Sitting of 6 October 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bury Corporation Bill (by Order),—
Lords Amendments considered:—
Lords Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 35, line 17, agreed to.
Lords Amendment, in page 35, line 17, to leave out ("local and"), the next Amendment, read a second time, and disagreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by their Lordships to the Bill.
Committee nominated of: Sir Frederick Layland-Barratt, Mr. Charles Nicholson, Mr. Robert Pearce, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Toulmin.
To withdraw immediately.
Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Charles Nicholson.]
Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Rosyth (Graving Dock Accommodation).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an increase is now contemplated in the graving dock accommodation at Rosyth?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The matter has not yet come up for consideration.

  Troopships (Boat Accommodation).
  Mr. W. W. ASHLEYasked what steps were taken to ensure that on every troopship there are sufficient boats to accommodate everyone on board in the event of fire or shipwreck?
  Mr. McKENNA: The inspection will be by the Admiralty Inspector.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask if the inspection by the Admiralty inspector is carried on in all respects as if it were under the regulations of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; he does not inspect as if he were an inspector of the Board of Trade, but he uses the forms and regulations made by the Board of Trade.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask whether in the case of a troopship it is seen that accommodation is found, if necessary, for every soul on board?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is the regulation of the Board of Trade.

  British and German Cruisers (Comparative Fighting Power).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the German cruiser which was laid down in 1907, at the same time as the British "Invincible," is of considerably greater displacement and fighting power than the British vessel, and whether the German Government have, during the last year and the present year, laid down two more cruisers still larger and more powerful?
  Mr. McKENNA: The details with regard to the "Von der Tann," which is assumed to be the vessel referred to in the first part of the question, have not been made public, but it is not anticipated that the comparison suggested with regard to our "Invincibles" will be found to be justified. It has been stated in the Press that the two cruisers laid down subsequently by the German Government will be larger and more powerful than the "Von der Tann."
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not a fact that the German cruisers have twelve big guns and ours only eight?
  Mr. McKENNA: It may be well known to the hon. Gentleman, but we have no official information on the subject.

  Royal Navy ("Canopus" Class).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether various ships of the "Canopus" class are now lying at Chatham with not more than twenty deck hands on each; whether other ships of this class on their arrival from the Mediterranean are to be reduced to a like complement; and, if so, whether the present manning of these ships is due to the admitted shortage of personnel or to the

  1985
  intention of the Admiralty to remove these fine ships from the active list of battleships?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The hon. Member has no justification for stating that there is an admission of shortage of personnel if he means to suggest that that admission is made by anybody of competent authority or knowledge. Vessels of the "Canopus" class are gradually passing into the fourth division of the Home Fleet as they are replaced by later types.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Then are we to understand that these battleships are going on the scrap heap?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
  Mr. ASHLEY: If that is not so, why have these battleships not got a proper complement of men?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is rather difficult to explain the organisation in answer to a question across the floor of the House, but the fourth division of the Home Fleet has nothing to do the scrap heap.

  H.M.S. "Invincible" (Gun Turret Apparatus).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether H.M.S. "Invincible" has carried out any of the regular gunlayers' tests since she was first commissioned; whether any practice, and, if so, what, has been made with her heavy guns; and whether he can state if the experiment of fitting this ship with electrically-worked apparatus for her gun turrets instead of the hydraulically-worked system has rendered this "Dreadnought" cruiser practically inefficient in the matter of gun-fire up to the present time?
  Mr. McKENNA: Gunlayers' test with 4-inch guns has been carried out. No practice has been carried out with heavy guns. It is not the case that the "Invincible" has been unable to fire her guns, due to defects in electrically-worked apparatus; but it has been considered advisable to make certain alterations, chiefly of a mechanical nature, found necessary by experience before carrying out the annual firings with heavy guns.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Then are we to understand that this electrically-worked apparatus is to be retained?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, the hon. Gentleman may understand that.

  British, and German Battleships.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether there are now building in this country any battleships, and if so, how many, equal in gun-power, speed, and defensive armour to the most modern German type now being constructed under the German naval pro grammes of 1908 and 1909; and whether any British battleships equivalent to these will be in commission by December, 1910?
  Mr. McKENNA: The details of the German 1908 and 1909 battleships have not been made public.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the Admiralty does not know what the German battleships of those year's programmes really carry?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman any further information.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Naval and Military Attaché in Berlin?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, sir, I have asked the Naval Attaché in Berlin.

  Australia (Naval Defence).
  Earl WINTERTONasked what is the number of men which will have to be lent to the Commonwealth Government to carry out the agreement made with Australia; and whether it is intended to increase the personnel to make good the loss incurred by the Imperial Navy?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is premature to make any statement on the subject. The questions discussed at the recent Conference are still under the consideration of the Commonwealth and other Dominion Governments concerned. I may say, however, that the noble Lord is in error in assuming that under the arrangement there will be any loss incurred by the Imperial Navy.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it a fact that the Imperial Navy is going to lend 2,000 men?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, sir, no such figure, as I am aware of. If it were true, they would not entail a loss in the personnel of the Imperial Navy. We have a larger number of men already on the Australian station at the present time.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Are they to be diminished on the Australian station, or will they be replaced by colonials?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot discuss the question at the present time. The Australian command does not imply there will be any loss in the Imperial personnel.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the time this agreement is to come before the Australian Commonwealth Parliament?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I am unable to give any information without notice.

  Naval Programme (Second-class Cruisers).
  Earl WINTERTONasked whether the four second-class cruisers to be provided by contract in this year's Estimates have been ordered; if so, whether he will give the dates at which they were laid down; and, if they are not yet laid down, when tenders will be called for for these cruisers?
  Mr. McKENNA: The four protected cruisers of this year's Estimates have not been ordered. Tenders have been invited, and received; they are now under consideration.

  Rear-Admiral Sturdee.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state why Rear-Admiral Sturdee, who was promoted admiral in September, 1908, has since that date been passed over for employment by four officers junior to himself?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is undesirable in the interests of the Service and of individual officers themselves to canvass their qualifications or suitability for employment.
  Captain FABER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if Admiral Sturdee was Lord Charles Beresford's Chief of Staff?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; I believe he was when he was captain.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask if this officer received a warning that if he remained with Lord Charles Beresford he might find himself unemployed?
  Mr. McKENNA: The statement made by the hon. Gentleman is absolutely without warrant, and he has no right whatever to make any such statement in public.
  Captain FABER: But was Admiral Sturdee told to go on a holiday like Captain Hulbert?

  Persia (Internal Condition).
  Mr. J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any improvement is reported in the internal condition of Persia, more particularly in the provinces on the northern shore of the Persian Gulf?
  Captain NORTON (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply for him. The latest reports received indicate that the situation has not become worse during the last few weeks, but it is still unsatisfactory. Kerman and Sultanabad have been the chief centres of disturbance, and there has been much lawlessness on the southern roads, especially those from Bushire to Isfahan as far north as Abadah, and from Kerman to Yezd. In Tehran perfect order has been maintained, and the principal towns in the provinces have remained undisturbed. The Bunder Abbas district has been reported to be quiet, but at Lingah the peace has been threatened by the activities of Seyyid Hussein Lari, against whom repressive measures are being taken by the Persian Governor of the Gulf Ports.

  Board of Inland Revenue (Staff).
  Mr. RENTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, how many officials, established and non-established, including non-pensionable employés, were employed in the service of the Board of Inland Revenue on 31st March, 1906, and 30th June, 1909, respectively.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The figures asked for are as follows:—

  1906–31st March.

  1909–30th June.

  Established.

  Non-Established.

  Established.

  Non-Established.

  5,631*

  1,479

  2,191

  1,443

  * This total includes 3,979 Excise Officials who since 1st April, 1909, have been under the Board of Customs and Excise.

  Treasury Staff.
  Mr. RENTONasked how many officials, established and non-established, including non-pensionable employés, were employed in the service of the Treasury, including Customs and Excise, on 31st March, 1906 and 30th June, 1909, respectively.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Any comparison of figures in these years is vitiated by the amalgamation of the Customs with the Excise, but the figures are as follows:—

  1906–31st Mar.

  1909–30th June.

  Established.

  Non-Established.

  Established.

  Non-Established.

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  217

  144

  229

  164

  Customs and Excise Department

  3,878

  1,387

  7,849

  1,589

  Woods and Forests Department (Staff).
  Mr. RENTONasked how many officials, established and non-established, including non-pensionable employés, were employed in the service of the Woods and Forests on 31st March, 1906, and on 30th June, 1909, respectively?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: About 660 officials and employés were employed on 31st March, 1906, and the same number on 30th June, 1909.

  New Forest (Hare-hounds).
  Sir ROBERT HOBARTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he was aware that under the New Forest Deer Removal Act, 1851, 14 and 15 Vic, c. 76, s. 9, the Crown may grant licences to sport in the New Forest, and that such licences have been granted for many years to packs of fox-hounds, deer-hounds, otter-hounds, hare-hounds, and basset-hounds; whether he was aware that the licence to hare-hounds had recently been withdrawn by the Crown authorities; and whether he would arrange with His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests to renew or regrant the licence to the hare-hounds?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Commissioner of Woods has been in the habit for many years past of giving leave for hunting in the New Forest by various packs of hounds, including hare-hounds. This year he has felt compelled, in the interests of the Forest as a whole, to refuse leave for hunting by a certain pack of hare-hounds, and I can hold out no prospect of his decision being reconsidered.
  Sir ROBERT HOBART: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a Petition signed by 448 persons, representing the trade of Lyndhurst, also the followers and puppy walkers, of the hare-hounds, requesting that permission for these hounds to hunt in the New Forest for the past 40 years,
  1990
  which is now withdrawn, may be granted to hunt the hare in the Forest on the same terms as other New Forest packs?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is true that I received this petition, but like many other petitions a good many of the signatures appear to be in the same handwriting.
  Sir R. HOBART: I verified most of the signatures. I knew the handwriting of the persons.
  Mr. E. H. CARLILE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the grounds for the refusal?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, Sir, the real fact of the matter is there seems to have been a personal quarrel between some people in the New Forest. The inhabitants of the New Forest are mostly Unemployed. Their principal occupation appears to be to get up disputes with each other—some of a rather serious nature, and this happens to be one of these cases.

  Irish Trade Statistics.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the difficulty of ascertaining the nature of Irish imports and exports, tooth as regards quantiy and quality, he will make arrangements necessary for securing accurate records in these matters?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have no means of ascertaining the quantities and value of Irish imports and exports in the sense of this question. The direct foreign trade of Irish ports is shown in Volume II. of the Annual Statement of Trade, in the same way as the direct foreign trade of other ports in the United Kingdom. But there is no statutory authority for obtaining records of the coastwise trade between Ireland and Great Britain.
  Mr. T. M. KETTLE: Is it not the fact that the returns are inaccurate because the Irish exporter and importer need only make a return if they choose, there being no legal obligation to do so? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to put the matter on a more satisfactory basis?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is true there is no statutory authority to compel the making of returns. I cannot promise fresh legislation at this stage of the Session.
  Mr. KETTLE: Can you promise it at any stage of any Session?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have no authority to do that.

  Civil Service (Superannuation Act).
  Sir GEORGE KEKEWICHasked at what date the superannuation forms prescribed by the Treasury regulations were issued to the Government offices; and whether, seeing that the date of adoption of the Act by any Civil servant is the completion by him of the form, instructions were given that the forms should be immediately placed in the hands of the Civil servants concerned?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A circular enclosing copies of the Treasury Regulations under Section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1909, and of the prescribed forms of application for permission to adopt the provisions of the Act was issued by the Treasury to all public Departments on 21st September, the day following that on which the Act became law. The Departments were instructed to obtain further supplies of forms from the Stationery Office, and I am informed that each requisition has been dealt with at once, without any delay. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is in the affirmative.
  Sir GEORGE KEKEWICHasked whether, in the case of a Civil servant who died between the date at which the Superannuation Act came into operation and that at which he would have had an opportunity of filling up the superannuation form, his family would get no benefit from the Act, although the delay was due to the non-issue of the forms and not to the neglect of the Civil servant?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If a Civil servant dies before he has applied to be allowed to adopt the provisions of the Act, his family will, of course, not be entitled to the benefits of the Act, but I see no reason to suppose that any application will be delayed by the non-issue of the prescribed forms.
  Sir G. KEKEWICHasked at what date superannuation forms were issued to the Department of Customs and Excise; whether the forms have been actually placed in the hands of Civil servants in that Department; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The supply of forms of application to adopt the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1909, was received at the Customs House on the 30th ultimo, and copies were forwarded to the various supervising officers on the 2nd instant for issue to their subordinates. It is presumed,
  1992
  therefore, that a form has already been placed in the hands of every established officer of the Department who is not absent from duty.
  Sir G. KEKEWICH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these forms were only actually placed in the hands of the officials yesterday?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think that is so, but it was not the fault of the Stationery Department. It was due to some misunderstanding at the Customs Office.

  Belfast Telegraphists' Instrument Room.
  Mr. LONSDALE (for Captain Craig)asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that for a number of years repeated representations have been made by the Belfast branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, with reference to the unsatisfactory lighting of the local instrument room; whether the Department has acknowledged the legitimacy of these complaints; whether he is aware that over 12 months ago, on the recommendation of an officer from the engineer-in-chief's office, who paid a special visit to Belfast in connection with this matter, an improved system of lighting was authorised, and that at a staff meeting held recently complaint, in view of the near approach of winter and the fact that so much work is performed under artificial lighting conditions, was made regarding the failure in carrying out the new installation; what has been the cause of this delay, and can it now be stated when the work will be proceeded with?
  Captain NORTON: The Postmaster-General has requested me to reply on his behalf. Complaints have been received from the staff on the subject, and I regret that, while efforts have been made from time to time to improve matters, no satisfactory scheme has up to the present been brought into operation. The room is difficult to light properly, and special investigation has been carried out and experiments made with metallic filament lamps in order that a correct judgment might be formed as to the best system of lighting. A report has now been received, and the work will be put in hand at once.

  Poor Law Information (Disclosure to Political Agents).
  Mr. CLAUDE HAYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether a member of a board of guardians is entitled by any rule of the Local Government

  1993
  Board to communicate to a paid political agent information, known to him only in his capacity of guardian, as to the persons whose poverty necessitated their receiving Poor Law relief?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The reply is in the negative. The Board have not made any Rule on the subject.
  Mr. HAY: Then am I to understand that a member of a board of guardians is at liberty to communicate to any third party information received in his official capacity as to the circumstances of those in receipt of poor relief?
  Mr. BURNS: I do not think the hon. Member is justified in drawing that deduction.

