6, line 1, to leave out the words under all the circumstances.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said there was no material difference in the Amendments proposed, and he was willing to agree to them as far as he was concerned.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT HILL VISCOUNT HILL moved a drafting Amendment in Clause 13, to leave out the word "contributing" and to insert the word "contributory."
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 41, to leave out the word 'contributing 'and to insert the word 'contributory.'"—(Viscount Hill.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH moved the first of two Amendments in Clause 14, dealing with contracts by landlords in letting working-class houses. He thought he could not do better than follow the example set him by the noble Earl and read the clause in the shape it would run as he proposed to amend it—
"In any contract made after the passing of this Act for letting a house or part of a house at a rent not exceeding

(a) in the case of a house situate in the administrative County of London, forty pounds;

(b) in the case of a house situate in a boroughs or urban district with a population according to the

641
last census for the time being of fifty thousand or upwards, twenty-six pounds;

(c) in the case of a house situate elsewhere, eight pounds;

there shall be an implied condition that the house is at the commencement of the holding in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation."
He presumed he would be entitled to take his two Amendments together as it would be rather meaningless to take them separately. In considering Clause 14, all recollection of Clause 47 defining "working classes" must not be lost sight of. In moving his Amendments he desired to deal with two points. In the first place, the definition of "working classes," and, in the second place, the obligation of landlords to tenants and the extent of that obligation.
As the clause stood at the present time the relation of the landlord to the tenant and the definition of "working classes" were somewhat mingled together. His desire was to separate them absolutely and entirely. No doubt it was claimed by noble Lords opposite and the authors of the Bill that as it stood the definition of "working classes" was better expressed in terms of money value. It was so expressed in the Act of 1890, and no doubt His Majesty's Government would claim that this clause was merely an extension of that Act. But so long as rents were low and were £20 in London, £13 for towns of 50,000 inhabitants, and £8 for rural districts, he did not deny for one moment that they did cover the cases of the great bulk of working-class tenants, and that they did serve probably very well indeed as the basis of a definition. But when they increased those rents, may more, when they doubled them and raised the figure to £40 for London, £26 for towns of 50,000 inhabitants, and £8 or £16, as the case might be, for rural districts, he could not think that that definition could still be maintained. The principle of the definition of rent must break down some time or other. Let it be supposed that the Local Government Board in its enthusiasm had placed £80 instead of £40 as the extent of the limit up to which the obligation of the landlord to the tenant should be imposed. He was sure that no noble Lord could possibly claim that such a proposal would include only and solely those who belonged to the working classes. He did not deny for one moment that it might be perfectly right and proper that the obligations of landlords to tenants should be extended and extended as it was under this clause; but he did not
642
wish that that obligation of the landlord should be in any way confused with the definition of a particular class of His Majesty's subjects.
In subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 14 he deleted the words defining "working classes." That definition in his opinion belonged, as the Committee had decided, to a separate clause—Clause 47—and when the House reached that clause he proposed to make it of more general application. What he wished to do with Clause 14 was to make it nothing but a simple, plain, statement of the obligation of a landlord to a tenant, no matter whether that tenant belonged to the so-called working classes or not. Surely that was more simple and more intelligible than the attempt of His Majesty's Government to mention, he might almost say to confuse, a statement of the obligation of a landlord to a tenant together with a definition of "working classes." He did not think any one could quarrel with £40 as the limit in the case of London. Nor did he feel disposed to challenge the £26 for towns up to and over 50,000 inhabitants; but when they came to paragraph (c) "in the case of a house situate elsewhere," he did feel that that was a debatable point. He noticed that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had an Amendment on the Paper to re-insert"£16" in all cases, and his noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn had an Amendment down to include "£16" in the case of boroughs. He would remind their Lordships that he had had some experiences which were rather similar to those of the noble Earl; they had both been chief magistrates in towns, and he was sure that the noble Earl would bear him out in saying that there were a great number of houses between £8 and £16 which could not properly be claimed to be in a condition fit for human habitation. If his memory served him right, in his own locality there were houses where from the first floor to the second floor there was no staircase at all, and the inhabitants were obliged to get up by means of a ladder. He did not think any one could claim that such a house was reasonably fit for human habitation. Yet with this clause as it was, with its limit of £8, the landlords of those houses would be entirely exempt from the operation of this Act.
Their Lordships would bear him out when he said how difficult it was in these small towns to get the local authority to put

643
official pressure upon the individuals who owned these properties, and when it came to the medical officer of health, his experience of that officer was that in the examination of these houses he paid less regard to the condition of the houses than to whom the property might belong. He thought that the extension of £8 to £16 as proposed by his noble friend would undoubtedly fall upon the small owners of property. In this particular case, however, he would be guided entirely by his noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn, because he had had considerable experience in these matters, but he trusted that his Amendment would meet with the approval of the majority of their Lordships.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 7, to leave out the words 'in letting working-class houses'; and in line 9, to leave out from the word 'habitation' to the first 'a' in line 15.'"—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said he would follow the example of the noble Duke and deal with both Amendments. In the first place, he asked their Lordships to remember that they were dealing with this Bill as it stood, and he thought he might not unfairly point out that there was nothing in the Bill about an £80 limit. When the President of the Local Government Board did suggest that the limit should be raised to £80, then perhaps they might argue the question as to the conditions to be imposed. Meanwhile what they had to consider was the terms of the Bill, which, as they would see, in the case of London included a limit of £40 value. He was glad to think that when they came to paragraph (c), on the point as to whether it should be £16 or £8, His Majesty's Government would have the noble Duke opposite with them in their attempt to restore the original figure of £16 instead of £8. With regard to these general Amendments, the position of the Local Government Board was that the suggestion made by the noble Duke constituted a very real extension of the Bill. If the Amendment were adopted the clause would deal not only with houses meant for the working classes; that limitation would be entirely swept away. That was an extension of the Bill which at present, at any rate, His Majesty's Government would not be disposed to agree to. This clause as it stood was a reproduction, with certain necessary changes, of Section 75 of the Housing Act of 1890, and that was a reproduction of the
644
Housing Act of 1885. In these circumstances their Lordships would see that these terms and this language were incorporated in their legislation at the present time and it had worked without any difficulty. Therefore they thought it very desirable that they should continue to use those expressions which had done good service and had proved so satisfactory in the past. He therefore hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendments suggested by the noble Duke.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that the noble Earl who had just spoken had founded his argument upon precedents of former Acts of Parliament. The noble Earl might be perfectly correct in saying that this was a thing which had been used hitherto, but as they grew older some of them grew wiser, and he saw no reason why they should not improve upon the drafting of former Acts of Parliament. The drafting of the clause, as their Lordships would remember, was in the Committee stage subjected to considerable criticism. The noble Earl had taken credit to himself that this clause was confined to the working classes. But the term "working classes" was not defined in the Bill as presented to their Lordships by His Majesty's Government. The term, in fact, was perfectly vague. That was a mistake which they set themselves to remedy, and upon the motion of his noble friend the Earl of Camperdown a clause was proposed which now took the place of Clause 47 of the Bill defining "working classes." But the moment they got to that point to try and define "working classes," there was produced at once a dislocation in Clause 14, because it might be that the definition which their Lordships gave of "working classes" in order to explain subsection (1) of Clause 14 would not be consistent with the pecuniary limits which were to be found in subsection (2) of Clause 14. In other words, Clause 14 was constructed upon a false basis. "Working classes" was mentioned as if all working-class people came within the pecuniary limits in the Bill. But they did not. They might have one living in a cottage outside those limits, or a man living in a cottage inside those limits who was not a member of the "working classes." Notwithstanding the precedents which the noble Earl had quoted, the clause contained a very grave objection. Many of their Lordships desired to have a definition of "working classes" in the Housing Acts.

645
They thought it ought to be definitely set out on the face of Acts of Parliament that a particular Act applied to working classes, and was so defined. But then they had the difficulty of Clause 14 to get over. The noble Duke proposed to get over it by leaving out "working classes" and making the clause general. The noble Earl, who was anxious to restrict the operation of the Bill, said it would be a very extreme extension. He did not agree with the noble Earl because the clause was still limited to the pecuniary limits in subsection (2); but, even if it were an extension of the Bill, he would have thought that his Majesty's Government would be the last to offer that as an objection to what they were doing under the Bill. Let them look at the Act not from a party point of view, but as a matter of substance. Did any one contend that any landlord desired to let a house to any one whether he was a member of the working classes or not, which was not fit for human habitation? There was always an implied contract, an obligation of good management, that a landlord should let his house in a condition fit for human habitation. And what was true of Clause 14 was also true of Clause 18. For his part he could see no objection to an extension of this Bill in this particular even if the noble Duke's Amendment really did extend it.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I think it is important that we should understand exactly where we stand in this matter, because unless I misapprehend the intention of the noble Duke's Amendment and the support given to it by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, there is a complete and entire reversal on the part of noble Lords opposite of the line which they took upon the Committee stage. The effect of the noble Duke's Amendment, read in conjunction with his Amendment to Clause 47, is to abolish the "working class" definition altogether.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Only for this clause.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am reading it in conjunction with the noble Duke's subsequent Amendment with which he himself says it is intended to be read. The noble Duke—I am obliged to allude to it, although I am afraid I am technically out of order—in his Amendment to Clause 47, proposes,
646
and he is himself bound to do it, I think, in consideration of this Amendment, to make the definition of "working classes" merely an inclusive definition. He does not desire to confine the operation under these two clauses to what may be called "working classes." What the precise object is of leaving in the Bill any definition of "working classes" in these circumstances we shall no doubt hear when we come to the clause. Our difficulty in accepting the noble Duke's Amendment, for which there is in some points of view much to be said, is this, that this is a Housing of the Working Classes Bill, and it seems somewhat unusual to include in it a definition of purely general housing such as would be supplied by the clause as amended by the noble Duke. It is quite true, and I think I drew attention to the point on the Committee stage, that the definition of "working classes" is liable to exclude deserving persons. On the other hand you may exclude, by striking out the definition altogether, the idea that these houses are intended to accommodate the working classes. In a general sense, I confess you do admit a certain class of person whom I should have thought might hardly be supposed to come necessarily under the operation of the Bill. If, on the other hand, noble Lords opposite have changed their minds to that extent, I should be sorry to fight the matter further, although, of course, I cannot say that in another place it may not be desired to restore the original form of the clause. If this sudden and complete reversal of attitude does represent the views of noble Lords opposite, I have no wish to press the matter further.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said he sympathised with the Amendment of the noble Duke. He did not see the least necessity for having the term. "working classes" in the clause. He supposed the meaning of the clause was that it was to be a protection for people who hired houses under a certain limit, so that they could have pressure put on their landlords to keep them in proper repair and keep them habitable. Naturally, people hiring houses not of very great value had not as much power or means to have pressure put on their landlords as people who hired houses of greater value. He did not desire even the definition of "working classes" as moved by the Earl of Camperdown. He did not see the use of having this term, in at all, because subsection (2) was meant to protect people