  Chiswick Frontage Dispute.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Chiswick Urban District Council paved Barrowgate-road in 1901, subsequently took legal proceedings against one of two frontagers who refused to pay their apportionments, abandoned these proceedings, and then in the middle of the night of 20th May, 1909, tore up 300 to 400 feet of paving stones fronting the premises of the person against whom they started legal proceedings; and whether he proposes to hold a public inquiry into this expenditure of public money on legal proceedings and in regard to this destruction of public property?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received a Memorial on this subject from some of the ratepayers of the district. It is not one, however, with respect to which I am empowered to direct an inquiry at the present time. The only jurisdiction I should have in the matter would be on an appeal from the decision of the auditor as to the legality or otherwise of the expenditure incurred. It will be competent for any ratepayer to raise this question before the auditor at the audit of the accounts in which the expenditure is charged.

  Encouragement of Scottish Fisheries.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it will be necessary to carry forward to next year the whole of the unexpended balance of £141,118 of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account; and, if not, whether he will devote a further sum of £15,000 towards
  1994
  marine superintendence, having in view the inadequacy of the present payment and the importance of encouraging and safeguarding the interests of the fishing communities on the coasts of Scotland.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. Ure): The whole unexpended balance referred to, except a sum of £933, consists of moneys paid into the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, under statutory direction, prior to 31st March, 1909, to provide for payment of grants as authorised by the Agricultural Rates, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1896, and the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898, during the ensuing six months. The sum of £933 is an undistributed balance of the Medical Relief and Pauper Lunacy Grants for 1908–9, and must be applied in augmenting the corresponding grants for the current year.

  Corporal Punishment, Gibbons-road School, Willesden.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention had been drawn to the case of a schoolmistress at Gibbons-road council school, Willesden, who was summoned at Willesden Police-court on the 17th instant for severely caning a boy, eight years of age; whether he was aware that the boy was placed in a class-room by himself, and without supervision, because his parents objected to him receiving religious instruction; whether the offence for which corporal punishment was inflicted was directly or indirectly due to such isolation; and, if so, whether he would take steps to prevent such treatment of children whose parents approve of moral instruction and object to religious instruction being given?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I have no information about the case referred to. If my hon. Friend will supply me with details I will gladly have inquiries made, as if the facts are of the character suggested I think those responsible for them should be severely dealt with.

  FINANCE BILL.

    INDIAN RAILWAY ANNUITIES.
    Mr. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the concession allowed under Clause 50 (2) of the Finance Bill covers the case of Indian railway annuities payable by the Secretary of State in London?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): Such annuities as fall to be paid in the United Kingdom out of Indian Public Revenues would be covered by the Finance Bill, Clause 50 (2).

    ABATEMENT OF INCOME TAX.
    Mr. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether abatement of Income Tax hitherto allowed to persons residing for less than six months in the United Kingdom was now withdrawn; and, if so, in what clause was the specific provision in this behalf in the Bill contained?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If a person comes to this country for a temporary purpose only—and not with a view to establishing his residence here—and shall not actually have resided in this country at one time or several times for a period equal on the whole to six months in any one year, there is no liability to Income Tax in respect of remittances of income from abroad. In this respect no change is contemplated under the provisions of the Finance Bill.

    Indian Police Service.
    Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he was aware that discontent exists among the members of the Indian police service owing to the fact that one of the chief recommendations of the Police Commission, namely, that which prescribed 25 years as the normal period of service, had not been carried out; whether the Secretary of State had received numerous petitions on this subject; and whether it was intended to take any action in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The Secretary of State has received from police officers numerous petitions having reference to the point mentioned in the question. He is considering the matter in consultation with the Government of India, and is unable at present to make any further statement.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police and Public Meetings.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state under whose directions and by what authority the Dublin Metropolitan Police interfered with the executive of the Town Tenants' League in Dublin when promoting a public
    1996
    meeting to protest against a case of threatened arbitrary eviction in O'Connell Street?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Chief Commissioners of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, with the sanction of the Government, informed the promoters of the meeting that it could not be held, as proposed, in one of the principal thoroughfares of the city and close to the scene of the impending eviction. A meeting in such a place would have been calculated to cause obstruction, and to provoke a breach of the peace. The promoters thereupon selected Beresford Place, where the meeting was held without interference on the part of the police.
    Mr. FIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is within the power and jurisdiction of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to endeavour to prevent public meetings of the citizens even for legal purposes?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes. They have ample powers to deal with obstruction of the leading thoroughfares in Dublin.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland)—Claim of Thomas Robinson.
    Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the Estates Commissioners have allowed the claim of Thomas Robinson as the representative of an evicted tenant, although his application, having been signed only on 31st October, 1908, was, therefore, beyond the limit of time specified in the Act of 1907, and have regarded him as fully qualified to receive an advance of £2,350 to purchase the farm of Kildrum, on the Kingston estate, from which Robert Fraser was evicted, the Commissioners will also take into consideration the claims of other evicted tenants or their representatives whose applications have not been made within the time prescribed in the Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Applications received from evicted tenants or the representatives of evicted tenants subsequent to the date specified in the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, cannot be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners under that Act. Where, as in the case referred to, the applicant comes within the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Irish Land Act, 1903, his application will be considered in connection with sales under that Act.
    Mr. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would undertake to ask the Estates Commissioners to reconsider this case, as according to information supplied to us this man is in no true sense an evicted tenant?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Well, Sir, I am quite ready to ask any question you desire. I do not think the case of this gentleman could be considered properly that of an evicted tenant; but he had other grounds to justify his application.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Was not it only on grounds of his being an evicted tenant that he got this farm? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will inquire whether Robinson applied as an evicted tenant off his own bat, or whether it was after questions in this House that he applied under the Evicted Tenants Act, and was put up to do so by an Estates Inspector?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have no objection to ask questions of the Estates Commissioners, but I decline altogether to consider myself a responsible person to pass under review the decision of those three gentlemen.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.

    OUTDOOR RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION.
    Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked whether the Government would consider it well at an early date to rescind the Clause which disqualifies old people, otherwise eligible, from receiving old age pensions on the ground of having received poor relief.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The disqualification in respect of past receipt of poor relief will, in the absence of fresh legislation, expire automatically on 31st December, 1910. The Government are, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget speech, most anxious to get rid of this disqualification at the earliest possible date, but he is not yet in a position to add anything to what he then said upon the subject.

    CASE OF MRS. BRIDGET ROCHE, KILFINANE.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary if he would state on what grounds the Local Government Board overruled the old age pension committee at Kilfinane, county Limerick, on their granting to Mrs. Bridget Roche the pension which they considered her justly entitled to under the Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board upheld the appeal of the pension officer in this case as Mrs. Roche's name appeared in the out-door relief register as dependent upon her husband, who was in receipt of out-door relief.

  Troopships (Safeguarding Officers and Men).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War why the military authorities take no steps to safeguard the lives of officers and men when on a troopship?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): All the arrangements for the hiring of troopships are made by the Admiralty, and the responsibility of securing that the conditions of such hire are complied with naturally rests with that Department. The King's Regulations contain detailed instructions for the behaviour of troops in case of fire or collision.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Supposing the First Lord of the Admiralty does not carry out his duties has the Secretary of State for War any control over him?
  Mr. HALDANE: He does carry them out.

  Army Catering (Rank and File).
  Mr. BOWERMAN (for Mr. William Thorne)asked the Secretary of State for War whether he would grant facilities to the rank and file of the Army to cater for themselves, as are allowed to the commissioned ranks?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am afraid that the hon. Member's suggestion is impracticable. In barracks at present, within certain limits, soldiers settle details regarding the cooking of their rations and the expenditure of the messing allowance.

  Army Manœuvres (Field Allowances to Officers and Men).
  Mr. BOWERMAN (for Mr. William Thorne)asked the Secretary of State for War if he would state what extra money grants per day are allowed to officers whilst on manœuvres; and if any extra money grants are allowed to the rank and file whilst on manœuvres?
  Mr. HALDANE: Field allowances at rates varying from 3s. a day upwards according to rank are allowed to officers and 1s. a day to warrant officers, whilst on manœuvres, in aid of the expenses caused

  1999
  by their being placed under canvas. The rank and file do not receive any extra money grant, they are not put to any similar expense.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Are you sure of that?
  Mr. HALDANE: Quite sure.

  Special Reserve (Royal Field Artillery).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the number of Regular Artillery to replace the Special Reserve formed but of the old Artillery Militia regiments about to be disbanded would be of equal numerical strength to the disbanded regiments; and, if not, whether more or less, and by what number?
  Mr. HALDANE: The establishment of the Royal Field Reserve Artillery will be ultimately reduced from 12,000 to 6,000. The establishment of the new three-year men in the Regular Royal Field Artillery is 5,000, and it is expected that this number will create a normal reserve of nearly 14,000.

  Suffragettes in Prison (Supply of Food).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had received a copy of the opinion given by Dr. Forbes Ross that forcible feeding by the methods employed in the case of the women suffragette prisoners in Birmingham Gaol is an act of brutality beyond human endurance, that it is frequently followed by an intractable disease known as chronic pigmentary colitis, and that asylum patients who have to be fed in this way die, as a rule, of the treatment; and whether, in view of the risks involved to the prisoners who are being so treated, he would give orders for the practice to be discontinued?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I have found the statement referred to, which I had not previously seen, in a Sunday newspaper. I am advised that it can only refer to a method of feeding employed when feeding by the stomach is impossible; and that it has no bearing on the methods of feeding adopted at Birmingham.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state how many of these ladies are being fed
  2000
  in this manner at the present time, and whether, in view of the very widespread feeling, amounting to revolt, against such feeding, he cannot see his way to alter it?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have answered several questions upon that point before.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Not from me.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No prisoners are being fed by the methods indicated in the question. I think at the present time two are being fed by the tube.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is it not true that this opinion of Dr. Forbes Ross was given on the assumption that the food was being administered by a tube passed down the throat, and is he aware that other medical men have also published similar opinions in "The Times" newspaper?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I was very much surprised indeed at the opinion expressed by the doctor in question. It would have been very desirable if he had made some inquiry before committing himself to such an opinion.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether he had received a memorial signed by Sir Victor Horsley and 116 other medical practitioners pointing out that the compulsory feeding of women prisoners is attended with the gravest risks, that unforeseen accidents are liable to occur, that the subsequent health of the person so treated may be seriously injured, and that, in the opinion of the memoralists, the action is unwise and inhuman, and praying him to use his influence to prevent the continuance of the practice; and whether he was prepared to accede to the prayer of the memorialists?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The Memorial has been received. Though the statements it contains are not borne out by the prison medical authorities, whose experience of artificial feeding is necessarily much wider than that of the memorialists, I thought it right to refer the Memorial to the President of the Royal College of Physicians, and I have this morning received the following letter from Sir Richard Douglas Powell:—
  "I beg to state that I do not agree with the opinion expressed in the Memorial signed by some medical, practitioners in protest against the artificial feeding of certain prisoners who refuse to take food in the normal manner. The statements contained in the Memorial are inaccurate and greatly exaggerated. The method of artificial feeding is largely employed amongst those

  2001
  who, from mental aberration, refuse to take nourishment otherwise, and also with those who are physically unable to take it.
  "It would be an exaggeration to say that the method of artificial feeding is wholly free from the possibilities of accident with those who forcibly resist, but no such cases have come to my knowledge. Nor can it be said tha the method is as convenient or as free from possible digestive ailments or discomforts as a reasonable diet taken naturally would be. But it may be remarked that patients have been so fed successfully for years. It is the only measure that can be adopted to maintain the health and preserve the lives of persons who persistently refuse food.
  "I am assuming in my reply that the feeding of these patients is entirely carried out by skilled nursing attendants under careful medical observation and control."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Were temperature charts taken, and have they been kept?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The feeding is carried out by medical officers, who are perfectly competent, and I have no doubt all the necessary precautions were taken.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the feeding always carried out by medical officers, or is it not sometimes administered by nurses?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I am informed that it has been carried out up to now by the medical officer.
  Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that, in view of the great public interest taken in the matter, there is an independent medical officer?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: As a matter of fact an outside medical officer has been called to the assistance of the medical officer of the prison.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I admit that feeding by tube is done by the medical officer, but where the system of feeding by cup is employed, is that not done by nurses?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: That is a detail of which I should not like to speak with perfect certainty. I imagine there would be no pain in administering feeding by cup. I am under the impression that where feeding by cup has been had recourse to the prisoner has drunk from the cup.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to whether, when feeding by cup has been employed, the nostrils and the throat are not held while the liquid is forced into the mouth?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: All I can say is that I am absolutely satisfied that whatever has been done has been done in a proper and most humane manner.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not a fact that all this trouble and revolt might have been avoided if the Prime Minister would only be reasonable and receive a deputation?

  Cavalry and Yeomanry (New Pattern Sword).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with re-arming the cavalry with the new pattern sword; and whether there is any intention of arming the Yeomanry with the sword?
  Mr. HALDANE: As regards the first part of the question, I have nothing at present to add to the information already given. As regards the second part of the question, no decision to arm the Yeomanry with the sword has at present been come to.
  Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand that the suggestion has been abandoned of arming the Yeomanry with the sword?
  Mr. HALDANE: No, the whole thing is under very careful consideration. There is great division of opinion among the commanding officers.

  Post Office Accommodation (Urban Areas).
  Mr. BERTRAMasked whether it has been hitherto the practice of the Department to refuse additional post office accommodation in urban areas, notwithstanding the offer of an urban council to guarantee the Department against loss on working under the Post Office Act of 1898; how many applications of this nature have been received from urban councils since the passing of the Act; how many of such applications have been rejected; and what are the grounds of such rejection?
  Captain NORTON: It is not known, and could not readily be ascertained, how many applications have been made under the Act of 1898. They are certainly rare. Applications would be refused if the existing facilities were adequate, having regard to the distance from the nearest office, the character of the locality, and the amount of business to be dealt with; and if a new office were opened it would only result in undue expense and wasteful competition with an existing office. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain the purpose of the Act

  2003
  in question in the words of the hon. Member who introduced it. "All this Bill proposes to do is to give the urban councils and councils of boroughs the same powers as parish councils already have. There are parts of boroughs and urban districts remote from the centre of population which are unable to get these facilities, and are thus excluded from the benefits which they would get if they were separate districts." The case in which the hon. Member is interested does not appear to my right hon. Friend to be one of the kind to which the Act was intended to apply.

  Birching Sentences (Jedburgh).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked with reference to sentences of birching passed on children in the Sheriff Substitute's Court at Jedburgh, whether the system followed in the River Baillie's Court at Glasgow has been introduced there under which an official inquiry into the parentage, character, and life history of the child, and the public prosecutor refrains in many cases from bringing the offender before the Court, while protecting the law and order by means of cautions and warnings to the child or parent and by using a friendly supervision?
  Mr. URE: I think my hon. Friend will understand that a system which may be suitable for a city like Glasgow is not necessarily suitable or practicable in a rural district. I am informed that while no special official is allocated to the purpose indicated every care is taken by those responsible to make full preliminary inquiry with a view to dealing with juvenile cases outside the court in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend wherever that course is possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  PROPOSED ADJOURNMENT.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House yesterday that he had an important statement to make with regard to public business.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope we shall be able to get through the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to-night, and I trust that my hon. Friends will assist us in getting to the end of these proceedings. If we do, we shall propose to-morrow to
  2004
  proceed with the Development Bill. If we do not succeed in securing the Report and Third Beading stages this week, we shall proceed with the Bill on Monday in next week; and, as soon as the third reading has been secured, we shall propose to adjourn the House until the following Monday, to enable Members of the House to have a full opportunity of considering Amendments for the Report of the Finance Bill, which will be placed on the Paper before the Adjournment. On Monday, the 18th instant, we propose to put down, as the first Order, the London Elections Bill, Report stage, and to proceed on Tuesday, 19th October, with the Report stage of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not in any event propose to take a Saturday sitting? If the Development Bill is not finished on Friday he proposes to take it on Monday. I believe there will be no difficulty, as far as my inquiries go, in finishing the Finance Bill to-night if everyone sets his mind to work; but I understand that that is contingent upon the right hon. Gentleman being of the same mind as he was yesterday, and giving us an opportunity of considering the Tobacco Duties upon the re-committal of the Bill at a later stage?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If we find we cannot get a Debate on the Tobacco Duties to-night, it will be a perfectly reasonable thing for the Opposition to ask for opportunities for a discussion on a re-committal. Perhaps we had better not make up our minds about that until we see whether we cannot get a Debate to-night at a reasonable time. I have promised the right hon. Gentleman, if that was his view, that, so far as I was concerned, I would agree to a re-committal for the purpose of getting a Debate owing to the circumstances in which it passed the Committee. With regard to a Saturday sitting I am very much in the hands of the House. Supposing we could not get through the Development Bill, third Reading, as well as Report, to-morrow and Friday, it might be more convenient for everyone even, if necessary, to have a Saturday sitting in order to have the whole of next week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow that to be discussed later on in the usual way and say nothing for the present. I simply suggest that it might be more convenient for everyone that we should dispose of the Bill this week so as to have the whole week.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether the course the Government propose to adopt in adjourning over next week at such short notice is going to be very inconvenient to the great majority of Members, and is going to prolong the Session probably a week nearer Christmas. We understand that there is still a considerable amount of business to be got through before the Session closes. There are Bills which have been to another place and have to come back here for consideration, and to have an adjournment next week is only going to prolong the final closing of the Session. Could we not get on with the Housing and Town Planning Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There will be plenty of time to consider those Bills when the Finance Bill leaves the House. The Government have arranged that it will not have the ultimate effect of prolonging the Session. It is quite necessary that there should be at least a week's interval. A good many promises have been made in the course of the Committee stage of Amendments on the Report stage, and I think the Government should have full time to consider them before they are placed on the Paper. The Amendments refer to matters of considerable importance, and I think it would be a mistake to put them down in a hurry. It would certainly be in the interest not only of the Government but of all parties that there should be at least a week's interval.

BILL PRESENTED.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) ACTS (1875 AND 1885) AMEND MENT BILL.
  Bill to direct the Returning Officer in a Parliamentary Election to repay to a candidate who has been returned unopposed, or being opposed has polled one-third of the total number of electors voting in such election, the amount of any deposit made by such candidate under and by virtue of the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Acts, 1875 and 1885, or the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) (Scotland) Acts, 1875 and 1885.—[Mr. Edward Dunn.] Presented, and read the first time. (To be read a second time upon Monday, 18th October.)

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[42 nd Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(See col. 1669–1679, Official Report 4th October.)
  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.

  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move to leave out the words in the second column, and to insert instead thereof "Duty specified in Scale 4."
  In moving the Amendment I shall endeavour to act in the spirit of what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now. We on this side of the House will do our best, as we have done during the past few days, to promote business. Beerhouses stand on quite a different footing from fully-licensed houses. There are a large number of them in the country, and their case deserves certainly as much consideration from the Government as that of the fully-licensed houses. In the first place, there is a fixed duty of £3 10s. on all the beerhouses, whatever their annual value may be. That fact differentiates them from the fully-licensed houses which at present have Licence Duty fixed according to a scale of their annual value. Our case is this: We say that no further duty ought to be exacted on these beerhouses, but that, if there is to be a further duty, the duty proposed by the Government of one-third of the annual value is far too high. My scale, while moderate, does increase the £3 10s. to which they are at present liable; but, at the same time, it is very much more in their favour than that of the Government. May I give a few figures comparing the duty under the scale I am proposing with the duty they will have to pay under the scale in the Bill? The duty on a £20 house under my scale would be £4 a year as against £6 13s. 4d. under the scale in the Bill; on a £50 house £10, as against £16 13s. 4d.; on a £100 house £17 10s., as against £33 6s. 8d.; on a £150 house £22 10s., as against £50; on a £200 house £25, as against £66 13s. 4d.; on a £300 house £30, as against £100. I think my scale is a reasonable one. The number of beerhouses in England and Wales is 29,419, but of these 25,985, or 80 per cent., are pre-1869 beerhouses.

  2007
  I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to state shortly what the history of these old beerhouses is. They were created under an Act of Parliament which was passed in 1830. Up to that time for 300 years the policy of Parliament had always been that houses where beer was retailed should have a licence issued by the justices. A grievance had come to pass, the quality of the beer supplied by those engaged in the trade having deteriorated, while the price had risen very much indeed. The effect of this was that people had got into the habit of drinking spirits to an extent more than was considered desirable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1830, in moving for a Committee to inquire into the state of the law with respect to the sale of beer, said:—
  "It had been shown by previous inquiries that the present system of licensing had given rise more or less to a degree of monopoly in the beer trade, which had produced two evils, one, a deterioration in the quality of beer; two, an enhancement of its price, both of which were, in effect, a severe tax on the poorer classes. Both these he hoped to remedy, but he begged to be understood as not at all yielding to the imputations thrown upon a wealthy and respectable class of individuals engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer; the fault, if fault there was, was the fault of the law. His view was that by opening the trade the means of consuming beer would be extended, and that no injury would be inflicted upon the brewer, while an important benefit would be conferred on the public; and he was convinced that the apprehensions felt by many persons interested in the present system, when any alteration was spoken of, would turn out to be unfounded."
  Under that provision any householder whose name was on the rate book was authorised to sell beer free from any control after obtaining a licence from the justices on the payment annually of an Excise Licence of two guineas. The preamble of the Bill of 1830 is in the following terms:—
  "Whereas it is expedient for the better supplying the public with beer in England to give greater facilities for the sale thereof than are at present afforded by licences to keepers of inns, alehouses, and victualling-houses, be it therefore enacted…"
  The immediate effect of the passing of that law was that no fewer than 24,342 persons paid £2 2s. and took out licences to sell beer. Fifty beer shops were opened in Liverpool alone every day of the week for several weeks. This went on for a considerable number of years, and by the year 1869 the number of beerhouses had reached about 50,000. In 1869 Parliament decided that the whole of these licences must come under the jurisdiction of the licensing justices. When doing that they admitted that these ante-1869 beerhouses had got a vested interest, because they had been created on the invitation
  2008
  of Parliament for a public policy, and therefore they were entitled to the consideration of Parliament. Therefore it was enacted that the licences should not be taken away from those old beerhouses unless in cases of misconduct, or of the houses not being proper. That was the position in 1869. The only alteration which now obtains is the alteration created under the Act of 1904 by my right hon. Friend and Leader (Mr. Balfour), in which they were brought under the general principle that if they were redundant licences the justices should be entitled to suppress them on payment of the whole compensation. That is the position of these beerhouses at present. Whatever their annual value may be they are all paying only £3 10s. per year. I am not able to tell the Committee exactly the numbers according to rateable value, because no statistics are shown, but I find that in the county of London alone there are nine of these beerhouses of upwards of £300 annual value, and there is one in the City of £800 annual value. In the former case these nine houses in London which now pay £3 10s. would have to pay a duty of £110, and the house in the City would have to pay £266 a year, and £12 more on account of taking out a wine licence, against £4 which it is paying at present. But the case of these beerhouses is very much accentuated by the minimum duty imposed by this Bill. The minimum duty is most oppressive in the large towns of over 100,000 inhabitants, namely, the limit of £23 10s., which is going to create a very great grievance. I have taken three cases to show the Committee the effect of the proposed increase. In Bristol the increase of duty will be from £1,737 to no less than £11,026, or six times the amount, owing to the minimum increase. In Birmingham the increase will be from £2,673 to £18,557, or seven times the amount. In Sheffield the increase is from £1,886 to £15,990, or 8½ times the number. These large increases will create no doubt the position that many of those houses must be closed, and must be closed without receiving a penny of compensation. They have done no wrong; they have simply gone on in the way in which they have been going on since they were created by Parliament in 1830, and they are doing their duty to the country as the country invited them to do. The right hon. Gentleman may say that we made an alteration in the year 1904, and that they have not now the vested interest which they had then. The difference is this:

  2009
  Under that Act of 1904 they are to receive ample market value for any licence which is taken away.
  I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this, that the vast majority of the houses at the present moment which are being suppressed under this Act are these ante-1869 beerhouses. If he looks at the list, he will see that these are the houses which the justices are suppressing all over the country. It is not necessary to repeat the argument as to the over-taxation of the trade, or that the consumption of beer is declining in this country; but I should like to draw the attention of the Government to this: Revenge may be sweet, but I believe that the heart of the country is sound, that it loves political honesty and justice more than revenge and that it still reverences the law that it is righteousness which exalteth the nation.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The hon. Member who has just spoken has entered in some detail into the history of these beerhouses prior to 1869. With that history I have no quarrel, but I would suggest that Parliament cannot be tied for all time by the undoubted blunder that was made by the ancestors of the present House 79 years ago. At that time, as the hon. Member has said, Parliament rashly threw open the whole of the trade in beer to any person who desired to engage in it on payment of a sum of £2 2s., no matter what sort of premises he might have for supplying the beer by retail, and, as a result, in the course of a few weeks, there were thousands of people who took out licences. The consequences were immediately disastrous. Sydney Smith, I remember reading, wrote at that time describing the consequences of that Act, "The sovereign people are in a beastly state," and, undoubtedly, the consequences of the opening of these innumerable beershops from one end of England to the other was an immediate and marked increase in the intemperance of a large part of the population. In 1869 Parliament did not create a privilege in these beerhouses but imposed a restriction. It brought them within the purview of the licensing justices, and enabled licences to be taken away on certain grounds. Shortly after that date—I think it was in 1872—a Committee of the House of Lords examined the whole question, and earnestly recommended that Parliament should place the whole of these beerhouses
  2010
  at once on the same footing as the other public-houses. I think men of all parties who have examined in this subject bitterly regretted the error which was made by Parliament in 1830, and the inadequacy of the restriction that was made in 1869, and they urged that these houses should be brought under the same rule as other public-houses. In no respect have these houses occupied a position of privilege more indefensible than with regard to their Licence Duty. Here these premises, no matter what their size, no matter what trade they are carrying on year by year, have to pay to the State only £3 10s. for so large a monopoly as they possess. Yet when these houses are brought forward for compensation it is found that the value of their trade justifies under the present law the payment of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of pounds in compensation, although many of them are small houses chosen by the magistrates for compensation frequently on the ground of their low value. The London County Council returns give some figures as to London which I should like to quote. Here is a beerhouse in Hammersmith, the rateable value of which is £63, and the compensation value £2,445, or 35½ years' purchase. Surely it is absurd to say that a house carrying on a business so large and worth compensation value to that amount is paying an adequate sum to the State when it pays only £3 10s. Under our proposal it would pay no exorbitant sum. It would have to pay the minimum, which would bring it up to £23 10s. for a house of that character. Another case is that of a beerhouse in Fulham, of £55 rateable value, and £2,300 compensation value, or 42 years' purchase. Another one in Lisson-grove, the annual value of which was £55, had a compensation value of £3,550, or 64½ years' purchase on the annual value. The duty on that house would again be £18, if it were not for the minimum, which brings it up to £23 10s. I suggest that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Samuel Roberts) is not entitled, because the new duty imposed is many times more than the present duty, to therefore say that the new duty is excessive. I have said before in these Debates that there are two conclusions to be drawn. One conclusion is that the new duty is excessive, and the other that the old duty is much too low. I think the Committee will admit that these houses, some of the smallest of which receive these enormous sums in compensation value, are at the present time paying a ludicrously small