647
hiring houses of a certain value, so that they should be able to get repairs and necessary things done for them. He knew how very difficult it was for people in small houses to get repairs done, and he hoped His Majesty's Government would see their way to accept the spirit of the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I desire to enter a protest against the statement twice made by the noble Earl opposite during the course of his speech that this Amendment moved by my noble friend the Duke of Marlborough denotes a sudden and complete reversal of our policy with regard to this question. We have endeavoured throughout these discussions to make it clear that we are not opposed either to the housing policy embodied in this Bill or to the part of the policy which has reference to town planning, although we have taken exception to the means by which that policy is to be given effect to under this Bill.
What is the proposal made by the noble Duke? This clause, if we pass it, will enact that in any contract made after the passing of the Act for letting a house for habitation by persons of the working classes there shall be an implied condition that the house is fit for human habitation. There is, it seems to us, a blot in that proposal. In the first place, the Bill as originally introduced contained no definition of working classes. Then it is quite clear that if the clause passes as it stands the effect of it will be that this condition of fitness for human habitation will apply only, first, where the premises are to be inhabited by persons of the working classes, and second, where the rental of the premises falls within the figures given further on in the clause. We have endeavoured to correct the first blot by inserting elsewhere in the Bill a definition of "working classes." As for the second, let us suppose two houses absolutely identical side by side, one of them being inhabited by a person who is included in the definition of working classes" and the other by a person not within that definition. Why there should be an implied condition of fitness for human habitation in the case of one house and not in the case of the other, I cannot understand. My noble friend therefore suggests to your Lordships that in the case of all premises coming within the rental limits laid down in the clause this condition should be universally assumed.
648
The noble Earl opposite represents this as new and dangerous extension. I should have thought myself it was a very salutary extension, and one to which most reasonable owners of house property would be very glad to submit; but if the noble Earl tells us that this extension is foreign to the Bill and if he will take upon himself the responsibility of saying that His Majesty's Government desire that there should be this discrimination between premises which are occupied by members of the working classes and premises occupied by persons other than the working classes, I do not know whether the noble Duke will press his Amendment, against the views of His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I certainly have no right to speak again on this subject. It is evident I cannot answer that question until we have dealt with Clause 47.
A NOBLE LORD: You do not answer the question as put.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I suggest that the clause should be agreed to at this stage.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he would like to understand, if they might do so, because it was surely germane, what course His Majesty's Government proposed to take with reference to Clause 47. What definition of "working classes" did His Majesty's Government propose to accept? Did they propose to accept the definition in Clause 47 either in the present or in a modified form, or did they propose to leave houses occupied by the working classes without any definition at all? If that was the Government's idea, it was a very dangerous one indeed. To enact that houses were to be built by local authorities for the working classes under compulsory orders from the Local Government Board without suggesting either a limit of value or the kind of persons intended by the "working classes" might surely lead to the erection of houses of much greater value than those hitherto contemplated for the working classes, with the result that a much greater burden would be placed on the ratepayers than Parliament had intended. Therefore if these words were to be struck out of the clause, surely they were entitled to some information from His Majesty's Government as to the view they were prepared to take with regard to Clause 47.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Our view is generally this, that it is better to leave in the words "by persons of the working classes" as regards this clause. Although it is true that this could not be taken as an absolutely accurate definition, yet at the same time it is a definition which safeguards the public against the dangers suggested by the noble Viscount. We certainly prefer the view taken by the noble Duke in the Amendment to Clause 47 to the clause as amended by Lord Camper-down, but we should have preferred to go without a definition altogether, and that the Bill should remain in the form in which it came from another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8 line 23, after the word 'pounds' to insert the words there shall be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the holding in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.'"—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved an Amendment to limit the application of the clause in a borough or urban district with a population under 50,000 to houses of an annual rental of £16. He thought it was understood when they discussed this matter in Committee that £8 was too low a limit for boroughs and urban districts, and therefore he proposed to insert these words, leaving £8 as applicable to rural districts only.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 12, after the word 'pounds' to insert the words '(c) In the case of a house situate in any other borough or urban district, sixteen pounds.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the noble Viscount was good enough on the Committee stage to postpone the question for further discussion on Report, and he had promised to try and provide the noble Viscount with some figures dealing with these districts and the cases of houses situated elsewhere. The noble Viscount had in the meantime put down an Amendment creating another class of house in another kind of area. The result of the Amendment would be, as their Lordships would see in a moment, to create three classes of houses, three scales of rent, in addition to the scale of rent inside London. The fact of the matter was that the dividing line suggested by the noble Viscount was
650
really an artificial line. It existed for various purposes of legislation, but with regard to the classes of house which were put into the two kinds of areas there was very little distinction indeed. The same kind of people lived in the small borough and urban districts as in the rural areas. Therefore His Majesty's Government were of opinion that it might create a certain amount of hardship if a limit of £16 was fixed for this new class.
A few figures which he was glad to be able to give to the noble Viscount would, he hoped, persuade him that for houses situate elsewhere £8 was hardly sufficient, and it would be better to take the original proposal in the Bill and leave in the words £16 for houses in the small borough and urban districts and also in the rural areas. The only difference between the noble Viscount and His Majesty's Government was with regard to the rents in the rural areas, and if they could show that the rents in the rural areas were often over £8 in the case of working classes he hoped that the noble Viscount would agree to his (Earl Beauchamp's) subsequent Amendment. There were 376 urban districts with a population of less than 5,000, and 194 with a population of less than 3,000. There were sixty-seven boroughs having less than 5,000 inhabitants and thirty-three with less than 3,000 inhabitants. So their Lordships would see that the conditions in those urban districts were not unlike the conditions in a rural area. On the other hand, take one county alone, the county of Durham, where there were forty-one parishes in rural districts which had populations exceeding 3,000. In those rural districts they would not have the conditions of the £16 limit unless their Lordships agreed to an Amendment; the case would be much the same in a number of colliery or industrial areas, and the general view of the Local Government Board was that it was a classification which it was not very easy to define on the figures before them.
Take the question of rents, there were not many figures available, but there were some which were drawn up by Mr. Wilson Fox, whose authority he thought every noble Lord would admit. According to Mr. Wilson Fox, in agricultural rural districts the rents ranged from £3 18 s. to £11 14 s. per annum. In respect of houses near towns, in the large agricultural villages, houses which would be within

651
the rural areas would not be affected unless their Lordships agreed to his Amendment. As regards the other districts, figures had been given to various inspectors of the Local Government Board who had to go about the country holding public inquiries with which their Lordships were familiar. In some of those districts the rents for working-class houses varied from £7 16 s. to £20 16 s., and he would give them in a few moments further particulars with regard to those. In many parishes near London, which were rural districts, the rents were even higher. In Mitcham, for instance, a place which might be familiar to their Lordships, the rents for new working-class dwellings varied from £19 5s. for three rooms to £29 3s. 11 d. for five or more rooms.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: That is not an ordinary rural district.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: No; but he understood that Mitcham was a parish near London which was a rural district. There they had a case of a rural district that had a very high rent. Therefore they saw that the distinction between these districts was artificial. The figures he had quoted were from statistics published by the London County Council. With regard to boroughs or urban districts with a population of less than 50,000, he quoted some figures from a report of an inquiry by the Board of Trade. Rents in those districts ranged from £8 15 s. 6d. to £13 13 s. for three rooms and from £9 15 s. to £19 10 s. for four rooms; from £13 to £23 8s. for five rooms, and from £16 11 s. 6d. to £28 12 s. for six rooms. He would now go back to the question of the rents in rural areas which, under the Bill, their Lordships would only allow to be £8, and which His Majesty's Government wished to be allowed to raise to £16. Take the rural district of Chester-le-Street. There the annual rent for two or three rooms was from £12 7s. to £14 6s.; for three to four rooms from £15 12 s. to £16 5s., and for five rooms the annual rent ranged from £18 4s. to £20 16 s. Take Hemel Hempstead, a parish in Hertfordshire, which would probably be familiar to the noble Marquess opposite. There the annual rents varied from £7 16 s. to £9 2s., and from £13 14 s. 6d. to £14 9s.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Is that exclusive of rates?
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said he thought so. The rents charged for the dwellings in Sevenoaks which were erected by the rural district council ranged from £10 8s. to £13. In Ryhope, for two rooms, the rent was £10 18 s., for three rooms £12 13 s. 6d., for four rooms £14 6s., and for five rooms £16 0s. 8d. In Grange-town, a sub-division of that parish, the rent of two rooms was £9 15 s., three rooms £13, four rooms £13 7s. 4d., and five rooms £17 9s. 8d. He apologized for troubling their Lordships with these figures, but he thought they went to prove the case that there really was a demand in rural areas for working-class dwellings to be erected which could be let for more than £8. His Majesty's Government therefore trusted that their Lordships would agree to the original suggestion of the Bill and allow the figure £16 to stand, and not agree to the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN admitted that the noble Earl had proved the extraordinary variation of rents in rural districts in different parts of the country, and it showed conclusively to his mind how very dangerous a basis for a clause of this kind was the rental. Certainly in the parts of England with which he was best acquainted there was no working man living in a house as defined in this Bill of more than £8 rental in a rural parish; but he quite felt, in the circumstances which the noble Earl had alluded to, that he could not press this Amendment, nor could he stand up for £8 as the figure for rural districts. There had also been a change in the clause by the adoption of the Amendment of the noble Duke behind him. Therefore there was no reason why he should press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to restore the figure £16 in the clause instead of £8.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 23, to leave out the word 'eight' and to insert the word 'sixteen.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved to add to the clause the words, "but the condition aforesaid shall not be implied when a

653
house, or part of a house, is let upon the terms that it be put by the lessee or occupying tenant into a condition reasonably fit for occupation." He thought their Lordships would agree that the case for the exclusion of what were commonly called repairing leases had been immensely strengthened by the acceptance of the Amendments moved by the noble Duke, because they had now withdrawn the words "working classes" altogether from the clause, and were merely dealing with houses in urban and rural districts that happened to be rented at comparatively small amounts. When this Bill was in Committee he tried to indicate that in many parts of the country there were a number of small old houses that were taken by individuals on repairing leases, sometimes by members of the working classes themselves. They took these houses at a low rent on condition that they were given a lease, and during the continuance of that lease they agreed to keep the premises in repair. If their Lordships did not pass some proviso such as that which he wished to move they were going to make it impossible for any repairing leases in future to be legal in the case of houses rented at a low rental and covered by this clause. If they did that he contended they would be depriving a good many people of the working classes and others of the opportunity of doing what they thought at all events answered their purpose, which was to lay out a certain amount of money on the repair of houses, and obtaining houses at a low rental on condition that they kept them in repair. Imagine the case of a carpenter or a mason or a tradesman of that sort who had put by a little money and had an opportunity of taking a lease of a cottage. He was a man who by the nature of his craft could at a low expense do the repairs himself, and it was to the advantage of that sort of man that he should in future be allowed to do what he had been allowed to do in the past. If they did not insert a proviso of this kind there would be the same kind of rut as the country had got into in many cases over hard-and-fast building by-laws. What had been the result? Over and over again the by-laws were disregarded and district councils showed favouritism in the case of some owners. The Local Government Board had themselves admitted the evil of this, and he was glad to see that the noble Earl was going to move an Amendment
654
with a view to remedying this abuse. If they did not pass such an Amendment as he now proposed, they would get into exactly the same difficulty. People would evade the law, and although it might be said that there was a remedy, as in the case of the building by-laws, by means of a mandamus, which any ratepayer was entitled to obtain, yet the remedy was scarcely ever heard of and was never used. He hoped their Lordships would allow a certain amount of elasticity in a matter of this kind.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 12, after the word 'habitation' to insert the words 'but the condition aforesaid shall not be implied when a house or part of a house is let upon the terms that it be put by the lessee or occupying tenant into a condition reasonably fit for occupation.'"—(Lord Hylton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP was sorry that His Majesty's Government were unable to meet the wishes of the noble Lord now any more than they were able to meet him at the Committee stage. He hoped the noble Lord would forgive him when he said that he could not agree to his parallel between the Amendment suggested and those dealing with the by-laws. He did not think the case was on all fours. The object of this clause was to protect people who were too poor, and very often too illiterate, to protect themselves. There were some people who were quite indifferent about living in insanitary houses, who perhaps enjoyed living in insanitary houses, and they wanted to protect them from having the power of practically contracting themselves out of this Bill, which was a danger to which the Amendment would open the door. The clause as it stood merely reproduced Section 75 of the Act of 1895, and made it apply to houses of a higher rental in accordance with the general scheme of the Bill. Viscount St. Aldwyn had met him so handsomely over the last Amendment that he scarcely liked to quote him against a noble Lord on his own side, but what the noble Viscount said just now struck him very forcibly. Viscount St. Aldwyn said that the rentals which he (Earl Beauchamp) had quoted were not within his own experience in his own neighbourhood. He could not help thinking that through all these discussions on this Bill noble Lords had been apt to consider the circumstances round the houses with which

655
they themselves were acquainted, and they were not able to project their minds to other parts of the country where all landlords were not as good landlords as most members of their Lordships' House. They had to deal with other districts with which they only became acquainted by reading Blue-books and various literature which dealt with that kind of question. His own experience was that this kind of let was not very common, and he did not think that to prevent it altogether would be a very great hardship. The noble Lord differed from him, and he had no doubt that this kind of let was common and popular in the noble Lord's part of the country. That, however, did not remove the objection of His Majesty's Government, which was that this Amendment would open the door to many abuses. If there were so many exceptional cases where a landlord was unable to afford to put a house in repair and the prospective tenant could afford to do so, the landlord had always the opportunity of borrowing the money from the more fortunate member of the working classes and accept the duty of doing the repairs in the future. He thought it would not be impossible for a landlord to find a way out of the difficulty.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said that if they were to consider their own experiences and relate them he was afraid this debate would last some time. He would be inclined to retort that he doubted if personally the noble Earl was very well acquainted with the habitations of the working classes. The noble Earl spoke as if the Local Government Board had only one idea in their heads—the small populations that they desired to deal with. He could quite understand the difficulty His Majesty's Government saw in accepting the Amendment. It might happen under certain circumstances that abuses might occur which the Government were anxious to put an end to, but surely they should find some way of framing their measure so as not to deal with very large areas in the country where the rents were very low and where these abuses did not exist. His Majesty's Government must remember that they were raising the price of the houses. The noble Earl said this was simply re-enacting a section of another Act. It was no such thing. It was enacting a section of another Act with the very great difference that
656
they applied it to a very much better class of house. In his experience it was not an uncommon thing for such a man as the noble Lord had mentioned, a carpenter or a skilled artizan in a country village, to take his house on a lease at a low rental and to agree to do the repairs. It would be an intolerable hardship upon the better class of working man if he was not to have these advantages which he wished for and valued, and which, in his experience, led to no abuses whatever. He trusted that if His Majesty's Government did not accept this Amendment they would at least bring forward some Amendment so as not to put an end altogether to repairing leases in rural districts for houses under £16.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I ought, no doubt, to say a word in response to the noble Duke's appeal, but I confess I do not see how a clause such as he desires could be framed. I fear I am falling into the trap which Lord Beauchamp pointed out and which affects most of us in this House—namely, that we are undoubtedly apt to rely too much on our own immediate experiences. I confess I have not known that it was in any part of England a custom in rural districts for houses at a few shillings a week, which after all is the rent contemplated, to be let on repairing leases, and if it is so I think it is an extremely bad custom. We all know that house property of that kind is not a very valuable possession, and those who have it know it is not a valuable possession on account of the heavy bill for repairs. I am bound to say that if it became the custom for landlords who own cottage property of that kind in small towns and villages to get into the habit of letting it at almost nominal rents in order to get rid of the trouble and the cost of repairs, it would be a very bad thing for the communities concerned, and the probability is that the standard of accommodation would fall greatly in such places. I can conceive it possible, of course, that there is such a case as that mentioned by the noble Duke, where an artizan with a house at 5s. or 6s. a week should undertake to do the repairs, but I should have thought such cases were so rare that it would be hardly worth while attempting to deal with them under the Bill. To accept the Amendment of the noble Lord as it stands must, I think your Lordships will all agree, open the door to very serious danger.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said that if they were not to bring their personal experiences