  2011
  toll to the State by the present uniform charge throughout the country of £3 10s. Many of these houses are at the present time being kept open, not because they fulfil any real need of a neighbourhood, but in the hope that the compensation authorities, in looking about them for houses to be suppressed under the Act of 1904, may, in their goodness, choose those houses for suppression. It is not that the house is really valuable to the owner as a place of trade, but because it may become an exceedingly valuable possession for compensation.
  Mr. J. F. REMNANT: Is it not a fact that the present Government refused to allow the magistrates to raise sufficient money to pay for these houses?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is quite wrong.
  Mr. REMNANT: The Home Secretary said so.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; what was done was that, when the Finance Bill was in prospect the compensation authorities were not allowed to forestall their future compensation levies by borrowing, seeing that the whole matter of compensation was to be put on another basis. No action was taken by the Government limiting by a single sixpence the amount annually levied on which those houses were able to draw from the trade for the purposes of compensation. The hon. Gentleman is not quite fair.
  Mr. REMNANT: You are quite unfair.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member really must not interrupt.
  Mr. REMNANT: I beg pardon.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The present duty, as I was suggesting, is really so inadequate that I think it is indefensible in any quarter of the House, and the new duty which the hon. Member opposite proposes under the scale which is on the Paper is again very inadequate. A house of £200 rateable value, under the hon. Member's scale, would pay only £25 duty, although the trade done was exceedingly large. Two hundred pounds for a beerhouse is quite a large sum. In all the large towns of England and Wales put together there are only 230 beerhouses of over £200 annual value; only 83 of more than £300 annual value; so that a £200 house is exceptionally large. Yet the hon.
  2012
  Member would only charge £25 under this scale. One of the largest houses, of £400 annual value, would only pay £35 under this scale. Hon. Members opposite will urge that our scale of Public house Duties for fully-licensed houses is excessive. We all know their view that it is oppressive. The fact remains that the Committee yesterday sanctioned this new scale for fully-licensed houses, and I submit that, having sanctioned that scale, it cannot now accept the scale put forward by the hon. Member for beerhouses such as those to which he called attention, because the disproportion would be far too great. Take the £400 house of which I have been speaking; if it were a fully-licensed house it would be charged £200, and if it had a beerhouse licence, on the scale of the hon. Member, it would be charged only £35. Although it may be said that the charge on the £200 as a fully-licensed house is an excessive charge, yet I submit that you cannot charge a beerhouse, doing an equal amount of business, at so low a value as £35. These beerhouses have lighter duties to perform than the fully-licensed houses. In the first place, their valuation is lower. Houses which are smaller buildings are assessed at a lower rate, if they are only beerhouses, than if they had a full licence. Consequently the subject for taxation is less. Secondly, we propose to charge beerhouses taxation on one-third the lower valuation instead of one-half. I do submit that the charge proposed to be levied on these houses is not excessive in consideration of all the circumstances. The total number of these houses in England and Wales is 26,000, and we propose by this new duty to levy on them an increased revenue of £350,000. The increased charge per house will be £13 10s., on the average. There is always danger of fallacy in averages. Although it is no consolation to a man who occupies a highly-rated house, with his Licence Duty increased to a large extent, that the average is £13 10s., yet the fact remains that £13 10s. is the average. I think the figures which the hon. Member gave show that the increased amounts which will be charged in the cases which he cited, are very exceptional, and by no means represent the increased charge on beerhouses. The figures he gave only affect a small number of large houses in the bigger towns, which can well afford to pay the increased duty. If I may anticipate what the hon. Member for Louth is probably about to say, he would point out that the amount of the burden imposed in Ireland by this Licence Duty

  2013
  will ruin the trade and tend to the destruction of the economic prosperity of that country. I would point out to him that while England would be paying £350,000 additional under this scale, Scotland would pay £12,000 additional, and Ireland £5,000 additional.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I did not intend to rise, and would not have intervened but for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He stated that he was going to impose these duties as moral duties. May I ask if there is such a thing as Balmoral duties?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think that the Chancellor of the Duchy, in attempting to deal by anticipation with anything that may fall from the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. T. M. Healy) is rather reckoning without his host. There is nobody about whom there is more risk in saying that he gets up knowing what he is going to say, and I think he might be more cautious in his anticipations as to what criticisms may be passed by so old and dexterous a Parliamentary hand as the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway. I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must frankly say I did not quite understand the character of the defence which he has made of the duties proposed to be imposed by this Schedule. My hon. Friend (Mr. S. Roberts) gave a very interesting and very succinct narrative of the history of these beerhouses from 1830 to the present day. How does the right hon. Gentleman deal with that case? He says that while it is perfectly true that these beerhouses have gone on for 79 years under the Act of 1830, Parliament cannot be bound for ever by its blunder. The legislature of 1830 having dealt with this vexed licensing question came to a decision which, in the opinion of the Government generally, and in the opinion of those interested in this subject, was a wrong decision.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: It was very much modified in 1840.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. BALFOUR: At all events they came to a decision in 1830, which the Government say was a blunder. Of course our ancestors were not infallible, nor are we much more infallible than our ancestors. It is quite possible that long before 70 years from the present day our children may deem these blunders made by the present
  2014
  Government, or made in our time, with regard to the licensing question. Questions so difficult, so full of pitfalls as they are, touching so closely the life of the people, dealing with problems of such extraordinary complexity, are sure to be dealt with wrongly even by the best meaning people now and then. I am certainly no more concerned to defend the Parliament of 1830 than any other Parliament. Certainly I should not claim infallibility for the action of any Government, or any party with which I have been concerned, and still less for the prentice hands of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have no doubt many blunders have been made, and will be made so long as you choose to treat this particular trade in the abnormal and exceptional fashion which, rightly or wrongly, we have not been able to avoid. Among many blunders concerning legislation one was made in 1830, but how does that touch the question raised by my hon. Friend, and how does the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy answer the argument which he has advanced to the House? What the House of Commons did in 1830 was to invite the creation of a certain kind of premises and places in which intoxicating liquors could be sold. I do not imagine even the extremist partisanship at the present day will suggest that the Act of 1830 was due to political pressure by the trade, or that it was done with any motive whatever except the sincere desire to meet the social need.
  Parliament animated, though we admit for the sake of argument, mistakenly animated, by this public motive, invites the creation of a certain class of property. Money is expended in it, rights are granted, and it becomes a species of property as deserving of the consideration of this House as any other kind of property. Nobody can contend, nobody has ever contended, that whatever rights the ordinary full-licence holder may have they are the same full kind as those created under the Act of 1830, and admitted to exist in the Act of 1869. That has never been claimed, so far as I know, by any representative of the trade, and it certainly has never been claimed by any responsible politician. But everybody admits while those rights were different they were superior. In other words, there was a fuller kind of property in the kind of licence created in 1830 than the kind of licences which are given to full-licensed premises. That was thoroughly understood and thoroughly anticipated by the Government which dealt with this

  2015
  problem in 1904. We admitted that under the Act of 1830 more of those beerhouses had been created than was necessary for the public good, and that a diminution in their number was probably a thing to be desired. We recognised they had a claim to the full market compensation of the premises, in which would be taken into account, of course, the special privileges granted under the Act of 1830. Therefore, I must honestly say that I do not understand on what principle the right hon. Gentleman tells us we ought not to be bound by the blunders of our forefathers, and that this is to remedy, as far as we can, the blunder.
  We do not remedy an old blunder; we create a new crime when we absolutely ignore the rights which this House in a previous generation has deliberately, though mistakenly, created. If that be granted, and I think every impartial man will grant that particular proposition, and that it is one which the House will accept, the only additional point which has to be proved is that you are treating this particular kind of house, created under an Act of Parliament, and in obedience to an invitation of this House, that you are treating that particular kind of property very harshly and unfairly. Has the right hon. Gentleman met that contention of my hon. Friend? All he has done is to quote a few cases, in which he says, "Here are premises in which it is perfectly obvious that the licence holder can well afford the small toll which we desire by this Bill to exact from him." Yes, it is quite possible there are such houses—I have not exactly the cases which he gave—but that is not the point. The point is whether some of the people you are taxing can be taxed in justice. That is the point, and to which the right hon. Gentleman never addressed himself at all. Is it, or is it not, a fact that a large number of these beerhouses will practically be extinguished or threatened with extinction by this Bill? If that be the fact, and it is alleged by my hon. Friend—and I personally believe it is true—then I say your tax is oppressive and unjust. You have no right to impose a tax upon a particular section of the community which has the effect by the mere magnitude of the sum you take from their profits of extinguishing them altogether as part of the industrial system. That is not the use you ought to put taxation to, and that is the use to which you are putting taxation. Your fault is greatly aggravated in the case of these particular
  2016
  licence holders, because they certainly hold their premises on a tenure more complete, more full, and of a kind which more deserves the careful recognition of this House in all its legislation, even than the other licence holders, the full licence holders, whose tax we discussed yesterday.
  The right hon. Gentleman said how impossible it would be to impose on beerhouses the small rate of duty suggested by my hon. Friend's Schedule when fully-licensed premises not far oil is taxed on a much higher scale. I make two answers to that argument. The first is, because you commit one injustice that is no reason for committing another; and in the second place, if your objection to putting too low a scale of duty on the beerhouses is founded on the fact that would submit fully-licensed houses to unfair competition, then I say why did you not think of that when you were dealing with clubs. That argument, whatever be its worth, is not one which lies in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to use. They have deliberately elected to throw an imposition upon the fully-licensed house which puts them into competition with clubs, and in a most difficult and unfair position, and therefore they are the last people who have the right to say that any modification we suggest in this particular Clause is one which ought not to be accepted, because it will be the cause, or may be the cause, of unfair competition with other existing houses. Therefore, for all those reasons I venture to say that the Government are extremely unwise in forcing this proposal. They are treating in very reckless fashion the practical pledges given by this House in times past, and in doing so they are teaching the public the worst of all morals, the moral, namely, that this House may make an invitation in one year which in another year it may withdraw on the plea that it has made a mistake. That is contrary to all sound public morality, and is most inimical to the position and credit of this House. In addition to that crime it appears to me they are committing an additional crime in throwing upon one very small class of the community a tax so heavy and so large in many cases in proportion to the total takings of the trade, that they will drive some perfectly innocent and deserving individuals out of a perfectly honourable, legal, and credit\able line of life which they have selected to live believing rashly in the State, and that it is the privilege of citizens of a free country to take any trade admitted by

  2017
  the law to be an honest trade, and that they might engage in that trade without the fear that they would be singled out for special ill-treatment or special exactions. Those two canons of legislation the Government have equally violated, and for that reason I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division, and receive a large measure of support from all sides of the House.
  Mr. E. B. BARNARD: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy has told me that so far as he is concerned if any local authority apply in the future for making a borrowing basis under the Compensation Act it will apparently meet with his sympathy. We have many of us like the hon. Member for Holborn been troubled by the idea that the Home Office did not encourage any such proceeding. There are just two points I want to touch upon, and it appears to me that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) has not made the very best out of them, although what he said was extremely interesting. It appears to me that whereas those people have these rights under the Act of 1830 the substantial position that ought never to be forgotten is that in 1869 it was laid down by Mr. Gladstone's Act that they had an absolutely clear interest unless they violated one of four well-known conditions.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I mentioned that.
  Mr. BARNARD: I do not consider you made enough of it. It appears to me that that position places them in a separate category altogether from all the other licensed premises in the country. I go a step further, and I take Mr. Justice Kennedy's decision and I believe I am right in saying he drew a different multiple between these houses and fully-licensed houses as to the measure of compensation. The Government, of course, recognise this, otherwise they would not propose a different scale of charge on these houses as against the fully-licensed houses. Going a step further, we come to the Act of 1904, which charges these houses compensation—for what? Absolutely to protect that which the law of 1869 had already protected. In my opinion, the Compensation Act gave these houses no additional security at all beyond that which they already possessed, except that if they were suppressed they were to receive money. Their position is a singularly powerful one, because the Compensation
  2018
  Act of a Conservative Government distinctly wronged them, and, therefore, coming to the present day, I think they deserve a great deal of consideration. The matter is one of degree. We have already seen that one charge is proposed to foe levied on fully-licensed houses and another on these beerhouses. The Chancellor of the Duchy says that, because we did something yesterday in regard to the fully-licensed houses, it would not be quite fair to treat these houses to-day in a more favourable manner. I do not pretend to know about the houses in the big cities, the statistics of which the right hon. Gentleman has given, but I know a great deal about the houses in country districts, and I am convinced that in many cases this proposition will press very unduly upon the beerhouses. It is a question not whether some blunder was made years ago, but of the position to-day. Parliament naturally cannot be bound by everything that occurred so long ago, but it can, and should, be bound by conditions which Parliament laid down, and which ordinary traders in a perfectly straightforward fashion imagined were to govern their line of business. It is under these conditions that, personally, I should have been very glad if the Government could have seen their way slightly to reduce the proposed scale, even if they could not go so far as the Amendment suggests.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, realised that this enormous increase in the Licence Duties might work great hardship on the on-licensed trade, and he made the very pregnant remark that, as a set-off, the on-licensees could charge practically their increased Licence Duties on the whisky. Even if that anticipation were supported by the facts, which, so far as we can tell at present it is not likely to be, it could not be done in the case of the beerhouses, for the simple reason that they sell only beer and not whisky. Then one word on the monopoly value. From the time of the Licensing Bill of last year to the present day we have heard that the justification for the proposed treatment of on-licensed premises was that the monopoly value belonged to the State, and that therefore the State had a right to recover a part of that monopoly value. In the case of the beerhouse the argument becomes a mere waste of breath, because the beerhouses rest on the firm foundation of a statutory title. You may say that times change, and that what Parliament said

  2019
  40 years ago may not coincide with the facts of life to-day; but that is no ground for perpetrating an injustice. If beerhouses have a statutory title and on-licensed premises have not, the beerhouses should be given preferential treatment as against the others. You may say that you give them preferential treatment because on-licensed houses are to be charged half the gross annual value, and beerhouses only one-third, but that is not sufficient. Beerhouses at present pay only £3 10s., and if you jump up to one-third of the annual value the difference is too enormous. It is much greater than in the case of the on-licensed houses, because there, at any rate, you proceed from Mr. Gladstone's scale, and the difference, although great, is nothing like as great as the difference in the case of the beerhouses. One-third of the annual value does not coincide with any elementary principle of justice. No doubt you want money, but that is no reason for blinding your eyes to the justice of the case in your mad desire to wreak vengeance on a particular trade with which you are not in sympathy.
  Mr. J. F. REMNANT: I wish to say how sorry I am that you, Sir, should have had to call upon me not to interrupt. I think, however, that the Committee, if they look impartially at these proposals of the Government, must admit that they are extremely unfair to the houses immediately under discussion. When interrupting the Chancellor of the Duchy, I said that the Home Office had refused to allow local authorities to borrow money in order to take up a larger number of houses, as they would have liked to have done, he practically replied that that was not so. Members will remember perfectly well that questions were put to the Home Secretary, who, I am sure, would be the last to deny that my statement was literally correct. His reason for refusing permission was that a Licensing Bill was coming on, and under the circumstances he thought they had better wait.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Home Office never refused to allow any local authority to raise any sum by compensation levy that they liked. Indeed, the Home Office would not have power to do
  so. What they refused was power to borrow—to forestall future compensation levies. As the matter stands, the local authorities would have a certain amount of money to spend; if they were allowed to borrow, they would have less to spend, because they would have to pay the interest on the money borrowed.
  Mr. REMNANT: The right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously mean that as an answer. The remaining houses would have enormously increased in value in years to come, and it would be more difficult to pay them off. Applications were made to the Home Office for authority to raise money to pay off these houses. That is the only contention I have made, and the right hon. Gentleman has practically admitted it to be correct. I wish to protest against the theory that a contract once entered into by Parliament is to be lightly departed from. The right hon. Gentleman referred to contracts made by legislation as far back as 1830. We do not need to go back further than 1904. The arrangement definitely made by the Government then was that if these beerhouses were suppressed they should be properly compensated, and now within five years the Government say that that contract is not binding, and that they are quite justified in going away from what was distinctly understood then and in placing on these houses further burdens which practically mean their annihilation. Even when milk vendors in St. James's Park were displaced, compensation was given. The whole of the legislation proposed by this Budget in reference to the licensed trade is the outcome of the determination of the Government, as exemplified in the statement made by the Chief Whip last December, that the people would expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cause the abolition of redundant licences by placing on them such taxation as would bring about that end. It is quite useless to appeal to the Government to treat these houses differently, but I strongly protest against the whole proceeding.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'subject,' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 61.

  Division No. 772.]

  AYES.

  [4.30 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ash ton, Thomas Gair

  Barker, Sir John

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ainsworth John Stirling

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Beale, W. P.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pointer, J.

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rees, J. D.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Brigg, John

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)

  Robinson, S.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Byles, William Pollard

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rowlands, J.

  Clough, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jenkins, J.

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

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Sears, J. E.

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seddon, J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Seely, Colonel

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Kelley, George D.

  Shackleton, David James

  Cowan, W. H.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lamont, Norman

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Steadman, W. C.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Summerbell, T.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Erskine, David C.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Toulmin, George

  Findlay, Alexander

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Verney, F. W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Massie, J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Middlebrook, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gill, A. H.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Morrell, Philip

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morse, L. L.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Myer, Horatio

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Napier, T. B.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gulland, John W.

  Nicholls, George

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nuttall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Norton and Sir E. Strachey

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Partington, Oswald

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fell, Arthur

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Renwick, George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Stanier, Beville

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clark, George Smith

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Young, Samuel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mcore, William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Valentia and Mr. Pike Pease.

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Mr. E. B. BARNARD Mr. E. B. BARNARD moved, in the same column, after the word "premises," to insert the words "as ascertained in the manner directed by Section thirty, Subsection one, and Section thirty-eight."
  The object of this Amendment is to make perfectly clear the intimation which was given by the Solicitor-General on Clause 38, that if necessary it should be declared under the Schedule. The circumstances were these: Upon Clause 38 there was a discussion as to whether the intention was to limit the basis upon which the licence was to be charged to premises especially identified with the sale of alcoholic liquors. The words of the Solicitor-General were:—
  "I have promised certain words to make it perfectly clear that if any part of the premises is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be devoted to any trade or business separate or distinct from the business authorised by the licence, it shall be excluded from this annual valuation"
  The Solicitor-General promised that on Report stage he would make that right. I shall be satisfied if he tells me that if when he considers the question he finds it is necessary to add these words that he add them, I will not press the matter any further.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): Whatever is provided by Clause 30, Sub-section (1), and Clause 38 as a basis for ascertaining the annual value will be admitted to this Schedule as well. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is quite unnecessary to add the reference here to the Schedule. I may just remind him that he has put his Amendment in the wrong place. It only refers to beerhouses here, and it was no doubt intended to apply to both. I made a promise to bring up words on Report to deal with the matter, which he has mentioned more than once in the course of these Debates. The words will in due course be put down on the Paper, and some considerable time before we get to the Report stage.
  Mr. J. M. CAMPBELL: Will these words apply to Ireland?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not think so. It is not the same valuation.
  Mr. J. M. CAMPBELL: If the Government propose to exclude under the valuation any portion of the premises not devoted to the licensing business, then there is no occasion for the concession they propose to give in the reduced scale to Ireland, which is based upon the assumption that there is a mixed trade. I want to know whether this new Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is going to put
  2024
  on the Paper for Report is to apply to the Irish valuation?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The ground of the concession is not so narrow as that suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I will not discuss it now on a question of the exclusion of part of the premises. I will consider the point raised.
  Mr. BARNARD: I am perfectly satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. D. FABER (for Mr. Gretton)Mr. G. D. FABER (for Mr. Gretton), moved in Beerhouse Licences 2, to omit the words "subject to the minimum duty payable under Scale 3." Last night we sought to strike out the minimum duty in regard to on-licences. This Amendment proposes to do the same for beerhouses. The general argument in both cases is practically the same. The last Amendment, unsuccessfully, sought to alleviate an enormous injustice in respect of beerhouses. Here you propose to intensify the situation. I pointed out yesterday that in the case of on-licences no less than 5,768 houses would practically be closed, or their existence would be grievously imperilled, by means of this scale of minimum duties. The injustice to the beerhouses, though not in quite so great a proportion, still is most significant. There are 29,300, and no less than 740 would be wiped out of existence under the operation of your minimum scale. The 740 is worked out in this way: There are 75 houses under £20 annual value in towns of between 10,000 and 50,000 population. Their minimum duty will be £13, whereas if they are treated under the scale of one-third of the annual value instead of £13 it would be about £6 10s. When you get to towns of between 50,000 and 100,000 inhabitants there are 200 houses of £25 annual value with a minimum duty of £20. The minimum would hit them badly, it would mean destruction.
  I then come to London. Ninety houses under £42 annual value will have their minimum duty fixed at £23 10s., as against a third of £42, which is £14. Then in towns of 100,000 population beside London there are 375 houses of an annual value of £25, and they will have actually to pay a minimum Licence Duty of £23 10s. Therefore in these cases the minimum duty will be almost as much as the annual value of the houses. That brings up the total I

  2025
  just gave of 740 beerhouses that would be in fact crushed out of existence under the operation of this minimum duty scale. In regard to Manchester, there are upwards of 1,000 beerhouses. Less than half that number are fully-licensed houses. The justices there steadily pursued a policy of forbidding anything to be done to enlarge or improve the structure of the premises. These beerhouses were all protected by the Act of 1869 from having their licences taken away for anything other than misconduct, but under the Act of 1904 they are liable to be taken away upon the payment of compensation. The imposition of this minimum duty upon them now must have the effect that the Prime Minister admitted it was intended to have, namely, to crush them out of existence without paying any compensation. The passage to which I am going to refer is from the Prime Minister's speech on 10th June, 1909. "The Chancellor of the Exchequer," the Prime Minister said, "is perfectly justified in regard to these Liquor and Licence Duties in considering whether the effect may not be to discourage the growth, and, indeed, the existence, of the worst class of houses."
  It is the duty of the licensing justices in the case of the worst class of houses to suppress them, but supression of the worst class of house by the Excise certainly does not come into the matter at all. If by "the worst" is meant the smallest, I must say, with all respect to the Prime Minister, it seems to me to be grossly unfair. The small houses require quite as much consideration upon the ground of fairness and equity as the larger licensed houses in the country. I think I have said quite sufficient to emphasise my point that the total effect of your legislation in regard to the beerhouses as now accentuated by your minimum scale will have the effect of doing most colossal injustice and crushing out of existence very many licensed houses that have done no wrong whatever, and have only pursued an honest calling under the law.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not complain of the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech, nor, indeed, of any of his speeches except that I think in presenting his case ha has been guilty of what appears to be some exaggeration of statement as to the probable consequences of these duties. I rapidly worked out what would be the increased burden on certain of these houses, which the hon. Member said were going to destroy them. He gave the figures of
  2026
  some hundreds of houses, which, he said, must necessarily close their doors in consequence of this minimum duty. He said that in certain cases certain houses would have to pay a heavier duty of £13 instead of a duty of £6 that they would otherwise be called on to pay, and that that meant destruction to a very large number of them. The increased duty per annum is £7. That per week amounts to 2s. 8d. The increased charge on these houses, which is to make a difference between prosperity and absolute ruin is 2s. 8d. per week, and as many of these houses are doing a very considerable trade, and in consequence of the low valuation a very profitable trade, it really cannot be accepted that the duty, equal to 2s. 8d. per week, can have these terrifying consequences. These houses have a very low valuation. They are lowly rented. Their standing charges consequently are very moderate, and they pay exceedingly little for the local rates compared with many of the larger public-houses, and they pay very little towards local taxation. And that is going on year after year. The local authorities are getting far less in the way of revenue from these public-houses than they are entitled to receive. Further, as regards the Licence Duty, the very low duty of £3 10s., which they pay now, is absurd. It has been paid by them for years and years, and so far from any complaint being made about the increased duty, complaint should come from the opposite direction of the very little which the community have been getting from this class of trader for years past—infinitely less than common justice would require from them. With regard to the effect of this duty on some houses I am inclined to agree. There may be some which in effect are kept open for the purposes of compensation in the hope that their licencesmay be taken away under the Act of 1904, and that large compensation may be paid; and in certain cases these people may not really think it worth their while to continue waiting if they are to pay the £16 or £18 a year required from them under the minimum scale. In consequence, here and there some licences may drop out, but I do not for a moment anticipate that the effect of this minimum scale is in the least degree likely to be such as the hon. Member in his rather gloomy speech suggested. As to the minimum scale, it is the same in the case of beerhouses and in fully-licensed houses, and the House having decided that this is to apply in the case of fully-licensed

  2027
  houses, is hardly likely to go back on that in regard to the beerhouses. Parliament has given us precedents for our action in this matter in the Act of 1884 and in the Act of 1872. In these circumstances, we cannot consent to the elimination from this part of the Bill of the scale in proportion of the scale of population.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman made one very remarkable admission, which seemed certainly to establish and to emphasise what has already fallen from the Prime Minister. We all know, for the Prime Minister told us some weeks ago, that the intention of this Clause is none other than to reduce the number of beerhouses without compensation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy has not denied that the effect would be such as was anticipated by my hon. Friend behind me, and he actually said that the intention of the Government was and the design of the Government was that certain beerhouses which are now in existence, and which would be entitled to compensation, should be squeezed out of existence before compensation is paid.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not say "intention or desire."
  Mr. LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman said "effect." The Prime. Minister supplied the intention and desire. Between the two it is perfectly clear that first the intention of the Government is that these houses should be squeezed out, and according to the Chancellor of the Duchy that actual result will follow. I can only say that I consider, as one of those responsible for the Act of 1904, which took away certain statutory rights, and gave them for those rights a certain definite compensation not payable by the public, but out of trade funds. It is a perfect outrage that within five years after the passing of that Act this Government should come forward and say, notwithstanding that your statutory position was taken away under the Act of 1904, and that compensation was to be given you, we will now set to work to extinguish you by legislation which will rob you of the compensation that was given you by the Act of 1904.
  5.0 P.M.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I rise for the purpose of putting forward a point which has not been touched upon already. It is quite true the same intention applies
  2028
  with regard to the minimum duty for beerhouses as for fully-licensed houses. But I desire to say that I object entirely to this indirect way of abolishing the beerhouses of the country. There is no doubt that this minimum duty will have the effect of abolishing a great number of them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy said a great many of these houses are remaining open in the hope of getting the compensation. In a few cases perhaps that is correct, but these houses carry on their trade in an orderly, well-conducted manner, and they will be abolished by the effect of this legislation. I do not think it was contemplated by the people of this country that these houses should be abolished in that manner. This is a matter which I maintain will affect the constituency of the size of my own at Maidstone, which has a population of between 10,000 and 50,000. The beerhouses within the borough with a £15 annual value will be called upon to pay a duty of £13. It is quite possible that in the immediate neighbourhood there will be another beerhouse outside the borough boundary of an equal annual value, and this may be called upon to pay a duty of £5. Here are two houses to all intents and purposes of equal value, doing exactly the same trade, each having an annual value of £15, and one of them will have to pay a duty of £13 whilst the other will only pay £5. I put that case to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will enlighten me upon it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have already dealt with that point.
  Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the case of public-houses which will be required to pay, under the minimum duty, £23 10s. We have just heard the marvellous statement made that this only means 2s. 8d. per week extra. I am assured that in the vast majority of beerhouses the amount of profit which is made is equal to a halfpenny per pint, and in order to pay this extra 2s. 8d. per week they will have to serve an additional 64 pints. This is really a very enormous increase indeed. Take the case of other small traders, such as grocers, bakers, or butchers. Would the right hon. Gentleman maintain that an additional charge of 2s. 8d. per week on small businesses which are only showing a bare profit is a small tax? The statement which the right hon. Gentleman made in regard to beerhouses being kept open merely to obtain compensation has

  2029
  been made a good many times in the course of these Debates, and it was constantly made in the discussion on the Licensing Bill. May I point out that up to the present we have not had a tittle of evidence in proof of that statement. Where are these public-houses which are being kept open merely to obtain compensation? It is easy enough to make such a statement, but it ought not to be made without being substantiated. I do not think there are more than one dozen public-houses in the whole country being kept open for that reason. Many of them no doubt are being kept open in the hope that in the near future better trade conditions will exist, but that prospect will disappear if this Schedule is adopted.
  I wish to enter my protest against the unwarrantable assumption by the Government that the owners of public-houses are keeping them open in order to make a mean and despicable attempt to obtain compensation from the Government to which they are not entitled. It is a most ridiculous assumption, and it would be just as sensible to say that other businesses are being kept open because under a future Socialist Government they hope to be taken over by the State.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 67.

  Division No. 773.]

  AYES.

  [5.6 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Middlebrook, William

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gill, A. H.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Alden, Percy

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Morse, L. L.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Glendinning, R. G.

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Myer, Horatio

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Napier T. B.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Gulland, John W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Barker, Sir John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Partington, Oswald

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Pence, William (Limehouse)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pointer, J.

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

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

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Bowerman, C. W.

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

  Rees, J. D.

  Brigg, John

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robinson, S.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hodge, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rowlands, J.

  Clough, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Clynes, J. R.

  Mutton, Alfred Eddison

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Seddon, J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seely, Colonel

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Kelley, George D.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lament, Norman

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Steadman, W. C.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Summerbell, T.

  Erskine, David C.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Essex, R. W.

  Mackarness, Frederic C

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Findlay, Alexander

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

  Toulmin, George

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Waiter

  Marnham, F. J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Norton and Sir E. Strachey.

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Renwick, George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Stanier, Beville

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clark, George Smith

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Young, Samuel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Moore, William

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

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl

  Fell, Arthur

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Winterton and Sir W. Bull.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  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 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.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved to insert as a new line below "Population" the words "In Great Britain."
  This Amendment, to use an Irishism, is consequential upon something which is to
  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.
  follow," and I will make a short statement to the Committee on the Amendment which appears later.
  Mr. MOORE: If we allow this Amendment to go through, shall we be at liberty later to discuss the inclusion of Ireland in the proposed concession or merely the amount? If we allow this to go through sub silentio it may be ruled that we have already decided the matter except the amount.
  The CHAIRMAN: The effect of inserting these words would be that there would be no scale at all for Ireland until we come to the consequential Amendments, and I think, therefore, it would be quite in order to discuss the matter on the later Amendment.
  Mr. MOORE: Then I shall reserve my arguments till a later stage, but I shall certainly divide against this proposal.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 69.