657
to bear he did not see any good in any of their Lordships addressing the House. He had had large experience of this class of leases, and he asked the noble Earl opposite to remember that he was dealing among others with £40 houses in London, and there were a large number of leases of houses of that rental where the tenant undertook to repair the house, both inside and out. It seemed to him there was nothing improper in that kind of case. He quite understood what Earl Beauchamp said when he feared that in some way it might lead to vicious contracting out, and he thought that point ought to be met. Would not the whole point be met if they made this apply to a house which was let on lease for not less than three years? Sometimes these houses were taken on repairing leases for three, four, and five years, but if the Amendment was limited to the case of leases for three years there could not be any vicious contracting out by the working classes. He must say that on principle, where they had a clause which said £40 in London, £26 in boroughs, and £16 in the country, to enact that a house could not be let upon the terms that the tenant should do the repairs was a very startling proposition. He was satisfied that this Amendment would be absolutely necessary to protect hundreds of honest contracts which had been in force for many years with perfect satisfaction to landlords, tenants, and local authorities. Many local authorities supervised houses of from £20 to £25 a year which were let on these terms, and which were used for the purpose of taking in lodgers.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON said he was perfectly willing to accept the suggested amendment of his Amendment by his noble and learned friend. The proviso would then run, "But the condition aforesaid shall not be implied when a house or part of a house is let for a term of not less than three years upon the terms that it be put by the lessee into a condition reasonably fit for occupation."
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said he let houses at £20 a year where the tenants did their own repairs, and naturally it was a very onerous thing. He would be prepared, if necessary, to accept the responsibility of having to do them, but the danger he saw was not in the £25 houses. He had known cases where men had lived in hovels and had paid £1 a year.
658
The landlord would say, "You can have that place, but don't bother me, and don't ask me for any repairs." He did not see how they could touch a man of that kind except they proceeded against him under the ordinary Public Health Act, and that would be rather difficult.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved an Amendment in Clause 15 (Conditions as to keeping houses let to persons of the working classes in repair) providing that within "twenty-one" days (instead of twenty-eight days) after the receipt of a notice the landlord might notify the local authority of his intention to close a house for human habitation, and a closing order should be deemed thereby to have become operative.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 11, to leave out 'twenty-eight ' and to insert twenty-one.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved an Amendment in the same clause giving a landlord the option of appealing to the Local Government Board or to the County Court of the district, against a notice requiring him to execute works under the clause. He said there might be a case of small importance where a landlord might differ from the local authority. At the same time he might not desire to give way and not wish to have to incur the trouble and publicity of a fight in the County Court. Yet he might desire to find out whether his opinion was right, and so he would probably prefer to go to the Local Government Board. Many of his friends outside their Lordships' House had urged him to bring this Amendment forward. Of course, in any matter of serious disagreement a landlord would go to the County Court. In smaller cases he might say he would not go to that trouble and bother; he would rather pay up and look pleasant.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 31, after the word 'the' to insert the words 'Local Government Board or the.'"—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that His Majesty's Government had never liked the County Court, and they did not like it now. This Amendment was an improvement on the Amendment inserted at the Committee stage, and therefore the Government would accept it.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW asked whether the option would be with the appellant, so that he would have the power of selecting whether he would go to the Local Government Board or to the County Court, and that it would not rest with the Local Government Board? If he had that assurance from His Majesty's Government he saw no objection to the Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that if the noble Earl would look at page 9, line 31, he would see that a landlord might appeal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, who was responsible for recommending their Lordships to put the Amendment regarding the County Court into the Bill, said that as far as he was concerned he was willing to accept the Amendment. What they were anxious to obtain was that any person who thought himself aggrieved by a local authority should have an appeal, if he liked, to a Court of law. So long as that was secured it did not matter if he had the option, if he preferred, to go to the Local Government Board.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said his Amendment was purely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 34, after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'against any.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Amendment was not thought to be necessary. If the noble Earl would look at the clause he would see that in line 32 came the word "against," and as it was thought that that already implied an Order, it was considered unnecessary to put in the words "against any."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved an Amendment to protect the landlord or owner of property in cases where a tenant had failed to perform his covenants to effect repairs. He said he had placed this Amendment on the paper in the hope that they might get some information from His Majesty's Government as to how they meant to deal with a case which he put before them in Committee—a case, for instance, where a large colliery had houses let under a covenant to repair. It was not only in cases of collieries, but collieries had struck him as typical. There might be hundreds of houses and it would be a very serious thing if under this Bill a colliery company could throw on the royalty owner the whole of the responsibility for keeping up the repair of these houses. Something should be done to modify the present clause. He did not know whether the words he had proposed would meet the case, but they seemed calculated to do so. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 42, after the word 'lets,' to insert the words 'to a tenant for occupation.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said their Lordships would probably remember the discussion on this point in Committee. He was glad to find he was correct in the opinion he gave off-hand with regard to the specific case mentioned by the noble Duke of houses in a colliery district. The difference between the noble Duke and himself on this point was whether this should apply, as the noble Duke suggested, to a tenant for occupation, or whether, as the Bill suggested, it should apply to tenants for habitation. The definition of landlord which the noble Duke proposed to amend was restricted to persons who let houses under any contract referred to. The noble Duke would see the words in line 42, "In this section the expression 'landlord' means any person who lets the house under any contract referred to in this section, and includes his successor in title, and the expression 'a house' includes part of a house." If the noble Duke would look at the beginning of Clause 15, he would see that the contracts referred to were the same as those referred to in

661
Clause 14, and in that line 2 of Clause 14 appeared the words "letting for habitation by persons of the working classes." Under those circumstances it was not thought advisable to put in a different definition here, making it a tenant for occupation, when the words were already in the Bill, and covered the case to which the noble Duke referred.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said he thought the words "letting for habitation" would still leave the doubt which the noble Duke had raised as to whether a person, say a ground landlord who had let a block of cottages to a company, or a company who had themselves let for habitation or occupation, would be responsible. He did not say what course should be taken, but he did not think that the noble Earl had met the difficulty.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Of course, it is a question of legal interpretation, and we must all attach due weight to the opinion expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. I think it is evident we must look into the matter again before the Third Reading, and see whether we have met the point, as we thought we had, by the wording of Clause 14.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said in that case he supposed he had better withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HILL VISCOUNT HILL said their Lordships would see that Clause 16 extended the powers of making by-laws with regard to lodging houses and the imposing of the execution of works required to be done under these by-laws. On the Committee stage the point was raised as to whether the owner or the landlord was meant by this clause, and he proposed to leave out "or in substitution for." He thought the words as in the clause were rather too wide.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 23, to leave out the words 'or in substitution for.'"—(Viscount Hill.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the noble Viscount would see that the effect of his Amendment was not altogether without importance, and His Majesty's Government
662
were anxious that these words should be retained. Supposing the words suggested were left out, the duty of executing these works could only be imposed upon an owner in addition to somebody else. It was easily conceivable that there were cases in which an owner ought to do them instead of somebody else, and that would not be possible unless these words were retained. He thought that was a very possible case, and he hoped the noble Viscount would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said his next Amendment was a very simple one, and it appeared to be very just. An owner should not be responsible for repairs due to the wilful fault of the tenant.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 26, after the word 'discharge,' to insert the words:—'Provided that no duty which involves the execution of work shall be imposed under this section upon the owner where the defect in respect of which the Order is made has been caused by the act or default of the tenant or occupier or of any person for whom the tenant of the premises is responsible.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the noble Duke would have said something more in support of his Amendment. A good deal was said on this point in Committee, and he was afraid even after consideration that the Local Government Board did not like it any better than they did at the time. What was the Order to which the noble Duke referred in his Amendment? The noble Duke seemed to contemplate an Order which should be made after some damage to the house had taken place. As he understood it, there was no question of making an Order in a case like this. The by-laws were made for certain specified purposes as laid down in the Public Health Act, and proceedings for the enforcement of the by-laws might be taken. Therefore no Order would be made by any local authority. He did not like to oppose the noble Duke on a technical point of that kind. This clause met cases of accommodation and various other matters which ought, as a matter of duty, to be imposed upon the landlord. If, say, one lodger were to put some small part of the water supply out of order, the result of this Amendment might be that the whole house and the rest of the lodgers would be

663
deprived of water, and there would be no remedy except that of a closing Order. Was not that an inconvenience to every one in the house? If the owner were called upon to repair this defect in the water supply he would say that it must be the fault of the tenant or occupier, and therefore he personally was not responsible. In this case they were dealing with the owners of a class of property which needed to be supervised very carefully, and he did not think it was very unreasonable, subject to notice to the owner of his liabilities, that he should be expected to keep the place in repair himself, however the various defects might have been caused. The landlord had his remedy, which he thought was mentioned in Committee by the noble Duke, which was afforded by the ordinary law. Nothing deprived the owner of that remedy, but His Majesty's Government did not think it necessary to relieve him from the liability of keeping the houses in habitable repair.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said the incident which the noble Earl had just given appeared to him to be inconclusive. If a man by his own act or default made his house uninhabitable, or violated the by-laws in a similar way, it did not seem fair to come upon the landlord. The broad equity of the Amendment should appeal to them all.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said these points were rather difficult to deal with at the present stage. They were more appropriate to Committee, and he regretted—and it was his fault—that they did not deal with these matters in Standing Committee, which was a more suitable tribunal for dealing with these technical and somewhat small matters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said his Amendment was merely to assimilate the words of this subsection to subsection (6 of the previous clause, the procedure of which it modified.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 4, after the word 'expenses,' to insert the words 'and against any Order made with respect to those expenses.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON said, with regard to an Amendment standing in his name to Clause 17, that in Committee he had had an Amendment down altering the last four lines of the subsection in order, if possible, to remedy what appeared to be a hardship on an unfortunate occupier of a house which had been condemned as unfit for human habitation who could not find any other house. The Government were good enough to say that they would look into the matter and therefore he withdrew his Amendment at that time, and he only put his present Amendment down in order that it might not be lost sight of. There was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Lord Steward which he thought would meet the point, and he therefore would not move his Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving to omit the penalty in subsection (4), said he was much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, for withdrawing his Amendment. He thought the one standing in his name met the wishes of the noble Lord.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 38, to leave out from 'to' to the end of line 39, and to insert the words 'be ordered to quit the dwelling-house within such time as may be specified in the order.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE thought it would be wiser to cut the penalty out and leave the time specified in the order to quit to the discretion of the magistrate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 21, after 'refused' to insert the following new subsection—' (7) Where an appeal is made to the Local Government Board under this section the Local Government Board shall not dismiss the appeal without having first held a public local inquiry.'"—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving to omit from subsection 7, paragraphs (a) and (b), which provided that rooms used as sleeping places should be deemed unfit if not sufficiently protected against dampness