  Division No. 774.]

  AYES.

  [5.17 p.m.

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Gulland, John W.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nuttall, Harry

  Alden, Percy

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  O'Shee, James John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Partington, Oswald

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Barker, Sir John

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pointer, J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Henry, Charles S.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rainy, A. Holland

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

  Hodge, John

  Reddy, M.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hogan, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Boland, John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rees, J. D.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brigg, John

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Robinson, S.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Jenkins, J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Joyce, Michael

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Rowlands, J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kelley, George D.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Clough, William

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Laldlaw, Robert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lament, Norman

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Sears, J. E.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Seddon, J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seely, Colonel

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Shackleton, David James

  Crossley, William J.

  Lundon, T.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Erskine, David C.

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

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Essex, R. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Summerbell, T.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Middlebrook, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Mond, A.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, J. J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Field, William

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Findlay, Alexander

  Morse, L. L.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Muldoon, John

  Toulmin, George

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Murnaghan, George

  Verney, F. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gill, A. H.

  Myer, Horatio

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Ginnell, H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Napier, T. B.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nicholls, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Wetthoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Young, Samuel

  Norton and Sir E. Strachey.

  NOES.

  Arstruther-Gray, Major

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clark, George Smith

  Kerry, Earl of

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Winterton, Earl

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Moore.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Mr. GIBBS Mr. GIBBS moved, in the table (Scale 3), after the line ["5,000 and less than 10,000, etc.], to insert:—
  "10,000 and less than 30,000… £17 10s.…. £11 10s.,"
  and in the succeeding line ["10,000 and less than 50,000, etc"], to leave out "10,000," and to insert instead thereof "30,000."
  If the Schedule remains as it is there are going to be a great many hard cases in towns which have just over 10,000 in population. It is a great jump from 10,000 to 50,000, and it seems to me the Government would do well to insert the Amendment I suggest, and make the duty in towns between 10,000 and 30,000 £17 10s. for a publican's licence and £11 10s. for a beerhouse licence. It would be very hard upon smaller towns if they are put upon the same footing as towns of 50,000 inhabitants. After all, there as a great difference between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, and I cannot help thinking the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government would, of course, be happy to consider any proposals backed up by cogent arguments for any modifications in such a scale as is now proposed for the first time, but I cannot admit that the hon. Member has advanced any considerations why the uniformity of the scale should be broken in the case of these towns. The scale goes up by steps of £5 all through, and the hon. Member proposes to interpolate in the middle the anomalous sum of £17 10s.,
  2036
  whilst the only reason he advances is that in towns of a population between 10,000 and 30,000 publicans of low-value houses would prefer to pay £17 10s. than £20, which is obvious. If that concession were made, I am afraid the Government would be unable to resist similar Amendments making stages by £2 10s. instead of £5, which is a more far-reaching proposition than the hon. Gentleman has advanced. His Amendment is not one that the Government can possibly accept.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: My hon. Friend's point is that the step between 10,000 and 50,000 is too steep. You ought not to go from 10,000 to 50,000 at one jump. You ought to go from 10,000 to 30,000, and then from 30,000 to 50,000. My hon. Friend desires that where the population is between 10,000 and less than 30,000 the duty shall be £17 10s. in the case of full on-licences and £11 10s. in the case of beerhouses. I understand that to be the object of the Amendment—to alter the graduation. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself exactly to that argument. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall think it my duty to support him.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I point out that actual symmetry is not carried out even now, as there is a jump in regard to the publican's licences, from £20 to £30, and, when you come to the beerhouse scale you have still greater anomalies. I think in almost every case the limit is

  2037
  drawn at the population of 20,000 inhabitants. It certainly was done in the case of the Education Act, and it has also been applied in Local Government Acts. There is always a difference made between small and important towns, and I hope the theory of the Government is that the position of these houses becomes more valuable accordingly as the population increases. Still, I think there ought to be some step between £10 and £50.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I quite agree that it may be advisable before the Report stage to consider as to introducing an intermediate step. The newest analogy
  for this scale is to be found in the Act of 1872, but the steps there are much greater. If the population is less than 10,000 the minimum is £15, but then it jumps from 10,000 to 100,000, with a minimum of £30, and a minimum value of £50 for over 100,000 of population. That is very much steeper, and it should be remembered that the beerhouses duties are two-thirds of the public-house duties.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 67.

  Division No. 775.]

  AYES.

  [5.35 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Middlebrook, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Findlay, Alexander

  Mond, A.

  Alden, Percy

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morse, L. L.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gill, A. H.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Myer, Horatio

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Napier, T. B.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nicholls, George

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Barker, Sir John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Gulland, John W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Partington, Oswald

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Beale, W. P.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pointer, J.

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

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

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Helme, Norval Watson-

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rees, J. D.

  Brigg, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Robinson, S.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Hodge, John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Rowlands, J.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Clough, William

  Jackson, R. S.

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jenkins, J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Seddon, J.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seely, Colonel

  Cooper, G. J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shackleton, David James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kelley, George D.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cowan, W. H.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Crossley, William J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Summerbell, T.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Erskine, David C.

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Toulmin, George

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Verney, F. W.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Norton and Sir E. Strachey.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Carlile, E. Mildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanier, Beville

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clark, George Smith

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

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

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Winterton, Earl

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles

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

  Moore, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

  Fell, Arthur

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Walker and Mr. G. A. Gibbs.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved, at the end of Scale 3 [Minimum Duty payable for Publican's and Beerhouse Licences], to add the following:—
  "In Ireland—

  £

  s.

  £

  s.

  In areas which are not urban areas, and in urban areas with a population of less than 10,000

  5

  0

  3

  10

  In urban areas with a population of 10,000 or above

  7

  10

  4

  0."

  This is the Amendment foreshadowed by the Government yesterday afternoon, and it applies a different minimum to Ireland as compared with the scale already passed for Great Britain. The matter was dealt with pretty fully by the Prime Minister yesterday, and there was considerable debate on it; therefore, it will not be necessary for me to go into very great detail, or even to deal at length with the principle. I desire to put before the House some facts additional to those stated yesterday by the Prime Minister, in order to show that the case of Ireland is peculiar and special, and differs substantially from the case of Great Britain. The normal increase of Licence Duties under this Bill is 50 per cent. of the annual value, and the minimum is only brought in in order to have an addition to that 50 per cent. where the circumstances make it justifiable. Everybody knows that the proportion of
  2040
  low-value public-houses in Ireland is very much higher than in England, Scotland, or Wales, and I need hardly say that it is in the case of the lower value public-houses that the minimum charge applies. It has no effect on the houses as they ascend the scale of annual value. Taking houses under £20 annual value in Ireland, and comparing them with similar houses in England and Scotland, we find this extraordinary fact: that the percentage of houses, the annual value of which is under £20, is in England 12 per cent., in Scotland 8 per cent;., and in Ireland 75 per cent. Again, the proportion of houses the annual value of which is £50 works out: England, 49 per cent.: Scotland, 42 per cent.; and Ireland 95 per cent. The Prime Minister gave figures yesterday to show that in the urban areas of Ireland particularly there was a greater proportion of these smaller houses than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The figures which can be established as showing the extra amount which would be contributed under these duties over and above the 50 per cent. by reason of the application of the minimum, are very significant when you compare the case of Ireland with circumstances as they exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. In towns like Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny and Galway the effect of the minimum, as it existed according to the original scale, would be to increase by 100 per cent. or more the duty payable for licences in those towns.
  If that is translated into figures the House will see their significance. I have had given me some figures comparing towns in Ireland, with reference to the amount of the increased duty which would be leviable by reason of the minimum charge over and above the 50 per cent., compared with towns in England. I want the Committee to bear in mind that this does not alter the 50 per cent. at all, and that these are the amounts which would have been contributed by these Irish towns if the same minimum charge was applicable to Ireland over and above the 50 per cent.
  Clonmel has a population of only 10,000, and the amount of duty to be paid if a minimum charge is made over and above the 50 per cent. would be as much as London would contribute. Athlone, with a population of 6,000, would contribute in that way twice as much as Leeds. Ennis, with a population of 5,000, would pay more than the city of Edinburgh. Galway, with a population of 13,000, would pay four times as much as Birmingham, Limerick, with a population of 35,000, would pay half as much again as the City of Liverpool. I think the Committee will agree that those are very significant figures indeed, and they illustrate that there is a very special case in Ireland when we compare it with the rest of the United Kingdom. The additional duty by reason of the minimum attaching over and above the 50 per cent. normal, which is contributed in London, is £1,000; in Bristol, £2,000; in Liverpool, £2,000; in Southampton, £1,500. In Scotland, £3,700, Glasgow being much the biggest figure. In Edinburgh the additional duty would be £700. Look at what would be contributed in Ireland, between 50 per cent. and the minimum charge. Belfast would contribute £5,500; Dublin would contribute £8,000; Cork, which is the worst case of all, would contribute £9,800; Limerick, £3,200; Galway, £1,600; and so forth. Of course, the reason for that is that the number of houses, particularly in the urban areas, of small annual value is very much greater in Ireland than either in England or Scotland. Take England and Wales. I will not give the scale, but the number of public-houses fully licensed whose valuation is £20 and under is only 54 out of a total number of 14,254. Take the Metropolis and county boroughs in England and Wales having a population of 100,000 or more. The number of beerhouses with a valuation of £20 and under is only 53 out of a total of 8,979. In Scotland practically the same state of things
  2042
  exists. I will take a few of the biggest cities with a population of over 100,000 and a few between 10,000 and 100,000 by way of illustration. In Aberdeen the number under £20 is 3 out of 219 public-houses; in Dundee, 5 out of 128; in Edinburgh, 1 out of 318; and in Glasgow, not a single one out of 1,342 licensed premises. In Greenock, they number 2 out of 127; in Ayr, 1 out of 75; in Dumfries, 1 out of 48; in Inverness, 3 out of 48; and in Kilmarnock, 6 out of 72. When we take the case of Ireland we have these startling figures. The number from £25 down annual value is in Dublin 101, out of 719; in Cork, 368, out of 516; in Limerick, 229, out of 288; in Waterford, 146, out of 198; and in Galway, 109, out of 134. Those are houses of £25 and under annual value, and it holds good all over Ireland and over Scotland, except in one or two exceptional cases. The general result, again having regard only to the additional duty paid over and above the normal 50 per cent., is that between that and the minimum charge the total is illustrated by these figures. In England and Wales the additional duty above this normal 50 per cent. will be £30,000, or only 2 per cent. of the present duty. In Scotland the amount will be £6,000, or only 4½ per cent. of the present duty. In Ireland the amount of extra, duty will be £39,600 a year, a percentage of 28.2. Those figures are not exceptional figures. They are taken at random from many towns, and they show, I think, that Ireland in this matter of minimum charge, by reason of these special circumstances, has a right to be separately treated from Scotland or England. I have therefore pleasure in moving the scale which appears on the Paper in my name, which will fix the same minimum duty in areas with a population under 10,000 as the minimum scale in England, with a difference, of course, of population. The minimum is £5 in both cases. In urban areas in Ireland with a population of 10,000 and above the minimum duty will be £7 10s. Those are the duties for double licences. There is a corresponding licence with regard to beerhouses, with which I need not trouble the House. The scale has been carefully considered, and we think it meets the case of Ireland.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: We had this matter very fully discussed yesterday. I do not propose to go over the found I attempted to travel yesterday afternoon, but at the same time I think it would have been a material matter if the hon. Gentleman the