665
effluvia, or exhalation, or were not sufficiently ventilated, said that his Amendment was the first of several which were really intended to re-draft that part of the clause. They did not introduce any new principle, with the exception of the succeeding Amendment which the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, had given notice of with regard to lighting.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, to leave out lines 31 to 33."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN pointed out that one of the subsequent Amendments standing in the name of the Lord Steward was more than a matter of drafting. On his motion in Committee words were inserted in the Bill that it should be the duty of the "local authority" to define the requirements necessary, and in his Amendment the Lord Steward proposed to leave out the words "local authority." He attached importance to them, and in due course would move to insert them again, so that the clause would read that the regulations be made by "the local authority with the consent of the Local Government Board."
LORD ELLENBOROUGH*LORD ELLENBOROUGH said it appeared to him that the effect of the Amendments proposed was to give power to the Local Government Board to replace paragraphs which had been struck out in Committee. When they came to look at those paragraphs, it seemed that the framer of them had apparently walked down a street and looked at the front of the houses only. Had he taken the trouble to look behind them he would have seen that a large number of the houses in London were built very much in the shape of the letter L, the front of the houses representing the vertical part of that letter facing the street, and the part represented by the horizontal part of the letter L running very far back. In many of such houses, although the lighting might not always be good, large skylights were provided; they contained plenty of fireplaces, and were well ventilated and as healthy places as could be, and yet he was afraid they would be ruled out under the clauses of the Bill if it was intended to restore power to the Local Government Board to make regulations. One of the proposed regulations was to the effect that windows must be provided equal to one-tenth of the floor area of the room. One way of ful-
666
filling that clause would be by building a partition across a room and so reducing the cubic space the occupant had hitherto enjoyed, and he was afraid of that clause coming back again as part of the regulations of the Local Government Board. Then there were a large number of men servants occupying rooms on the ground floor of a great many houses in London, and it would be impossible to alter many of those houses in order to make the rooms comply with the regulations. This would mean that many butlers and men servants would have to be discharged, and many of such houses, particularly in the West End, that were now protected by the custodians who slept on the ground floor, and who had the safety of a good deal of property dependent on them, would now be deprived of that protection. He really thought that the clauses must have been inspired in the mind either of the noble Earl opposite or the President of the Local Government Board by their having received, without recognising them, a deputation of burglars, not of the ugly "Bill Sykes" type, but of the more civilised "Raffles" pattern. He thought that any such regulations would be better left to local authorities than to the Local Government Board. He had no doubt that the noble Earl opposite would say that these paragraphs were exactly in the interest of the butlers and men servants, and that it was not right that they should inhabit such rooms as he was thinking of. No doubt that might be so in some cases, but at the same time he hoped the Government would take into consideration that rooms can be ventilated by skylights as well as by windows and whether they were not doing more harm than good by exposing such men to the probability of dismissal because of their being of no further use in the way of safeguarding property.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 33, after the word 'sufficiently' to insert the words 'lighted and.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 35, after the word 'ceiling' to insert 'or (b) does not comply with such regulations as the Local Government Board may prescribe for securing the proper ventilation and lighting of such rooms, and the protection thereof against dampness, effluvia, or exhalation.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN proposed to insert, after "the" in the first line of the noble Earl's Amendment, the words "local authority with the consent of the," so that the Amendment would read "does not comply with such regulations as the local authority with the consent of the Local Government Board may prescribe." He attached importance to the point for the reasons just stated by his noble friend behind him. The proposals with reference to areas and everything of that kind as they originally stood in the Bill seemed to him almost absurd, and he had no confidence whatever in leaving such matters to be settled by the Local Government Board. It was a matter which the local authority ought to deal with in the area which it governed with reference to the needs and conditions of that particular area. It was right that the Local Government Board should approve, but he thought that the local authority should initiate.
Amendment moved—
"To insert after 'the' in the first line of Earl Beauchamp's Amendment, the words 'local authority with the consent of the.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK asked whether the habitual interpretation of the word "lighted" meant lighted by daylight or in an artificial way, because of course that would make enormous difference to the practical working of the clause and the character of the accommodation secured.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought that generally speaking "lighted" certainly referred to lighting by day. He had in mind a house in Grosvenor-square—he was afraid it was a personal experience—where the footmen's rooms entered on to the kitchen passage and there was no ventilation or daylight of any sort or kind, not even a window. Clearly that was not a room which was lighted. With regard to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, it appeared to the Local Government Board that these were matters where it was desirable that the regulations should be on one general scale throughout the whole of the country, and in dealing with rooms of the kind in question a great deal of inconvenience would be caused by the possibility suggested by the noble Viscount. Not only great inconvenience, but great uncertainty and dissatisfaction would exist
668
if local authorities imposed different regulations in different places. It was the opinion of the Local Government Board that the Amendment as put down in his name really met the case better than the new Amendment of the noble Viscount, and although he did not propose to divide the House he ventured to hope their Lordships would agree to leave the Bill as amended by him.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW suggested that there really were very different conditions obtaining in different parts of the country. The clause as it originally stood might be not unfairly applicable to a very large number of towns, but it would work extreme hardship in the county of London, and it was mainly because of that that it was objected to on that side of the House. What might be good in Liverpool or Leeds or Glasgow might be highly unsuitable in London, and he was of opinion that elasticity in such matters was extremely desirable. The noble Earl no doubt was perfectly well aware that there were regulations already in existence in London dealing with the matter, but the trouble was in the case of a room underground which was occupied along with another room over-ground. They were unable under the existing law to get at the occupier. He would use the room above the ground as a workshop because he must have light for his work and the room underground to sleep in because light was not so necessary in a sleeping room as in a working room, and thus evaded the law. He therefore hoped the House would not accept the Amendment of the noble Earl but would accept that of the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, to leave out lines 13 to 16."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to insert a new paragraph after "exhalation" to provide that a closing order should not prevent a room being used for purposes other than those of a sleeping place. He thought that this must have been intended by the Government. But

669
under the clause as he read it a room would be closed not only for the purposes of sleeping but for any purposes of occupation whatever, just as a dwelling house which was condemned as unfit for habitation. There were plenty of rooms which were perfectly well adapted for store rooms or box rooms and a dozen other purposes although they might not be adapted for sleeping purposes.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 16, after the word 'exhalation' to insert the following new paragraph—
'Provided that a Closing Order made in respect of a room to which this subsection applies shall not prevent the room being used for purposes other than those of a sleeping place.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP pointed out that although the room would be closed for human habitation it could still be used under the Bill as a store room or a wine cellar or anything of that kind, whereas the Amendment of the noble Duke opened up the possibility of a room which was condemned as unhealthy for human habitation and for being used as a sleeping place at night being used for human habitation during the day. He thought the advantages must be balanced one against the other. His Majesty's Government were of opinion that the Bill as it stood, which prevented such a room from being used for human habitation either during the day or during the night, possessed the balance of advantage, leaving it still possible for the room to be used as a store room or a wine cellar.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN did not think the Bill as it stood prevented such a room from being used by day, because the subsection only applied to a room which was habitually used as a sleeping place. It did not enact that a room not habitually used as a sleeping place whatever the circumstances were might not be used for human habitation during the day.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND agreed that if the room was not used as a sleeping place at the time the order was made it would not apply, but the point was whether a room which was closed as a sleeping place could be used for other purposes.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW ventured to think that when the clause came before the
670
Courts they would have some difficulty in interpreting it because subsection (7) said that, a room habitually used as a sleeping place should be deemed to be a dwelling house. Those words were put in in the House of Commons. The fact of the matter was that a room habitually used as a sleeping place, however unfit it might be, must be declared to be "a dwelling house unfit for human habitation" before they could get an order to close. He did not know whether, where a room contravened the provisions, they were going to get a closing order for the whole of the house or not. If it applied to the room only he certainly thought the Bill ought to say it somewhere, and if it did not he did not see how the Amendment applied.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE understood that it was the objection to such rooms being used for sleeping in which had led to the by-laws being suggested. There were numbers of purposes for which such rooms might be properly used; they might be turned into bathrooms, for example. Some amendment was required if the word "dwelling-house" remained in.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, it may be possible to meet the noble Duke to some extent, and we will consider before the next stage how that can be done. At the same time it is fair to point out that all that is required to be done is to make the room free front dampness and effluvia and to see that it is sufficiently ventilated and properly lighted. There must be a great many cases in which it would be most dangerous to allow a room to be used which complied with none of those provisions. We shall have to consider, therefore, whether we can meet the point raised by the noble Duke without opening the rather dangerous possibility of allowing rooms which are thoroughly insanitary in every respect to be inhabited all day for purposes of work.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH said it appeared to him that one difficulty still existed—namely, that supposing the room had never habitually been used as a sleeping place it was still capable of being lived in without any order being made against it at all.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY asked why the word "dwelling-house" in the subsection should not be left out.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW said because if they did so nothing would happen. The only way they could do anything would be to leave out "room" and inset "dwelling-house," and then they could bring in the clauses of the Act applying to dwelling-houses which were unfit for occupation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendments to Clauses 18, 21, and 23 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving an Amendment to Clause 26, said the point dealt with was raised by Lord Monk Bretton in Committee and the Government promised to consider it with a view to bringing up an Amendment at this stage of the proceedings. He hoped that the Amendment he proposed would meet the points which the noble Lord raised and that he would be satisfied. It was the intention of the Local Government Board if they possibly could to meet his wishes.
Amendment moved—
"In page 16, line 26, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'with the consent of the person or body of persons entitled to any right or easement which would be extinguished by virtue of section twenty-two of the principal Act.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON said he was quite satisfied. The Amendment entirely met his point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 16, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words 'of section twenty-two of the principal Act (which vests in the local authority, pipes, sewers, and drains)' and to insert the words 'to that right or easement of that section.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON had on the Paper a series of Amendments to Clause 30, providing that expenses incurred by a rural district council in the execution of Part III. of the principal Act should be defrayed as special expenses of the council in the execution of the Public Health Acts, but should be charged on the whole area of the authority except otherwise declared by the Local Government Board. He said that in Committee he endeavoured to amend Clause 30 so as to provide that the ex-
672
penses of a local authority in the execution of that part of the Act should be defrayed as provided in the principal Act of 1890, and he was certainly under the impression that the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, had promised to reconsider the question and bring it up on Report. Under the Act of 1890 the expenses of the local authority were defrayed as special expenses and under the Bill they were to be defrayed as general expenses. Special expenses were defrayed upon one-fourth only of the rateable value of certain specified subjects, but the general expenses were charged upon the whole rateable value of the authority. The specified subjects were land and land covered by water, canals, and towing paths, tithes and the permanent way of a railway. Those had all had the benefit of the one-fourth classification up to the present time for the reason which had constantly been stated—that they did not get the same benefit out of the expenditure under the Public Health Acts; and it appeared to him that a change ought not to be made in the system of rating without some reason being adduced for it. He thought that no reason was given in the course of the Committee debate except that His Majesty's Government wished the expenses to be levied not over a contributory district but over a whole area. He had endeavoured to meet that in his Amendment by providing that they should be levied as special expenses on the whole area of the local authority. He moved the first of his Amendments.
Amendment moved—
"In page 17, line 25, to leave out the word 'general' and to insert the word 'special.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the question for their Lordships was who benefited supposing the expenses were charged as special expenses. If charged as special expenses they were paid out of a rate towards which land and railways contributed only upon one-fourth of their value. Under the Bill land and railways very largely created the demand for houses, and as they were benefited by the houses His Majesty's Government did not think it fair that they should be exempted as regards three-fourths of the expenditure. It was the opinion of the Government that the expenses should be paid as general expenses; that was to say, out of the poor rate to which land other than agricultural

673
land contributed in full and to which agricultural land contributed only one half.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said he did not know anything about rail-ways, but he thought it very hard that railways in agricultural districts should be called upon so largely as they were under the Bill. His own county of Northumberland was entirely agricultural and very thinly populated in one part, while in another part it was entirely manufacturing and very thickly populated, and he would ask why the agricultural centres should have to contribute towards the cost of meeting the demand for houses which manufacturing towns in one corner of the county created.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN regretted that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment did not go a great deal further and take exception to the expenses of a scheme being paid by the whole of a rural district. In some parishes people had built cottages which was in excellent condition and there were sufficient accommodation, whereas in another part of the same rural district there were other parishes where no one had done anything. Was it not monstrous that those people who had done their duty and spent money in providing houses should be rated to supply the deficiency in areas which had not done their duty? The only reason was that they were afraid of placing a heavy rate upon those parishes where great outlay was required, and they were going to make all the rest of the district pay for the shortcomings of a small portion of it. He thought the matter was a very serious one, and it might be necessary for him to move an Amendment on Third Reading.
LORD WENLOCK LORD WENLOCK considered it very unfair on railways to levy a rate on their full value in order to supply housing accommodation for parishes which lay off the route of the railway. Where a railway ran through one thickly-populated area it ran through, perhaps, ten or twelve that were thinly populated, and it was very hard on them to be called upon to subscribe towards housing accommodation in distant parts of their area. Railways are always looked upon as very fair game for taxation. In his own, parish the railway paid one-third of the rates, and at the time of her late lamented Majesty's Jubilee a rate was levied on the parish to celebrate that great event, and in spite of protest on the part
674
of the railway authorities they found themselves involved in a rate to pay for the oranges and buns supplied to the village children. He thought it should be recognised that railways had done their duty in providing cottages for workpeople, especially in rural districts, and he hoped it would not be used as an argument for putting further expenditure upon them that they had done so much to meet their proper duties.
THE EARL OF CREWE: It seems to me that the question is not such a burning one as noble Lords who have argued for the Amendment appear to think, because the clause provides for each case being considered on its merits, and where it can be shown that the benefit attaches to one district only, that district can be made to pay. That seems to be the common sense solution of the question, and I am afraid it will be found that the preference given to agricultural land and to railways under the Amendment as suggested by the noble Lord will not all over the country be considered a fair one. We cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment, although we will not attempt to divide the House upon it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP pointed out that the Local Government Board had power under the section to declare "that any such expenses are to be levied as special expenses."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
"In page 17, line 26, after the word 'Acts,' to insert the words 'but shall be charged on the whole area of such authority'; and in line 28, after the word 'as' to insert 'general expenses or.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to insert a new clause, after Clause 36, providing that in the administration of the Housing Acts regard should be had to the requirements of persons of the working classes, and it should be the duty of the local authority to secure as far as practicable that dwelling accommodation provided, under those Acts was occupied exclusively by persons of the working classes, and that, other things being equal, the local authority should give priority to applications made by British subjects belonging to the working

675
classes for such accommodation. He said that his Amendment was one for which he ought, perhaps, to offer some apology to the House, and especially to his noble friend Lord Camperdown, who had moved a somewhat similar Amendment in the Committee stage of the Bill. Their Lordships, however, did not adopt that Amendment, very largely at the instance of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, but he thought the House was under some slight misapprehension. Viscount St. Aldwyn moved that in calling upon a local authority to provide accommodation for the working classes the Local Government Board were to take into consideration the various circumstances, including the probable effect upon the rates, and the noble Viscount thought that that would sufficiently safeguard the ratepayers against the provision of housing accommodation for those who were not strictly of the working classes. It really was not a question of the Local Government Board calling upon the local authority to provide houses, but of cases where the local authority decided under the clauses of the Housing Act, 1890, that accommodation was required to be provided by persons who were displaced by improvement schemes.
There was no provision whatever under the present law defining the class of person who would inhabit the dwellings provided under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. Their Lordships had heard a good deal about the definition of "working classes," and he thought it was the intention of the House that some definition of "working classes" should be inserted in the Bill, and that so far as possible the application of the Acts should be in the interests of those classes primarily if not solely. He had the honour of being for some time a member of the London County Council, and he confessed that during those years he was very greatly struck by the class of persons who inhabited the dwellings that were put up at the expense of the ratepayers. Their Lordships would naturally suppose where a displacement took place that the new buildings would be inhabited by the persons who had been displaced. That was not the case; an extraordinarily small proportion of those displaced found room in the new buildings. To some extent no doubt that was owing to the, fact that the buildings had to be erected in close proximity to the place where the displacement occurred, which was usually a crowded
676
area either in the centre of London or in other great towns. It was precisely in those crowded areas that the value of land was highest and therefore the cost was greatest. The consequence was that the London County Council had to charge very high rents in order that the ratepayers might not suffer severely by the housing operations.
From a return made every year by the London County Council of those accommodated in the Council's dwellings, he found that no less than 356 clerks, a large number of insurance agents, musicians and policemen, and eleven managers of public-houses lodged in County Council dwellings. They had heard the clerk described as the black-coated working man, and he was not at all sure that that was not a very accurate description; but the result of the present state of things was that there was a very strong feeling in the minds of poor people, especially in the East End of London, that the municipal dwellings were not pro-provided for them to live in, and they had to go into other slums perhaps worse than those from which they had been displaced. He asked that preference should be given to persons of the working classes as far as practicable. He said as far as practicable because there might be cases where it was impossible to find persons, strictly speaking, of the working classes to occupy the whole of the rooms, and he would be the last to put a charge on the ratepayers by saying that because persons of the working class could not be found that therefore the rooms were to be left absolutely untenanted. He was told that the rule was always first come first served with regard to those applying for accommodation, and that no inquiry whatever was made as to whether the applicant was of the working class but only whether he could afford to pay the comparatively high rent. Another grievance, and one very acutely felt, was that a great deal of the accommodation was given to those who were not of British nationality, and he thought it should be the duty of the local authority to give the preference to men of the working classes of British origin. He also thought that there should be a register available at all times to those who cared to inspect it showing what accommodation was vacant.
Amendment moved—
"After clause 36 to insert the following new clause:

677
'(1) In the administration of the Housing Acts regard shall be had to the requirements of persons of the working classes, and it shall be the duty of the local authority to secure as far as practicable that dwelling accommodation provided under those Acts is occupied exclusively by persons of the working classes, and other things being equal, the local authority shall give priority to applications made by British subjects belonging to the working classes for such accommodation.
(2) The local authority shall cause a list to be kept showing particulars of the accommodation comprised in every dwelling provided by them in the exercise of their powers and duties under the Housing Acts and of the rent, and such list, so far as it relates to dwellings vacant or about to become vacant, shall be open at all reasonable times and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the local authority to the inspection without payment of ratepayers in the area and of persons of the working classes who desire to apply for dwelling accommodation provided by the local authority under the Housing Acts.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that the figures mentioned by the noble Earl involved a considerable number of rooms. Up to the end of December, 1906, there were no fewer than 145,000 rooms provided in London, and the proportion of managers of public-houses was not very large when they divided eleven amongst 145,000. If there was a feeling on the part of the working classes in the East End of London that there was an insufficiency of accommodation for them that was a sound argument for encouraging the London County Council to pursue the policy of housing accommodation and to build a great deal more largely in future than they had done in the past. As to the keeping of a register, local authorities naturally would wish to let their houses and the list would be at the disposal of any one. He would venture to repeat a question he put before in Committee, whether it was not a great deal better for the ratepayers that those dwellings should be occupied by somebody even if not by people strictly of the working classes than that they should be left empty, therefore imposing a still further charge upon the rates.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said they had heard an extraordinary defence of the Bill as it stood. The noble Earl said it seemed to him that the London County Council had not kept pace with the times in building. He did not know on what that statement rested when they were told by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that the occupants of these houses were very largely persons who did not belong to the labouring classes. Did he mean that the London
678
County Council would be justified in going on building houses without end at the expense of the ratepayers? Surely the eleven publicans who were spoken of were never intended to be housed at the expense of the ratepayers. Some representatives of the City of Edinburgh had told him a few days ago that exactly the same thing had happened there; that the houses they had built under their Housing Act were mainly occupied by persons quite of a superior class. They now asked, "How long is this to go on? Now that the houses which we have built are occupied by persons of a class quite superior to labourers, are we to have a new scheme and are we to go on building at the expense of the ratepayers?" He therefore supported the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN very much doubted whether the Amendment would have much practical effect, because the noble Earl had found it necessary to insert the words "as far as practicable." They must all feel, as the noble Earl the Lord Steward had said, that if members of the working classes could not be found to inhabit the houses, they must, in the interests of the ratepayers, be let to somebody else. But surely the local authority, having at the expense of the ratepayers erected houses for the working classes, ought to try and secure that they should be occupied by persons who were members of the working classes. That, he thought, was a very reasonable proposition.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am in some agreement with the noble Viscount who has just sat down—namely, that this provision, if your Lordships insert it in the Bill, will not have a very far-reaching effect. If it really be the fact that local authorities by deliberate preference let their rooms and their houses to persons who do not belong to the working classes, it seems to me very difficult to alter that except by appealing to them and convincing, for instance, such bodies as the great councils of London and other towns that those are not the purposes for which the houses were intended.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW pointed out that what he had said was that they let them to the first comer whoever he was; his object was to seek to impose a duty upon them to find out whether the first

679
comer was or was not a member of the working classes.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid the Lord Chairman is rather sanguine in proposing to insert a provision of that kind in an Act of Parliament. We return again, of course, to a definition of the working classes, as to which, I suppose, he and I are not in complete agreement. I confess I do not see what reason of public policy there is if you are going to build houses for anybody that should make it more to the public benefit to build houses to be occupied by a mechanic than to be occupied by a clerk. Both have their business in the neighbourhood of the place in which the houses are built, and I confess I have never heard any attempt yet made to show why you should build a house for one and not for the other. I can understand the attitude of mind which says that no houses should be built by local authorities at all and that the work should be left entirely to private enterprise, and I can understand the attitude of mind which says—and I could indeed agree with the proposition—that the local authorities should not build houses of high value as a speculation; but to suppose that you can usefully go beyond the general test of the cheapness of the house is a thing which I regard as impracticable. With regard to the attempt to amend the Alien Act, which I think is what the noble Earl is attempting to do, there again I do not think his provision is of a really serviceable character. It is also, I think, of a rather invidious nature in itself, and I confess I should be sorry to see it inserted in the Bill; but I gather that the Amendment has the approbation of noble Lords opposite, and therefore I will say no more.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am glad the noble Earl shows a somewhat relenting frame of mind with regard to this Amendment, in favour of which there is a great deal to be said. I rather think his attitude is that the addition of this clause would be superfluous, but I venture to tell the noble Earl why I think it would be politic to add this clause to the Bill. In the first place, it seems to me that its insertion would have a very reassuring effect on the public mind. There are two classes of persons who need to be reassured. Firstly,
680
among the ratepayers there is a general feeling that their money is very often applied to purposes other than those they would desire it to be applied to. They think that buildings erected ostensibly for the benefit of the working classes are really being devoted to another purpose altogether. Then there comes the case of the working classes themselves. I was much impressed by what was said by my noble friend the Lord Chairman. He told us that one of the results of these buildings being frequently occupied by people who did not belong to the working classes was that the working classes, properly so called, were deterred from inhabiting them, and I believe there is a great deal in that argument. While the words of the new clause would be quite innocuous they would probably have a very reassuring effect in a quarter where some reassurance is really called for.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid I did not make myself quite clear if the noble Marquess thinks I am disposed to accept the Amendment, because read with the definition of "working classes" it seems to limit to a very undesirable extent the class of person who can inhabit these houses.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then I think there is a difference of opinion between us, because in my view these houses put up for the working classes should be available for habitation only by people who are members of the working classes. May I suggest that my noble friend should leave out from his Amendment the words "regard shall be had to the requirements of persons of the working classes, and." I think those words are superfluous; the other words are a sufficient instruction to the local authority.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW agreed with this suggestion.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM*THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM said that if their Lordships would look at the definition of "working classes" they would see that the persons referred to as occupying these houses—clerks, musicians, policemen, and others—all came under the definition of working for wages. He thought it would be very difficult to give a definition which would be at all practicable for use by any public body.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to add a new subsection in Clause 38 (Appeals to Local Government Board), providing that the decision of the County Court Judge on any appeal should be final.
Amendment moved—
"In page 20, line 11, after subsection (1) to insert the following new subsection—
'(2) The decision of the judge of county courts of the district on any appeal to the court under this part of this Act shall be final.' "—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH moved an Amendment in Clause 47 (Definition of working classes), providing that the expression working classes "in the Housing Acts shall mean" mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, and persons whose income did not exceed an average of 30 s. a week. As he understood, it was the desire of His Majesty's Government to define working classes by saying "What kind of house do you live in, and what rent do you pay for it?" It was the desire of noble Lords on his side of the House to define working classes by saying "What is your occupation, and how much do you get a week?"
Amendment moved—
"In page 23, line 1, to leave out from the word 'classes' to the word 'mechanics' in line 4, and to insert the words 'in the Housing Acts shall mean.'"—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the noble Duke will find there is no limit of wages in the words as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Yes; 30 s. a week.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN pointed out that it was not limited to 30 s. a week; it was "persons working for wages."
THE EARL OF CREWE: That does not apply to a mechanic. It is evident, of course, that the substitution of the word
682
"mean" for "include" by the noble Duke entirely alters the sense of the Amendment. We understood that the noble Duke's object was to widen the definition and bring it more into conformity with our view, which is that it is impossible to find any set of words which will cover all the people whom you may desire to describe as the working classes for this particular purpose of housing. The noble Duke spoke of a wage limit, but, as I pointed out at a previous stage, the definition as inserted here admits a mechanic earning, perhaps, £6 or £8 a week, but excludes a typist earning 35 s. That seems to me to be an absurd result, and I cannot believe that it is intended by those who support this Amendment. A large number of parallel cases might be found, and there is the whole class of clerks who seem to me to have as perfect a right to be housed as anybody else. The noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, spoke of them as the black-coated working men, and they are excluded. We must therefore oppose the Amendment.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE pointed out that if the word "mean" was adopted it would have a very narrowing effect, whereas if the word "include" was put in it would be a guide and not so hard-and-fast a line, and he thought it would meet the wishes of those who originally proposed the Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY could not help thinking that the words proposed by his noble friend behind him would narrow it very inconveniently. If they used the word "mean" the effect in law was to exclude everything else but what was enumerated. That he did not think could be the intention of his noble friend.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH asked leave to reinstate the word "include" and to move his Amendment as it originally stood on the paper.
Amendment moved—
"In page 23, line 1, to leave out from the word 'classes' to the word 'mechanics' in line 4; and to insert the words 'in the Housing Act shall include.'"—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN hoped their Lordships would not agree to this Amendment as it seemed to him to get rid of the definition altogether. To his mind the