  2043
  Solicitor-General, in telling us what the Committee already all know, namely, that public-houses in Ireland were happy enough for years to have enjoyed an excessively low valuation as compared with public-houses in Scotland and in England, had gone on to tell the Committee what the origin and explanation of that fact was. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly Well that the explanation of the fact is to be found in the law which enables the public-houses in Ireland to be valued on a wholly different principle to what they have been valued in Scotland and England, and the result of the principle as applied to Ireland in the concession in 1880 in order to compensate what was supposed to be an inequality by reason of carrying on a mixed trade, was an average assessment figure far below that for similar premises in this country and Scotland. Of course they have had it ever since. They have had the tremendous advantage of living under a system of valuation on which their Licence Duty is assessed far below England and Scotland, their assessment being so far below England and Scotland as to enable them to escape up to the present with duties comparatively small as compared with those of their brethren in the other countries. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman might have taken the trouble to inform the Committee that that was the origin of this permanent low valuation in Ireland. What has been the result? The result has been that the public-houses in Ireland have increased beyond all reasonable bounds of moderation, and the Government to-day are doing their best to perpetuate it by placing a premium upon the existence of those public-houses. The fact remains that as a result of the very peculiar advantages they possess there are to-day in Ireland over 17,000 public-houses, whereas in Scotland there are only something between 6,000 and 7,000. Those public-houses that exist in Ireland are not the small and miserable houses that their valuation would appear to represent. It is ridiculous to make this contrast of valuation as between England and Scotland for the purpose of making a poor mouth for the Irish publican, because the valuation does not represent at all the equivalent difference in the position and prosperity of the traders who carry on business. I have already pointed out that the Irish publican has had up to the present a very substantial advantage over the
  2044
  publican either in this country or in Scotland, because of the comparative freehold tenure he has in his licence. He has a licence of which he cannot be deprived except for misconduct, and which he can sell or transfer in the open market, and he can go before a magistrate, and, if of good character, insist on getting his licence. Therefore, he has got a real property and a real monopoly. The value of the monopoly in Ireland is largely in excess of any monopoly that exists in this country. The Member for East Mayo said yesterday—I hardly thought the retort was worthy of him, and I think he must have regretted that he uttered it—that what I said on this subject was entirely untrue. I challenged him to state in what respect it was untrue, and he replied by the vague statement that it was generally untrue. I challenge him or anyone to say that in any single particular any statement I have made as to the low valuation or position of the publican in Ireland is incorrect. I speak of what is notorious to anybody who knows anything of the position and tenure of licences in Ireland. It is rather a contemptible way to meet my arguments to retort that the statement is untrue.
  Mr. DILLON: I say the statement he has just made is untrue, that the value of monopoly in Ireland is greater than the value of monopoly in Great Britain or Scotland. It must be obvious that the value of the monopoly of one out of 17,000 public-houses in Ireland, with its poor population of 4,000,000, cannot be greater than the value of the monopoly of one of 6,000 public-houses in Scotland, with its greater population.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: It is perfectly obvious to anyone who wants to reason this matter that the interruption affords no answer whatever. The observation has been cheered by hon. Members below the Gangway, who are strong supporters of the Licensing Bill of last Session, that the publicans in this country have no property in the licence. What is the value of a monopoly if there is no property in the licence? The whole theory of this legislation as applied to this country is that owing to the fact that the State is continuously reasserting its ownership to the licence, and power to recall and cancel it at any moment there is no monopoly value.
  Mr. GWYNN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what meaning he attaches to monopoly?
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I am not to be put off my line of argument by these interruptions. If you give a man a privilege in one country which cannot be taken away from him as long as he behaves himself, and which he is entitled to transfer to a purchaser who is entitled to take it up for him and carry on the same business under the same licence, I say that must be a more valuable privilege than a similar concession given to a man under the condition that it can be revoked at any moment. The thing is too obvious for argument. I quite agree that it does not bring the same price in the market, but that is owing to the extravagant and ridiculous number of houses which exist in Ireland. Is that any reason why the individual who has got property under this protection of the law is to be placed in a better position than an individual carrying on the same trade in England or Scotland under a more penalising system of valuation, under heavier duties, and without the same rights and the same property in the licence? That is the point. Up to the present I have heard nothing whatever which in any shape or form justifies this discrimination that it is sought to make between the case of the English or Scotch publican and the Irish trader. In respect of his low valuation, he is obtaining an advantage, and has enjoyed that advantage ever since 1880, which is denied to the man in England or Scotland. You are going over and above that by reason of the existence of that very advantage to give him another advantage, and it was probably just as well that the hon. and learned Member did not to-night, as was done yesterday, largely base this concession upon the suggestion that the Irish publican was entitled to it for carrying on a mixed trade. That was the ground on which it was put mainly by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the hon. and learned Gentleman very wisely did not refer to it for this reason. The very existence of this system of mixed trading has been condemned root and branch by everyone who has taken any interest in the temperance question, because it is obvious that if you have a system under which every man, woman, and child can go into a shop to buy groceries where drink is also sold the temptation is enormously increased. It was in consequence of the existence of that very system that in 1880 Mr. Gladstone gave to the Irish trade a concession which they have ever since enjoyed, and which has put them in a position of
  2046
  great superiority as compared with their competitors in this country or Scotland. It is a perfectly ludicrous position for any responsible Minister to take up to say that because you have enjoyed these advantages, because, as the result of the benefit which we gave you 29 years ago, which has enabled you to carry on your business under more favourable conditions than a man in England or Scotland, your valuations have been low, we will now take the existence of these low valuations as an additional ground for giving you the concession which we refuse to confer upon your competitor in England or in Scotland. That is illogical and absurd, and will deceive no one, and it will certainly become notorious in the country, if it is not notorious already, that this whole thing is a mere arrangement for giving some show of a pretence of justice and of discrimination, and a system of preferential treatment which is really the outcome of political considerations and of political alliance. And no one who knows what is going on in my own country is in the least deceived by what has occurred in this House in the last couple of days. The trade in Ireland have placed their case in the hands of Gentlemen below the Gangway. They did that because the trade has always assisted them with their money and their votes.
  Mr. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nearly £10,000 was subscribed by the distillers of Ireland to the anti-Home Rule campaign?
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I am not talking of the distillers of Ireland. I thought the Clause applied to the publicans of Ireland. There is no one in Ireland who is not perfectly well aware of what has gone on in the last fortnight. What happened was that the publicans, naturally, having given their votes and their money to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway for so many years, put their defence in their hands, and, up to a few days ago, they had an uneasy feeling that they were not getting value for their money. In a good many cases they suggested that they were being betrayed, and they came over and put on the screw, and they were assured that something could be done, and as a result, this concession now appears on the Paper, and on Friday last the "Irish News," the leading Nationalist organ which circulates in Belfast, was posted all over the city with a placard containing, in immense letters: "Tremendous gains for the trade in Ireland brought

  2047
  about by pressure by the Irish Nationalist Party on the Government." Then it proceeded to enumerate what those concessions were, including the one which was foreshadowed here a day or two ago. The other was the mystery of the vanishing small bottle.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: A concession as to which was promised publicly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 14th June to a deputation of the trade.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I suppose that is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repudiated having given any such promise, and I suppose it is in consequence of that promise, so far back as June, that we have had so many different phases in the mystery of the disappearing small bottle. I am not so sure even yet that we know, or that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) knows, the intentions of the Government in regard to the small bottle. They change every week.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I know the meaning of their Amendments on the Paper.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Their Amendments on the Paper are a wholly different thing from their intentions. Because of this very point of the small bottle their Amendments have appeared and disappeared with kaleidoscopic rapidity. I do not think even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will tell us that he yet knows the intentions of the Government with regard to the small bottle. I have not the slightest objection to this concession if it applies all round. I consider that, as compared with the English or the Scotch publican, he has been treated more fairly and with less imposition of taxation, and while I do not at all regret that, and make no attack upon it, I say that under a Budget of this kind, speaking for myself, I would be no party to any attempt to discriminate in favour of the Irish publican as against the publican of England or Scotland, unless it can be shown to me, what has never yet been shown, that he is suffering as compared with the man in Scotland or in England. It will certainly not be shown by pointing out that he has been for the last 30 years allowed to enjoy, under a rating system, or a system of valuation, an immunity from the heavy taxation which falls upon the publican in this country and in Scotland. Therefore I am opposed to this Amendment.
  Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman made a very violent speech last night and he has given us another violent contribution to this Debate. I suppose he did not read the "Irish Times" yesterday, in which an attack, almost as furious as his own, was delivered against the Irish party because they have not with sufficient intensity pandered to the interests of the trade in Ireland. The "Irish Times" represents Irish trade interests in its higher branches. Its constituency is to a large extent made up of distillers and supported by distillers, and of course it has to attack the Irish party in order that it may show to them that it takes an interest in their case. The right hon. Gentleman comes here not to represent Irish, but English interests. I do not think there could be a finer commentary on the extraordinary attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues of the Unionist party from Ulster than to find that wherever Irish and English interests are at stake they inevitably take up their stand to defend English interests as against Irish. Of course we understand his position perfectly well. He attacks the publicans because the publicans are Nationalists. He, of course, is not dependent on the Protestant publicans in Ireland. He represents the great intellectual Constituency of Trinity College. He is immune from criticism from his constituents, and he therefore can afford to take up the extraordinary position which he has taken up to-day in complaining that a Liberal Government and a British party make an honest and an equitable concession to an irresistible demand made by the general body of their Representatives. He made the extraordinary statement a moment ago that the goodwill of a public-house in Ireland was equal, if not better, than the goodwill of a public-house in England. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the City of Belfast alone dozens of publicans have closed their houses within the last five years? Is it an indication of increased value in public-houses that the publicans turn the key of the door, give up their licences, and allow their property to disappear? I would like to know on what data the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking. Who supplied him with his brief? His speech was simply and solely for the purpose, of robbing the publicans of Ireland of what the Solicitor-General has proved not to be a great concession, but simply an act of justice. The hon. and learned Gentleman has done this because the publicans are Catholics and

  2049
  Nationalists. He also stated that the Nationalist Members are the representatives of the trade. Who headed the deputation that waited on the Irish party? It was Mr. Andrew Jameson, of the great firm of Jameson and Sons, whisky distillers. Who subscribed £500 or £1,000 to the Unionist party funds? [An HON. MEMBER: "And £300 a year."] Yes; and £300 a year to pay the expenses of the unpaid political agitators who sit on the benches above the Gangway? Is no one to get any direct advantage from British legislation in this House but the lawyers who were sent from the North of Ireland, and the lawyers from Trinity College, who do not object to draw large salaries when their party is in office, and who sit in a position of expectation of again receiving large salaries when their party return to office. These are the Gentlemen who tell us that they are vitally concerned in the welfare and prosperity of their own country.
  I pass to another aspect of this case. I noticed with very great interest that at a 12th of July demonstration in Ulster, next to a resolution affirming the principle of the union between this country and Ireland was a strongly-worded denunciation of the present Budget. The proposals contained in this Budget, according to that resolution, were unfair and inequitable, and they pressed heavily on Ireland. In order to bolster up reaction, privilege, and Toryism in Ireland hon. Members from Ulster go to 12th of July meetings and denounce the Budget on the ground that it presses un-justly and vexatiously on Irish interests, and then they come here and assail the Government when they make a concession—not, mark you, an adequate concession which honestly meets the case—not a concession which does full and complete justice to the interests involved—but a concession which has been justified by the Solicitor-General on broad, general lines I hope that at the next Twelfth of July demonstration the hon. and learned Member will tell the people of Portadown what his party when they come into power will do to relieve Ireland of the new imposts that have been put upon her.
  I raised last night the particular case of Belfast, which is hit very hard by this Budget, and I hope the Government will carefully consider that case. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a concession in the case of Stoke, and I do not see why a similar exception could not be made in the case of Belfast. Nine years ago Belfast was revalued. A new
  2050
  system of valuation was introduced. The monopoly value for the first time was counted in the valuation, and in consequence the local rates and Licence Duties were increased to an enormous extent. The valuation commissioner has declared on oath that when he was laying on the valuation he raised it on public-house property to an extent which he would not now justify. That valuation took place in 1900, when in Belfast public-houses were selling at high prices, largely owing to the fact that English brewers came over to Belfast and bought at prices which raised them to such an abnormal extent that the whole of the trade of the city was disturbed. I know a case where Allsopps' firm bought a public-house for £8,000. They have sold that house since for £800, and subsequently the house has been closed altogether. In another instance either Allsopps or another firm bought a house at £12,000, and it has been offered since at £1,200.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: On a point of Order. The point which the hon. Gentleman is urging will not be affected by the Amendment.
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL: He wants to show the value of the monopoly.
  Mr. DEVLIN: No, I am not. I was showing that Allsopps or other supporters of the Tory party in this House came over to Ireland and bought houses at ridiculous prices, and that the Commissioner stated that the valuations put on public-house property could not be justified, though these are the valuations on which Licence Duty is assessed. I feel that Belfast is going to be hit to an extent which will render the carrying on of the trade practically impossible there.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand how this affects the minimum. It does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Mr. James Campbell) was allowed to wander very much over the entire question. The hon. Member for Belfast is only endeavouring to reply.
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Trinity College. I was only dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast.
  Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. and learned Member laid it down that the valuations are too low all over Ireland.
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL: I did not say they were too low. I said they were low because they were made on a different system from that in this country, and that the system there is beneficial to the Irish publican.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I am pointing out that the values are not made on another system. In the case of Belfast it was the English system that was introduced, and the Valuation Commissioner declared in his evidence before the House of Lords that it could not be justified. That principle which has been introduced in Belfast is about to be introduced in Dublin. I say the fact that there is no monopoly value, and that houses are being closed up by publicans in Belfast is a proof that they are practically valueless, and yet this is the moment the Government selects for putting a fresh and almost intolerable impost on the publicans. I could give figures to prove that there are publicans who are not clearing £300 a year on their business, and who will now be called to pay an additional £150 a year in the shape of duty.
  The CHAIRMAN: This question does not really arise on the Amendment.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I will raise it on another Amendment. I trust that I have said sufficient to commend this matter to the consideration of the Government.
  Mr. MOORE: I do not intend to deal in detail with the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). The hon. Member thinks he disposes at once of all the Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament when he makes, as he invariably does, most offensive commentaries on their private life. I do not intend to go into the personal references of the hon. Member. I think hon. Members below the Gangway may well be jubilant and satisfied with the result of their Parliamentary work. But, perhaps, the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) deserves the greater share of the credit, because for many days it was his voice which was heard in these Debates. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth consistently urged the case of the Irish publicans. I differ entirely from him, but he at least defended them, and fought his colleagues. Although the hon. Member for West Belfast is very eloquent now, I think he will recognise that he and his colleagues come into the field rather late in the day. They are now tumbling over each other in putting forward the case of the Irish publicans,
  2052
  but the concession made by the Government is really due to the lash of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. I do not think that hon. Members below the Gangway, however they may apportion the credit amongst themselves, have all the same measure of pride in this transaction. But they have made the strongest Government of modern times—a Government returned on temperance principles, either by threats or by blandishments, I care not which—listen to the case of the Irish publicans. I remember how bitterly Radicals attacked us in the North of Ireland because we had so far forgotten ourselves as to support the Licensing Bill of 1904. The charge made against us was that we had endowed the brewers. What would have been said of us by those gentlemen if a case could have been made out that we had by our action secured a special exemption in favour of Irish publicans, and yet that is what the Liberal Government is doing now. I can understand that the policy of the Government is to keep burdens on people at home in order to give benefits to those abroad. From their point of view, perhaps, the Irish people live far enough away to be treated as foreigners. You give the Irish publican an exemption which you will have to justify to the English publican and the Scotch publican. They are still permitted to bear the burden, and all they will have to fall back upon is the additional reason given by the Solicitor-General for granting this concession to Ireland. What is the additional reason? It is that the bulk of the duties are derived from high licences in England, and that the bulk of the duties are derived from low licences in Ireland. Therefore, the Government give this concession to Ireland. That is what it comes to. We had an appalling contrast read out with respect to the low licences in Cork as compared with the licences in London. I do not dispute the figures, but is that any reason why you should alter the limit in Cork? If the figures had been the other way, the Solicitor-General could have got up and said that the Government were going to give the same concession to Ireland. I pity hon. Members when they come to explain to English and Scotch publicans that this was the reason why the Government hauled down the temperance flag in response to an appeal from hon. Members below the Gangway.
  Will the learned Solicitor-General tell us what does this concession mean to the revenue? What was the original estimate to be derived from Ireland as included