683
best definition would be earning not more than a certain amount of wages. He therefore could not support the Amendment, and he moved to amend the Amendment by substituting the word "mean" for "include."
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD pointed out that if the Amendment were adopted wherever the expression "working classes" appeared in the Housing Act it would be absolutely restricted to the persons actually named in this particular section. Whether they tried to define the working classes by reference to wages or occupation, they would fail.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): If you say that the working classes shall mean so and so you exclude everything except what you therein state, so that you may omit by this process many whom you desire to include. If, on the other hand, you say that the definition shall include so and so it leaves it still open to add an indefinite number to those who are specified in the clause. I speak with diffidence, knowing what the House has already decided in Committee, but does it not show that there are some things which you cannot define and that you had better use the regular phrase and leave the definition to the Courts? I venture to suggest that that would prove the safest course in the end.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE thought the simple test of wages would be quite sufficient. Then there would be no objection to the word "mean"—that the working classes shall mean persons in receipt of 30 s. a week.
THE EARL OF CREWE: If we accept the limit of wages in some haste, might it not land us in difficulties? A boy grows up and earns 7s. or even 3s. a week. Does that mean that you are to evict the father and mother and the whole family because their joint earnings have thus passed beyond the necessary standard, to say nothing of the ordinary case of a rise of wages which would involve a man breaking up his home and going elsewhere? I have been all through of the opinion that for this particular purpose it is impossible to define working classes, and I maintain that view.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN thought that in view of the objection of the right rev. Prelate it would be advisable not to go further than to say "in this Act" and he would propose to amend it in that way.
Further Amendment to the Amendment moved—
"To leave out the words 'in the Housing Acts,' and to insert the words 'in this Act.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I wish I could suggest any form of words which would meet the case. I am bound to say I was impressed by what was said a moment ago by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he suggested to us that in this clause it was absolutely necessary there should be some slight measure of elasticity. If we do not allow that modicum of elasticity we may find ourselves in the position of having excluded from the benefits of this Bill persons whom on mature reflection we should desire not to exclude. I should myself have thought that even if the word "include" was substituted for the word "mean" it would have been a valuable indication to those who would have to interpret the section as to the kind of people to who we intended it to apply.
On Question, VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN'S Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
On Question, LORD CAMPERDOWN'S Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved a proviso in Clause 50, which provided that the expression "cottage" in Part I might in-include a garden of not more than one acre, that "the estimated annual value of such garden shall not exceed £3."
Amendment moved—
"In page 23, line 29, after the word 'acre' to insert the words 'provided that the estimated annual value of such garden shall not exceed three pounds.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments to Clause 53 agreed to.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved an Amendment to Clause 54 (Preparation and approval of town-planning schemes), providing that a scheme might be made as respects any land which is in course of development "or is required in order to further such development," instead of "or appears likely to be used for building purposes." The latter words he considered too indefinite. In the neighbourhood of a great town all land within twenty miles might be held by many people to be likely to be used at one time or another for building purposes, and he wished to limit the area to such legitimate and reasonable expectations as might fairly and justifiably be put forward.
Amendment moved—
"In page 28, line 5, to leave out the words 'appears likely to be used for building purposes' and to insert the words 'is required in order to further such development.'"—(Lord Hylton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the provisions in the Bill were not unreasonable if town planning was to become of practical use. Land likely to be used for building purposes was exactly the kind of land that was wanted to bring into a town-planning scheme, and the noble Lord's Amendment would limit the scheme to land actually in course of development, already laid out for building, or where building was in progress. Their Lordships had inserted a number of safeguards in the clause which would go far to protect the land referred to in the Bill. No man's land would be included in a scheme without his being consulted, and if his property was injuriously affected by the scheme he could get compensation.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE said the words in the Bill were "appears likely." Who were those to whom it was to appear likely?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The local authority and the Local Government Board, and I am not quite sure, after the Amendments introduced, that it does not also include Parliament.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER thought some qualifying words were required, because the words might apply to a scheme thirty years hence.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the noble Lord is not quite accurate in saying they could apply to any land except land included in the scheme. Subsection (1) de-
686
fines the kind of land to which they apply. I think it is extremely important not to limit the kind of land which could be used, and I confess I do not exactly see, and nobody has explained so far, what are the dangers or hardships which could occur to anybody. A case in which land might be taken under a scheme although it was not absolutely ripe for building would be that where a town was laying out a large area they might say "We shall want to take over such and such a place for the purposes of a public, park." I hope noble Lords will agree to leave the clause as it stands.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Although I like my noble friend's wording better than the wording in the Bill, I do not attach so much importance to the alteration as some of my friends on this side apparently do. The clause says that you are to be at liberty to deal with land which appears likely to be used for building purposes. Appears to whom? I suppose to the local authority or the Local Government Board, or both. My noble friend proposes that you should be allowed to deal with land "required" in order to further such development. But it must be so required in someone's opinion. The two forms do not greatly differ in substance. I am much more inclined to attach importance, not to the wording of this clause but to the ultimate form in which the Bill may pass with regard to the tribunal which may decide these matters. We have asked for a strong and impartial tribunal, and if, as I hope, we get such a tribunal, then I think that the actual form of words used at this point is not a matter of extreme importance; and, therefore, I should suggest to the noble Lord that he should not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved an Amendment to Clause 56 (Contents of town-planning schemes), providing that every scheme should include a schedule showing each parcel of land which it was proposed should be affected, together with a map or plan. There was no place in the enacting part of the Bill where it was specifically directed that those plans were to be prepared as part of the scheme. It was perfectly clear that unless there were plans and specifications of some kind it would be impossible to know what the betterment would be under a scheme, or,

687
if he might use so odious a word, what the worsement would be, and he thought the noble Earl would recognise that some such Amendment was required.
Amendment moved—
"In page 31, line 20, after the word 'apply' to insert the words 'including a schedule showing each parcel of land which it is proposed shall be affected by the making of the scheme, together with a map or plan'; and after the word 'and' to insert the word specifying.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought there was a great deal in what the noble Marquess said as to there being a plan at the office which everybody would be able to inspect, but if the noble Marquess insisted on the plan or the map forming part of the scheme then it would have to be reproduced with every copy of the scheme. That would add very considerably to the cost of printing, and was not necessary. He did not know whether the noble Marquess would think it desirable to insist in some way that these maps should be made. He did not doubt that these maps would be made for the office of the central authority. If the noble Marquess thought it desirable that might be secured.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said a map was the one thing wanted. There was no necessity to make it part of the scheme.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the noble Marquess required that it should be part of the scheme and that it should be circulated with every copy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said not necessarily circulated with every copy. If, however, the noble Earl did not like the words of his Amendment he would not press them, but would leave the noble Earl to draft another form of words for the Third Reading. If the noble Earl would not do that he himself would have to press the matter.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think the noble Marquess had better put it in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend subsection (2) so as to read "Special pro-
688
visions shall in addition be inserted in every town-planning scheme defining the area to which the scheme is to apply and the authority who are to be responsible for enforcing the observance of the scheme and for the execution of any works which under the scheme or this Act are to be executed by a local authority," etc. This was, he said, an Amendment which was discussed by their Lordships at some length and was raised by the noble Viscount with regard to the execution of work by the local or responsible authorities. It never was intended—and he believed he said so in Committee—that these authorities should execute works such as those described by noble Lords opposite, and this Amendment and other Amendments in his name were for the purpose of making the actual intention clearer. The works which the responsible authority would carry out, almost as a matter of course, would be sewage and works of that kind, and there was no idea that they would be given general power to do other work which usually devolved upon landowners and builders. Under those circumstances he moved this Amendment, and if noble Lords desired any further explanation of the subsequent Amendment he would be happy to give it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 31, line 21, to leave out 'or for the execution,' and after 'scheme' to insert 'and for the execution of any works which under the scheme or this Act are to be executed by a local authority.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said that so far as he had been able to study the Amendments placed on the Paper by the noble Earl they did not forbid the local authorities from undertaking the work which the noble Earl said they were not to undertake. Surely some provision of that kind ought to be inserted. The only provision in the words of this Amendment was that the works to be undertaken should be specified in the scheme. He had an Amendment at a later point dealing with this subject.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think we might discuss it at that point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE moved the reinsertion of the words "statutory enact-

689
ments" in the subsection. As this was a clause, he said, which dealt with a scheme to be proposed it ought to show if it purported to suspend or affect statutory enactments. As he thought he was wrong in Committee he ventured to ask the noble Earl to accept his apology.
Amendment moved—
"In page 31, line 29, after 'any' to insert 'statutory enactments.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Would not this give power to the scheme to suspend statutory enactments?
LORD ALVERSTONE: No; it does not sanction it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved the deletion of the words "made under the authority of the Local Government Board" in the subsection, which were inserted in Committee. The noble Marquess said: I make the same speech as the Lord Chief Justice.
Amendment moved—
"In page 31, line 30, to leave out 'made under the authority of the Local Government Board.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to amend subsection (3)—
(3) Where land included in a town planning scheme is in the area of more than one local authority, the responsible authority may be one of those local authorities, or for certain purposes of the scheme one local authority and for certain purposes another local authority, or a joint body constituted specially for the purpose by the scheme, and all necessary provisions may be made by the scheme for constituting the joint body and giving them the necessary powers and duties.
by inserting after the first "authority," the words "or is in the area of a local authority by whom the scheme was not prepared."
Amendment moved—
"In page 32, line 2, after 'authority' to insert 'or is in the area of a local authority by whom the scheme was not prepared.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said he would like to ask a question with regard to this part of
690
the clause. He thought it might, perhaps, avoid an amendment at a future stage. He understood that where a scheme was in the area of two authorities, either one authority might make the scheme or they might make a joint scheme. What he would like to ask was, As the Bill stood would not the one authority be able to make the scheme even in the case where the other local authority was perfectly willing to do their share in carrying out the scheme? One did not see why an authority should be able to go into the area of another authority to make a scheme in a case where that other authority was willing to act. It seemed to him that the clause required words to provide that the one authority should only act in respect of any land within the area of another authority if the other authority were not prepared themselves to carry out the town-planning scheme for that area. They could both, of course, act together in a joint scheme; but it did not seem to be proper for the one authority to act in the two areas, although the other was willing to act in its own area.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP hoped the noble Lord's fears were not likely to be realised. If the case imagined by the noble Lord arose, he did not think the scheme under such circumstances would go forward, because it would have to be submitted, and it was only after agreement on all these points that the scheme was likely to go through smoothly. Therefore, there was not likely to be the friction which the noble Lord anticipated.
LORD BELPER: But if there is no power under the Bill there might be friction.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment to Clause 58 agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to amend, in Clause 59, the proviso which referred to subsection (2) as a "provision," by the substitution of the word "subsection" for the word "provision."
Amendment moved—
"In page 33, line 36, to leave out 'provision' and to insert 'subsection.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought the word in the Bill was clearer.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said it was simply a question of style. If the Government thought the word "provision" good style, he was content.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, who had an Amendment on the Paper to subsection (3):—
"(3) Where, by the making of any town planning scheme, any property is increased in value the responsible authority, if they make a claim for the purpose within the time (if any) limited by the scheme, not being less than three months after the date when notice of the confirmation of the scheme is first published in the manner prescribed by regulations made by the Local Government Board, shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value the amount of that increase."
to leave out the words "the amount of that increase," and to insert "such proportion of their expenditure as failing agreement in the opinion of the arbitrator has increased the value of such property." He said the Amendment was a very important one, because it contained a definition of what betterment was to be. But for the sake of clearness he wished to make a verbal alteration in the Amendment, so that it should read: "Such proportion of the expenditure of the authority as failing agreement," and so forth. Their Lordships would remember that on the Committee stage he drew attention to the words in the Bill which provided that in the case of a town-planning scheme any increase of value which arose in any property in consequence of the scheme should belong to the local authority. He thought there was a general agreement that the words as they stood in the Bill could not pass. He did not think that was questioned in any quarter. He did not believe the Government questioned it, and he knew noble Lords behind them did not. Therefore some Amendment was required. The Amendment he had put down contained, he believed, the fairest method of dealing with the matter.
The effect of the Amendment was this. The local authority had been put to certain expenditure in carrying out their town-planning scheme, the result being to benefit certain classes of property. It seemed quite clear that if that were the case the whole of the expenditure should be reimbursed to the local authority by
692
those persons who had benefited by it. The words of the Amendment were drawn so as to give a certain elasticity and to leave it to the arbitrator to assign it between different owners of property as might be thought just; or there might be an occasion when the benefit was so obviously greater to the public than to the owner that only a small portion ought to be charged to the owner; but whatever increase might be said to have accrued to the owner's property, to that extent he must reimburse the local authority for the expenditure to which they had been put. That seemed to him to be perfectly fair. Some members of their Lordships' House might ask, What advantage, then, had the local authority got by making the town-planning scheme? They got two advantages. In the first place, they got the very special advantage, which all administrators ought to desire, that they increased the prosperity of the locality over which they had jurisdiction. That was what they existed for, and that was what they were elected for. The other advantage they got was a substantial pecuniary one—namely, a large increase in the rateable value of the district from which they derived their income. It was quite clear that if the result of a town-planning scheme was to raise the value of a particular owner's property it would not only benefit the owner but would also benefit the authority, because the rating value would increase in exactly the same proportion, and a large pecuniary gain would result to the rating authority.
Those being the main arguments, he submitted the clause as a perfectly watertight clause to their Lordships' consideration. It went upon a definite, fixed, and comprehensible principle. There was nothing arbitrary about it, and it was perfectly simple. A local authority put to certain expense were reimbursed that expense if it could be fairly charged as an advantage to particular individuals. The noble Earl the Lord Steward had an alternative proposal; he proposed that they should, as it were, cut the Gordian knot by arbitrary division of the increment into two parts, giving one to the owners and the other to the local authority. Of course, the noble Earl would understand him when he said there could be no defence to such a proposal. There could be no defence because there was no particular merit in one half one way or the other. It might be too great in one

693
case and a great deal too little in another. It was evidently a proposition very difficult to defend. It was not the occasion or the time of night to go into elaborate considerations even if he were capable of doing it, but it might, he thought, be easily shown that an arbitrary distinction of that kind could not be made. He still submitted that his proposal was the right solution of this difficult point.
Amendment moved—
"In page 34, line 8, to leave out from 'value' to the end of the subsection, and to insert 'such proportion of the expenditure of the authority as failing agreement in the opinion of the arbitrator has increased the value of such property.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think we all agreed when discussing this question before that it was one of marked difficulty, but the noble Marquess has, if he will forgive me saying so, solved the difficulty by evading it altogether and simply by taking nothing whatever in respect of betterment. Surely it must be that if anything is to be charged in respect of betterment the amount expended by the local authority, which, after all is a pure accident, ought not to be the governing factor in estimating that betterment. You can conceive a great number of cases where a man's property—in fact, everybody's property concerned in the scheme—may be very slightly benefited by a most expensive operation on the part of the local authority. On the other hand, you can imagine cases where a comparatively small expenditure on the part of the local authority would appreciate to a vast extent certain lands belonging to a particular owner. Yet, under the proposition of the noble Marquess, the owner in the first case might have to pay a considerable sum, and in the second case the man whose property was vastly benefited might get off by scarcely paying anything whatever. The noble Marquess and the House must bear in mind what the proposition is. The noble Marquess himself used the word "increment"; we have to bear in mind that it is not the increment in land which is to be charged for this purpose. All you can charge is what is actually due to the scheme. Now what in a case of such a kind is actually due to the scheme? It would be usual, I suppose, when the question was under consideration for an owner of land to go before the tribunal and point out that as a matter of fact, although
694
the scheme had opened up his land, it had been of comparatively little advantage to him. The noble Marquess on the Committee stage mentioned the case of some land near the seaside which had an agricultural value of £100 an acre which value was increased to £500 an acre by a small operation of road-making on the part of a particular local authority, and he inferred from this that the whole of the £400 betterment would be taken by the local authority; but, surely it is hardly conceivable that the whole of the increase could be caused by the act of the local authority in making the scheme. I find it very difficult to conceive such a case. Supposing there was a land-owner whose land was between the site in question and a railway station or a main road, it is evident that unless the intervening landowner was a person of an extraordinary character he could be what is commonly called "squared" by very much less than the amount which the local authority, according to the noble Marquess, would claim under the scheme; and, therefore I think it will be found if you examine closely into all possible cases that the amounts which could be fairly set down by an arbitrator as payable in respect of the scheme would be infinitely less than at first sight one would be disposed to imagine. I confess that when I first looked into the matter I did think that such cases as the noble Marquess indicated would be possible under the clause, but when one considers that the only sum which is chargeable is the difference between what the land would be worth at a particular moment, on the one hand with the scheme and on the other hand without the scheme, the amounts cannot, I think, be very large. The noble Marquess asks why we fixed on one-half as a maximum. It is, of course, always a very easy question to ask why one has fixed on a particular figure for a particular purpose. It does seem to us that there are cases in which the local authority might fairly claim as much as one-half; and in those circumstances, feeling, as I said at first, that the suggestion of the noble Marquess really evades the point at issue because it allows for nothing but, so to speak, the out-of-pocket expenses of the local authority, I am afraid we cannot agree to the Amendment.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH said it was impossible to discuss this Amendment without comparing it with the

695
alternative Amendment proposed on behalf of His Majesty's Government. He thought, with profound deference, that if they were thinking of the owner of a private property he would possibly have to pay more under the Amendment of the noble Marquess than under the alternative proposed by the Government, because under the latter, at all events, what he would have to pay would be limited to half the amount of the increased value. If, for example, a great town-planning scheme cost £20,000 and the effect of that was to raise the value of certain property belonging to A by, say, £800, the arbitrator had to say how much of the £800 ought to be paid back again to reimburse the local authority for the expenditure which had caused the increase in the value. There was an existing practice in the case of county councils when levying an expenditure over a portion of their area which was supposed to be particularly benefited, to say that that particular area was to pay three-fourths of the expenditure and the remainder of the county one-fourth. That, possibly, might be a precedent in the arbitrator's mind for awarding three-fourths of the increased value instead of one-half.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN reminded the noble Lord that what the Government proposed to do was first of all to take half of the improvement and then charge increment duty on the remainder.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said that as he had had to deal with this question hundreds of times, might he point out that the only logical course was that suggested by the noble Marquess. They were not considering the taxation of increment value or the putting on of land tax, but how much ought to be paid because a man's property was benefited by a particular improvement called a town-planning scheme. That kind of question had been considered by skilled arbitrators for many years. The Government without giving the slightest reason said that half the increased value was to go into the pocket of the local authority. Why? Nobody could suggest why one-half more than 10 per cent. He turned to the scheme of the noble Marquess. The local authority in the course of a town-planning scheme had made a road at a cost, say, of £1,000. The arbitrator would say, "This road has been made by a paramount authority, and this particular owner has got the benefit
696
of it. He would have made the road if he could, but he could not get the consent of other owners or had not the money to do it. The result is that that particular expenditure has led to the improvement of his property. How much ought he to contribute towards the outlay?" The noble Earl said that was not betterment at all. He (Lord Alverstone) said with great deference, having studied the subject for years, that it was the true and right measure of betterment. Now what would the problem be? The arbitrator would say, "I find an acre of this land has been improved—or it may be three or four acres—because of the particular road, and that so much of the value which has been added ought to be borne by the landowner." But, as the noble Marquess had pointed out, the circumstances might be so various and the amount of land which benefited might be so uncertain that nobody could predict what the increased value would be. The Leader of the House solved the question by saying it would be very small, and that he could not conceive any harm. How could the noble Earl possibly say? It was an injustice to the local authority. If the local authority had spent X pounds and that had improved the property of A, B, C, and D round the planning scheme, the expense of the local authority ought to be borne by the owners in such proportion as the arbitrator thought just. He was quite satisfied that from the point of view of justice both to the local authority and the land owner the scheme of the noble Marquess was the only one that could be accepted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question here is whether the charge ought to be measured by the sacrifice made by the local authority or by the advantage derived by the owner. There are precedents for the adoption of the latter standard. If I remember aright, in several private Bills for London there was a provision made for betterment—betterment measured, I think, not by the expenditure, which is quite an unpractical method, but measured by the profit of the owner.
LORD ALVERSTONE: The local authority got nothing.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD pointed out that the clause as it originally stood provided for recovery "where, by the operation of any town-planning scheme,

697
any property is increased in value," but their Lordships substituted the word "making" for the word "operation." He could imagine a scheme causing certain properties to rise immediately in value, and if the Amendment of the noble Marquess were carried it seemed to him that the local authority would get nothing whatever out of any kind of improvements to such property. There was a difference between the making of a scheme and the operation of a scheme. The latter would include improvements on which money was spent, but the very making of a scheme might quite conceivably raise the value of certain kinds of property all round a town.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said the right rev. Prelate would see that if a scheme of that kind were made and there was a large increase of value in consequence the rating authority would profit enormously because the rateable value would go up and they would be gigantic gainers without having paid anything.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD said he did not propose anything; he only called attention to the Amendment on the Paper.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE moved to insert, after "Act," the words "in accordance with Schedule I of this Act." He said that he only moved the Amendment in order to ensure that the scheme should be in accordance with the Act.
Amendment moved—
"In page 34, line 18, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'in accordance with Schedule I of this Act.' "—(Lord Alverstone.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend Clause 60, subsection (1), by leaving out the words "could be enforced by" and inserting the words "would have been enforceable if they had been contained in." He observed that this was merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 44, lines 32 and 33, to leave out the words 'could be enforced by' and to insert the words 'would have been enforceable if they had been contained in.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN was afraid he could not agree with the noble Earl in thinking that this was purely a drafting Amendment. The clause read—
"Where property is alleged to be injuriously affected by reason of any provisions contained in a town-planning scheme no compensation shall be paid in respect thereof if or so far as the provisions are such as could be enforced by bylaws made by the local authority."
That meant by-laws actually in existence. The Amendment, however would make the clause read, "if or so far as the provisions are such as would have been enforceable if they had been contained in by-laws made by the local authority." That surely was quite a different thing from the proposal in the Bill.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the matter was really governed by the words "would have been enforceable if they had been contained in by-laws." The provisions were not enforced by by-laws.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN thought the explanation was not sufficient. He must object to the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND did not think their Lordships should pass the Amendment. What was "enforced" and what was "enforceable" could not be the same thing.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY formally moved an Amendment standing in his name next on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
"In page 34, line 33, to leave out from the word 'or' to the end of the subsection and to insert the words 'under the provisions of a local Act or Provisional Order in force within the area at the time of the confirmation of the scheme.' "—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that noble Lords opposite had objected to his drafting Amendments and they could not expect that he should accept without question all the Amendments they moved with the assurance that they were of a drafting nature. In the case of the present Amendment he was able to point out that it was not strictly a matter of drafting.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY observed that he would be delighted to accept any change which the noble Earl wished to make in the Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Amendment was in substitution of words which Viscount Midleton had inserted in Committee. The object was to prevent compensation being payable in respect of any injury caused by a town-planning scheme in a similar manner to that provided for by the London Building Acts. That was already covered, however, by Clause 59, which governed the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY explained that he had thought the drafting of Viscount Midleton's Amendment might have been improved somewhat. He was aware that his noble friend was not responsible for the actual words inserted in Committee, but if the noble Earl did not like the words of the present Amendment he would not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved to delete from subsection (2) of Clause 60 the words "so as to give rise to any claim for compensation under this part of this Act." He said he had another Amendment on the Paper, and as the two referred to the same matter they should be considered together. The second Amendment was to insert at the end of subsection (2) the following—"provided that if it shall appear to the arbitrator that such provisions are unusual and impose excessive restrictions upon the use of the property, and that under all the circumstances compensation should be awarded he may, notwithstanding anything in this subsection contained, award such compensation as he may think just." If their Lordships referred to the subsection in question they would notice that it sought to impose on owners of land conditions which were burdensome, excessive, and very arbitrary. When the Bill was under consideration in Committee he moved to delete subsection (2) of this clause, but in deference to Viscount St. Aldwyn, as well as to the lateness of the hour, he withdrew the Amendment in order to save the trouble of a Division. Careful examination of the subsection would show their Lordships, however, that the conditions it contained were very dangerous and far-reaching in character. When this
700
clause was brought up in another place, it was passed under the closure resolution proposed by His Majesty's Government and the House had no opportunity of discussing it. Then the clause came up to their Lordships' House, and again by a misfortune it passed through the Committee stage without any discussion upon it. Therefore he felt that before the Report stage was concluded their Lordships should be given an opportunity of expressing an opinion.
He would add a word in explanation of the object of the Amendment. He did not say it would be necessary on all occasions to pay compensation to the landowner, but if certain circumstances arose which, in the opinion of the arbitrator, demanded that compensation should be given, the Bill should provide for it to be given. When their Lordships reflected that the subsection gave power to prescribe the space about buildings, and to limit the number, or height, or character of buildings, he felt sure they would say that it should not be passed without some promise from His Majesty's Government that it would be modified either now or on the Third Reading. It appeared to him that under the Bill they might very easily deprive an owner of the whole or the greater part of his property without giving him a chance of getting one penny of compensation. They had not heard the view of the Government on the question, and he hoped the noble Earl would be able to give an assurance that this very drastic subsection would be modified.
Amendment moved—
"In page 34, line 37, to leave out from 'affected' to 'by' in line 39."—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP was sure noble Lords opposite would be as much surprised as he had been to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, that a landowner might have his property taken from him under the provisions of the Bill without compensation being awarded. The various provisions introduced into the Bill by noble Lords opposite, quite apart from provisions which His Majesty's Government had always intended should be in the Bill, he was sure, made such a state of things impossible. He thought the Amendment of the noble Earl would go rather further than the mover himself expected, because power

701
would be given to an arbitrator to vary a scheme to which no objection had been taken by the authority or the person interested, and which had been confirmed by the Local Government Board. The adoption of the noble Earl's proposal might have curious results. An owner might not have asked for compensation, and might not even think that he was deserving of compensation, and yet if in the opinion of the arbitrator it was a case in which compensation should be paid the arbitrator might give the owner compensation. Again, if a scheme had been confirmed by Parliament after a full consideration of all the facts by a Select Committee, the arbitrator might, despite the fact that the Select Committee had said nothing about compensation, go behind the Act of Parliament and award compensation. Their Lordships, he thought, were hardly likely to adopt a course which would give an arbitrator power to go behind an Act of Parliament or a Select Committee. To embark on such a course would be dangerous and they had better avoid it altogether.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND wished to know whether what the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, had said was quite the case. The clause said, "Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected so as to give rise to any claim for compensation under this Part of this Act." Therefore the compensation must be under the provisions of the Bill, and the Bill said that Parliament by means of a Provisional Order, or the Local Government Board, as the case might be, was to decide the claim. He did not think it was true to say, therefore, that under the Amendment of his noble friend it would be possible for an arbitrator to give compensation in spite of no compensation having been awarded by a Provisional Order. He would like to hear a legal opinion on that point.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought their Lordships must read both Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, together. If they did so they would see that what he had said respecting the power that would be given to the arbitrator became quite possible.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said he would not proceed with his second Amendment.
Drafting Amendments to Clause 61 agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW, for the MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, moved the insertion of a new subsection in Clause 62. He said the noble Marquess, having to leave the House, had asked him to take charge of this Amendment, the object of which was plain on the face of it. Perhaps noble Lords on the Government bench might feel some surprise that such an Amendment should be brought forward I on that side of the House. The Amendment was a form of applying "ginger," because it provided that where a local authority had refused to proceed with an order the Local Government Board might act in place of the authority and do all that was necessary. It was further provided that a Committee of either House of Parliament might award costs against the local authority or to the local authority. Without this new subsection the Amendment of Earl Cawdor might be rendered absolutely nugatory if a local authority refused to proceed with an order.
Amendment moved—
"In page 36, line 23, after the words 'authority' to insert as a new subsection—
'(2) Where a local authority refuse or neglect to proceed with an order made by the Local Government Board in pursuance of their powers under this section sanctioning a town-planning scheme, the Local Government Board may act in the place of the local authority and do all things necessary for the promotion of the scheme with a view to its confirmation in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, and in the case of an order referred to a Committee of either House of Parliament, that Committee, in the exercise of their powers as to costs, may award costs to the Board against the local authority or to the local authority against the Board in respect of all such costs, charges, and expenses as, in the opinion of the Committee, have been reasonably incurred at any stage of the proceedings by the Board or by the local authority respectively, and all costs so awarded shall be recoverable by the Board or by the local authority as the case may be in accordance with the provisions relating to costs awarded by a Committee of either House of Parliament under this Part of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP confessed that he had not expected the Amendments on Report would take so long as they had proved to do. He felt bound to consult the convenience of the House as a whole and to ask whether they should proceed with the rest of the Amendments that night in the absence of the noble Marquess who possessed a knowledge of the Bill

703
which had been of great use to the House and who had proved a courteous opponent to noble Lords on the Government side. As to proceeding further with the Amendments, he would point out that they had now dealt with most of the matters of importance and there was very little remaining to be done. Under the circumstances they might, if noble Lords opposite agreed to it, take the exceptional course of deferring any Amendments of substance till the Third Reading of the Bill and deal now only with the drafting Amendments, which would take off the Paper a large number of the Amendments still remaining to be gone through. With regard to the new subsection now under consideration, he might say that noble Lords on the Government side were naturally rather surprised that such an Amendment should come from the Opposition. He was informed that the Local Government Board did not desire the power which would be conferred upon it by the Amendment. The preparation of a scheme involving repeated conferences with landowners and others in a locality could be properly undertaken only by an authority on the spot. If the Local Government Board were to undertake the work they would require to have a special staff whose duty it would be to investigate all the local circumstances and to consult with people regarding the promotion of town-planning schemes. Procedure of that kind would be very expensive and probably much less satisfactory than if the matter were carried out by the local authority. Therefore he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved an Amendment in page 36, line 26, after "enforce," to insert "effectively." He said that this was one of a number of Amendments to which he had already referred and to which Viscount St. Aldwyn called attention on the Committee stage. The noble Viscount had put down a series of alternative Amendments, but in the opinion of the Local Government Board they would go too far as they would leave the Board without power to compel the responsible authority to execute any part of a scheme.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said it was not his intention to move the Amendments down in his name.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The remaining Amendments standing in the name of EARL BEAUCHAMP were also agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved the addition of a proviso to Clause 62. He moved this Amendment, he said, in order to make clear what, he thought, the Government desired—namely, that houses should not be built under these schemes by the local authority except in so far as they were bound to build houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts.
Amendment moved—
"In page 36, line 30, after the word 'effectively,' to insert the words 'Provided that no Order made under this section shall compel the responsible authority to undertake the erection of houses which they could not be ordered to erect under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts as amended by Part I of this Act.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Government's objection to the Amendment was that the word "houses" which the noble Viscount had put in was thought to be so wide as to prevent the responsible authority being compelled to erect a town hall, or even an office for the surveyor or inspector under the scheme. While the Amendment was open to the objection he had indicated, he realised that it was undesirable for the provisions of the Bill to be so interpreted that there would be no work which the responsible authority might not be compelled to undertake. He felt at a disadvantage in discussing the Amendment at that late hour, and if the noble Viscount thought there was some substance in it perhaps he would raise the matter again on the Third Reading. The word "houses" was, however, too broad an expression for the purpose.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN was much obliged to the noble Earl. He would bring up the matter on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE moved to leave out Clause 63, which ran—
63. Where the Local Government Board are authorised by this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder to determine any matter, it shall be at their option to determine the matter as arbitrators or otherwise, and if they elect to determine the matter as arbitrators, the provisions of

705
the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, respecting arbitrations by the Board of Trade, and the enactments amending those provisions, shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to the Local Government Board and the determination of the matters aforesaid:
Provided that where the question to be determined is a question whether property is injuriously affected or increased in value, or as to the amount or manner of payment of the sum which is to be paid as compensation or which the responsible authority are entitled to recover from the person whose property is increased in value, the Local Government Board shall not determine the question otherwise than as arbitrators except with the consent of the parties interested.
He thought the Government would agree that the clause was no longer wanted.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 63."—(Lord Alverstone.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH moved to insert a new clause in place of the clause just omitted.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'63. The procedure of the Local Government Board upon an application in respect of any matter which they are authorised by this Part of this Act or by any scheme made thereunder to determine shall be such as the Board may by rules determine, and on any such application the Board may make such order in the matter as they think equitable, and any order so made shall be binding and conclusive on all parties.'"—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved the addition of a proviso to Clause 66.
Amendment moved—
"In page 37, line 29, after 'Acts' to insert the words 'provided that in the case of a rural authority such expenses shall be levied in such manner and by such separate rate and subject to the same exceptions and provisions as are applicable under the said Acts to special expenses.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Government accepted the Amendment as consequential, but not in principle.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to amend Clause 67, sub section (1)—
706
67.—(1) This Part of this Act shall apply to the administrative county of London, and, as respects that county, the London County Council shall be the local authority.
by inserting, after the first "shall," the words "except as otherwise expressly provided." He thought the Government would agree that these words were necessary.
Amendment moved—
"In page 38, line 1, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'except as otherwise expressly provided.' "—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said his Amendment to Clause 68 was a Scottish Amendment and was moved to make it clear that the order referred to was the order under Clause 62 of the Bill and not under any of the other clauses of Part 2 of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 38, line 31, to leave out the words 'this Part' and to insert the words 'section sixty-two.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP thought their Lordships would see that his next Amendment was also a very proper one.
Amendment moved—
"In page 39, line 9, after 'Scotland' to insert the words 'with the substitution of the Edinburgh Gazette for the London Gazette.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY THE EARL OF HARROWBY moved to amend Clause 69 by the addition of the following new subsection, "A medical officer of health of a district who is not in private practice shall not be appointed for a limited period only and shall be removable by the electing authority with the consent of the Local Government Board and not otherwise." He said that this subsection dealt with the district medical officers of health who were whole-timers and not with those who only gave half their time. The county medical officers of health were put on quite a different footing from the district medical officers. The Government inserted a clause giving security of tenure

707
to county medical officers, and in his remarks on the Second Reading of the Bill he thought the noble Earl made out a very good case why the district medical officers of health should have the protection which they asked for. He could imagine that the noble Earl would express sympathy with the Amendment, but would say that it was impossible to accept it because it was out of order, If their Lordships looked at subsections (2), (3), and (4), however, they would see that references were made there to district medical officers of health. He was told that the Government proposed to bring in a Bill next session to deal with the whole question, but the present President of the Local Government Board might not be in office next year and even if he were there might not be time available to pass a Bill. He therefore urged the noble Earl to accept this subsection which met with the approval of the Opposition. He had hoped that his noble friend, Lord Belper, the representative of the Association of County Councils, would have supported him that night. Though he had not that assistance, as noble Lords on the Opposition side were ready to afford district medical officers of health the protection which they sought, not only in their own interests but in the public interest, he hoped the Government might be able to see their way to accept the subsection.
Amendment moved—
"In page 39, line 27, after subsection (3) to insert the following new subsection—
'(4) A medical officer of health of a district who is not in private practice shall not be appointed for a limited period only and shall be removable by the electing authority with the consent of the Local Government Board and not otherwise.'"—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP could assure the noble Earl that he was not less in sympathy with the objects of the Amendment now than he was when he spoke on the Second Reading. He had heard, however, that a similar Amendment was put down at various stages when the Bill was under discussion in another place, and it was ruled out of order on the ground that it hardly carne fairly within the scope of the Bill. Though it did not in anyway bind their Lordships' House, it was desirable, under the circumstances, that they should follow that ruling and await the introduction of the Public Health Bill next session, when he hoped this, or a similar section, would be passed without opposition.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to leave out from subsection (1) of Clause 72 the words "establish a public health and housing" ["every county council shall establish a public health and housing committee"] and to insert the words "appoint a." The clause as it stood obliged a county council to appoint a special committee for the purposes of the Act. Of course all were agreed that a committee must be appointed, but in the case of many county councils a committee took up two branches of work. For instance, in the county council over which he had the honour to preside they had for years had a Property and Sanitation Committee. The sanitation duties of that committee were such as' were described under this Bill and would doubtless be accepted as satisfying its provisions, but it combined the business of looking after the property of the county as well. It had been found convenient to refer both subjects to one committee and he could not think there was any object to be gained in binding a county council to appoint a special committee for the single purpose of exercising their duties under the provisions of this Bill. Under the old Small Holdings Act and Allotments Act a county council had to appoint two committees, one for small holdings and another for allotments. That was found to be a very inconvenient procedure, and in the same way he believed it would be found very inconvenient were the county councils compelled to appoint a special committee to carry out the proposals of this Bill alone. The Amendment would enable power to be given to county councils to appoint a committee to carry out this work, but it would not bind them down so that the work in question would be all that the committee would be able to undertake.
Amendment moved—
"In page 40, line 28, to leave out the words `establish a public health and housing' and to insert the words 'appoint a.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP was sorry that the Government could not accept the Amendment. One of the main principles of this part of the Bill was to call attention to the

709
importance of this subject, and it was thought that to set up a statutory committee of the kind proposed dealing with this special subject was the best way to set about the matter. There was also the question of public convenience to be considered, and it was believed that if every county had a special committee dealing with the subject it would greatly facilitate the working of the Bill, while at the same time ensuring that information would be readily accessible to everybody, because there would be no confusion as to the source to which to apply for it. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent other duties being put on the committee if that were desired by any particular county council, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to the terms of the Bill, especially as this proposal was based on the recommendations of the Select Committee.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND desired to know if he might take the noble Earl's speech as an authoritative statement that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent other duties being placed on the committee.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP promised that if it were not the case under the Bill that this could be done, the matter should be put right on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE moved to omit from the First Schedule paragraph 5, which, he said, could not possibly stand in the Bill because it prohibited counsel and expert witnesses. In this particular case there could not possibly be a stronger instance of the injustice of not allowing counsel to be heard. The local authority would be the other party in the appeal. The local authorities had town clerks and expert officers who were constantly dealing with this kind of matter. The result would be that there would be on the side of the local authority an expert adviser. He had himself more than once been engaged in these cases and met men who were more than a match for any counsel. The prohibition of counsel would certainly be depriving the landowner, whose solicitor had very likely not had any experience of these cases, of having the assistance to which he was entitled. The family
710
solicitor could not employ another solicitor. He must either go himself or he must employ counsel, and to suggest that a local authority, who had their expert adviser in the person of their town clerk or solicitor constantly dealing with these kinds of questions, was to be allowed to have such officers appearing and that the land owner should be prohibited from having counsel was nothing short of a monstrous injustice. The provision that counsel should be allowed to appear in cases in which the Local Government Board decided was an extraordinary one. He could not imagine a greater misuse of power than that the Local Government Board, in many cases directly interested under this Bill, should be allowed to say whether a person who had a claim was to be represented by counsel. There were questions of injurious affection, questions of how much the land was to contribute, and questions of closing orders, and to say that no counsel should be allowed was, in his opinion, a great injustice and one which could not possibly be allowed to remain in the Bill.
With regard to expert witnesses, he would only say that equally in this case the local authority always had their expert witnesses. The town clerk and the borough surveyor were always experts. They knew all about the value of the land. The poor, unfortunate man who was having, perhaps, his six or seven acre field taken was to be at the mercy of the local authority because he was not to be allowed to have anybody come in and say what the value of his land was. He agreed that in interests of economy there should be a limit—that was dealt with in a subsequent Amendment—but to prohibit it altogether would again be giving to the local authority preference and privilege to which they were certainly not entitled. The earlier part of the paragraph meant nothing. To say that a man was to act on his own experience as to whether a house ought to be closed, and his own experience as to whether land was injuriously affected, was simply to say that a man was to disregard evidence that might be brought before him. He supposed they would be told that this was taken from the Small Holdings Act. If that were so, all he could say was that the experience of that Act did not encourage in them the belief that that Act ought to be perpetuated. The injustice that had been caused under that Act in cases before the Courts would not have occurred had a man been able to

711
have proper representation. But he put the matter forward net on those grounds but as a point of principle. There was nothing in the procedure of this Bill, nothing in regard to questions of improved town-planning, of pulling down houses or of taking a man's property for the purposes of erecting working-class dwellings—there was nothing in those questions which ought to induce their Lordships to deprive a man of having proper representation. If they did not allow that right to the landowner they were conferring a great preference and privilege on the local authority such as they ought not to confer. This was a most important Amendment, and he had received representations respecting it from many parts and from representatives of many professions other than that of his own, the Bar.
Amendment moved—
"In page 44, lines 17 to 23, to leave out paragraph (5)."—(Lord Alverstone.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the noble and learned Lord had prophesied quite correctly that the defence of His Majesty's Government would be that a similar procedure had been allowed by their Lordships with regard to the Small Holdings Act, and therefore it might have been thought that it would have been allowed in the present Bill. The object of the proposal, both in the Act and in the Bill, was to save time and expense, but their Lordships had not seen their way to adopt proposals which the Government made with regard to procedure under the Bill. Therefore they would not offer any opposition to the alteration which the noble and learned Lord suggested. The same remarks applied to subsequent Amendments. The Government recognised that strength of numbers prevented them opposing the Amendments with any hope of success, and, therefore, although they could not be held responsible for the Amendments, they did not propose to go to a Division.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON)THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON) said the noble and learned
712
Lord had made a very serious statement in saying that injustice had occurred under the Small Holdings Act. He did not suggest going into the matter now, but if the noble and learned Lord would permit he would lay the whole case before him and show him that no injustice had occurred of any sort, shape, description, or kind.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW hoped the noble Earl would fulfil this promise, because it would be a most interesting subject of discussion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 44, line 31, after the word 'unnecessarily' to insert the words 'except with the leave of the arbitrator not more than one expert witness shall be called by any party appearing on an arbitration under this schedule.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments to the Second and Sixth Schedules agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 188.)

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

POLICE BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Steward (E. Beauchamp)). (No. 189.)
House adjourned at ten minutes past Nine o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.