  2053
  in the scope of the original Schedule, and what difference does this change make? I want to know what the consideration is for the surrender? When hon. Gentlemen go home and boast of their triumphs, let us have the money value of it. The learned Solicitor-General said that this was such a patent case of injustice to Ireland that everybody knew it. May I be allowed to remark that the Government did not seem to know it when they brought in their Finance Bill, nor was there any suggestion of this injustice until it was driven home to the Government by 80 votes below the Gangway. When the discovery is made under such conditions, the patent nature of the injustice seems rather far fetched. I do not recognise that there is any patent nature of the injustice; I do not recognise that there is any injustice at all. When hon. Gentlemen talk of Ireland in this matter, it is hardly fair to ignore the immense body of public opinion in Ireland which is directed against the harm the publicans do, and directed against any undue concession to Irish publicans. This is practically an endowment of the Irish publican. I regret that even at the eleventh hour the Government have seen their way to make this surrender, which is so grossly disloyal to one of their own colleagues, the Gentleman who poses as the chief spokesman of the temperance party in Ireland, the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Mr. T. W. Russell), who over and over again has described the Irish publican as the greatest enemy of the Irish race that walks the earth. How will the learned Solicitor-General's colleague, when he goes about the country saying that the Irish publican is an enemy of mankind, explain that the Government is so ready to give a concession to the Irish publicans at the instance of hon. Members below the Gangway? A dreadful thing might happen. The Vice-President to-morrow morning might resign, but the Government evidently know their man and take their chance. This policy is a direct reversal of everything that has been preached from every platform wherever Liberal candidates appeared on Ulster platforms, a reversal of this great doctrine of Liberal policy beside which we unfortunate Unionists and Conservatives are supposed to stand in a white sheet, not very much better than drunkards. It is a most disgraceful surrender, and I am very glad of the opportunity of registering my protest against it.
  Mr. ARTHUR SHERWELL: It is somewhat remarkable that hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House who have been busy for months past informing hon. Members on this side of the House that it is a perfect abuse of Parliamentary principles to attempt to achieve moral reform in a Finance Bill, should now be urging inconsistency on the part of hon. Members on this side of the House because, although they are interested in the larger and totally distinct question of licensing reform, they are prepared, on the ground of strict fiscal equity, to support the proposal which the Government now announce. I may say quite frankly, so far as I personally am concerned, that I am not interested in any indictment of my sincerity as a licence reformer which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Mr. Campbell) may allege against me because of my support of this most entirely justifiable and irresistible Amendment, and in any remarks I may venture to address I would like to be understood as discussing this question solely and entirely on the broad principles of fiscal equity, and without regard to its temperance consequences or effects. In my judgment the principle of a minimum duty presupposes for its justification the existence of certain social and economic conditions and a certain distribution of population. In other words, that where you have a highly developed industrial community and great concentration of urban population you may justifiably advocate a principle of a minimum duty in regard to a subject of taxation such as this. But while that principle of a minimum duty may be relevant in regard to those highly-developed centres of population the principle is not relevant under the wholly different economic conditions and the wholly different distribution of population that obtain in Ireland. England, Wales, and Scotland are highly-developed industrial communities with a very considerable proportion of urban population. Ireland, on the other hand, with the exception of one or two centres, is a rural nation, and not an industrial population.
  The density of population in Ireland is actually one-fifth of the density of population in England and Wales, and, moreover, the density in Ireland is a declining density, while in England, Wales, and Scotland it is a growing density. You have in England and Wales an urban population representing 77 per cent. of the entire population of the country. In Scotland

  2055
  you have an urban population representing 70 per cent. of the population, and in Ireland you have an urban population representing only 30 per cent. of the total population of that country. In England and Wales you have no fewer than 75 towns and urban districts with a population of over 50,000 inhabitants; in Ireland you have only three. In England and Wales you have 141 towns and urban districts with a population ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 inhabitants; in Ireland you have only five. In England and Wales there are 219 towns and urban districts with a population of from 10,000 to 20,000; in Ireland there are only 13. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, although admitting a great disparity in the conditions of Ireland as compared with Great Britain in respect of the rateable value of property rather discounted that difference and attributed it "entirely," to use his own phrase, to certain conditions of mixed trading which were taken into account when the separate method of valuation was adopted by Mr. Gladstone in 1880. I confess I did not follow that line of argument. It did not altogether convince me, because I have yet to learn that the different conditions which justified the separate basis or principle of valuation in 1880 and which still prevail should be operative in 1880 and cease to be operative in 1909. But will the right hon. Gentleman really seriously suggest—the average rateable value of public-houses in Ireland being only one-fifth of the average rateable value of public-houses in Scotland, and only one-seventh of the average rateable value in England and Wales—that that enormous disparity is entirely attributable to certain differences in principles of valuation which were adopted by Mr. Gladstone in 1880? The average rateable value of a public-house in England is £108; in Scotland it is £75, and in Ireland it is only £16. Surely the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not suggest to us in any serious spirit that this enormous disparity is accounted for by "certain considerations of mixed trading which were taken into account when the separate method of valuation was adopted by Mr. Gladstone in 1880."
  Moreover, an Irish publican has a very great grievance in the proportion of his Licence Duty to rateable value. He pays an enormously higher proportion of the rateable value of his premises in the way of Licence Duty now than does his fellow-trader
  2056
  in England, Wales or Scotland. The Licence Duty paid by publicans in England and Wales represents 20 per cent. of the average rateable value of the premises, and the Licence Duty paid in Scotland represents an average of 24 per cent. of the rateable value of the premises, but in Ireland a publican pays on the average a Licence Duty which represents nearly half the rateable value. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to press an argument on the fact that what he called the monopoly value of the Irish licence is greater than the monopoly value of the English licence. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman really understood what is involved in monopoly value. He seemed to confound it with security of tenure and he omitted entirely to inform the Committee that since 1904 the English publican has absolute security of tenure, and cannot be dispossessed of his licence without payment of full compensation. Therefore, even on the point of security of tenure there is no radical or essential difference between English and Irish publicans. But is monopoly value represented by security of tenure as a fact? The Committee know perfectly well that monopoly value is determined by two factors; first, the extent of the competition which you allow, and secondly, the per capita consumption of alcohol in the district. So far as the question of competition is concerned, is it seriously to be suggested to the Committee that the number of licences, which is justly described as enormous in Ireland, with 17,000 public-houses for a population of less than 5,000,000, and the enormous force of competition represented by those figures, really add to the monopoly value of licences in Ireland? It is a contradiction in terms. Moreover, the monopoly value of the average licence in Ireland is still further depreciated by the fact that the consumption of alcohol per head in Ireland is considerably lower than the per capita expenditure on alcohol in England and Wales. Therefore, even on the lines of the right hon. Gentleman's own reasoning, he has no case, and if there is to be a consideration of monopoly value the balance of argument lies in favour of the Irish publican as against the Scottish and English trader. I would like to give the Committee one or two supplementary figures which will help the Committee to see how enormously strong is the case for this Amendment. As a consequence of the difference in the rateable value in Ireland as compared with what it is in Great Britain, it follows that the

  2057
  effect of the minimum duty will be to hit the Irish publican to an extent out of all proper proportion as compared with the English or Scotch trader. Take the minimum duty as it stands under the Bill in the very smallest towns. I leave out those towns and places under 2,000 population and all the rural districts because there the effect of the minimum duty does not mean a very great increase, but taking the towns from 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants, the minimum duty actually affects 74 per cent. of the public-houses in those towns. In towns of from 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants it actually affects 84 per cent. of the whole of the public-houses in such towns. In towns of over 10,000 up to 50,000 inhabitants it affects 90 per cent. of the public-houses; and, if you go higher up in the scale to larger towns, then the minimum duty actually affects no less than 99 per cent. of the whole of the public-houses in those large towns. May I remind the Committee that in taking the small towns of from 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants, the minimum duty affects 84 per cent. of the public-houses in such towns as against 28 per cent. in Scotland and 32 per cent in England and Wales. In the next population group, ranging from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants, the minimum duty will affect 90 per cent. of all licences in such towns, whilst 16 per cent. of all licences in such towns will have their Licence Duty raised from £4 10s. to £20, but not a single licence in the corresponding English or Scottish towns will be affected in the same way. I will not weary the Committee with further figures. The case can be proved up to the hilt by facts of that kind. I wish to say for myself as a licence reformer, as someone described me last night, that there is no vote which I could give with a more convinced judgment and greater sincerity than my vote in support of the Amendment which the Government have advanced to-night.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Member for Huddersfield deserves the thanks of Members on this side of the House for his very valuable statement of the case. I think that the Government ought to feel themselves greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College and the Member for North Antrim for the speeches they have delivered, because it will convince the Irish people why it is almost impossible to secure justice for any case put forward in behalf of Ireland in this House. The moment the Liberal party attempt to give the smallest concession, even the millionth
  2058
  part of what is due, down fall upon it every Orange Member from Ireland, charging the Government practically with treason to the Crown. I would ask hon. Members above the Gangway to remember the attitude we assumed at the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making concessions to English interests—when he was giving an enormous concession in, respect of the Land Tax, in respect of Income Tax, in respect of ungotten minerals, a whole number of concessions that he gave again and again in response to appeals from Members of the Tory party. Did any Member on these benches raise any protest against those concessions? No. But the moment justice, and not adequate justice, is granted to the Irish case, up gets the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College and his Friends to assail the Government for making these concessions. The hon. Member for Belfast said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College and his Irish colleagues were attending to English interests in this House. Where were they all through the Committee stage on this Bill, when English interests were under consideration? Did they give the Government the smallest help? Was the legal lore of the Member for Trinity College or the Member for North Antrim at the service of his party? No, nothing of the kind. It is only when these concessions are attempted to be made that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College rises in his place to object. Under this Bill, if passed in its present form, of 17,000 public-houses at least 8,000 would have been closed without compensation, and that is why the Members above the Gangway are talking about the great moral effects which have been lost because this scale has not been insisted upon. They know right well that this Budget was a sentence of death, and not an awarding of revenue to the Crown, had it been passed in its present form. The Government would, therefore, have done for Ireland what a Tory Government did in 1877. Let Members of the Tory party remember this, that in 1877 they closed 2,000 beerhouses—I am not certain about the exact number, but there was an enormous number closed—because the valuation was below £10. The Tory Government shut up those houses in 1877, and they did so without giving one shilling of compensation. The Government have recognised the justice of this case, and I say that no licensed business, sanctioned by law, should be abolished without just

  2059
  compensation, being paid for it. When monopoly value and other stuff of the kind is talked about in regard to Irish licences, will the House believe that tenancies are from year to year, outside Dublin and Belfast, and can be terminated by the landlord with a notice to quit, and you can imagine when the tenant is not protected by tenant right, or the Land Act in regard to his tenure, the amount of consideration they would have got. What consideration did they get last year in Kingstown, when Lord De Vesci and Lord Longford, on certain long leases falling in, doubled and trebled the rents? And this Budget, on these rack rents, would have heaped up taxes. It is not that we are getting justice in Ireland in this case—although I am quite willing to acknowledge the way in which we have been met—but we are getting something like an approximation to it, yet the Government are told that these valuations were unjust by those who were themselves in office for 20 years and never tried to obtain justice or to redress the alleged grievance. I rose for the purpose of raising a specific point in the case of Dublin, which I trust the Government will see their way to remedy. The City of Dublin is under a special grievance which no other city in the United Kingdom is under. It is that a publican, over and above his Licence Duty, has to pay 10s. extra under the Act of 1833, of William IV., chapter 68, section 12:—
  "And be it further enacted, That every person who shall help obtain or renew under this Act a licence to sell spirits "—
  This does not apply to an application, it refers to a renewal of the licence—
  "in any house or premises situate within the police district of Dublin metropolis shall, within ten days next after he shall have so obtained or renewed such licence, deliver or cause to be delivered to the divisional justices of the Castle Division of the said police district,"—
  The police district of the Dublin metropolis extends from Phoenix Park on the north down to Bray on the south, and it is a far larger district than the City of Dublin, because it takes in towns like Kingstown and a whole number of urban places of that kind outside the City of Dublin, although 20 miles from the General Post Office in Dublin—
  "or to some clerk at the head office of police of the said district, a note in writing, under the hand of such person, or some person by him authorised in that behalf,
  2060
  in which shall be specified, set forth, and contained the Christian and surname and place of abode of such persons, and the situation and description of the house and residence of the existing sureties for such person under this Act, and such licensed person shall pay or cause to be paid to the receiver of the public offices in the said police district of Dublin metropolis the sum of 10s.; and all sums so paid to the receiver shall go in aid of the funds of the police district of Dublin metropolis; and if any person who shall have obtained or renewed a licence under this Act to sell beer and spirits within the said police district shall not, within the time and in the manner hereinbefore directed, deliver or cause to be delivered such note in writing as aforesaid, or shall neglect to pay or cause to be paid the said sum of 10s., every such person shall forfeit and lose the sum of £2."
  7.0 P.M.
  Now that provision for the upkeep of the police of Dublin is one from which the Government receive a very large sum. I think it would be only fair to provide that the Dublin publican should not be under any greater disability in respect of this 10s. than any other publican in England, Scotland, or Ireland. There is a precedent for this in what the late Government did in regard to pawn offices. The Pawn Office Duty for England is only £7 10s., but for the Dublin pawnbroker it is £100 Irish. In 1898 the Government allowed that sum to be paid over to the Dublin Corporation. It would not be fair to do that in this case. The amount should be remitted, for this reason, that the duties are being doubled, and I think it will be most unfair to add anything, and that this should be restored to the publican.
  One of the reasons I welcome the action of the Government is this—not merely in regard to sparing the men who would have been destroyed, but that by it as well you are at least retaining as a marketable asset the interest of the publican in Ireland. In my judgment, if this Bill passed in its present form, the uncertainty would be so great in the matter of calculation—I do not say that that would be so in a year or two—but during the next 12 months I believe that practically it would have destroyed the market for every public-house in Ireland. I will give one instance, which I have already mentioned at an earlier stage in the Debate. A licensed house in Dublin, on which duty had been paid on £9,000 in the spring before the Budget was introduced, was

  2061
  put up for auction lately in Dublin, and there was not a single bidder to bid for it. The certainty we get by this Amendment as regards three-fourths, if not more, of the publicans, induces me to say that I, for my part, hold that the Government have attempted to apply that same spirit of justice to this case as if they were dealing with English and Scotch cases. The notion that there is any bargain with us and the Government is absolute nonsense. I have fought the Government right through all this business, and I have come honestly to the conclusion that they have attempted fairly and honestly to meet this case. Certainly we were under a cloud as to the startling figures which the Solicitor-General read out, but I wonder had we given them would we have been told by the Government that they were grossly inaccurate.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: As I intend to vote against the Government I desire to explain my reasons. I should like at the outset to dissociate myself from the charges which have been made by Members above the Gangway opposite, and, almost worse than charges, the innuendoes hurled against the Members below the Gangway opposite. It is not in the least from any motives of that kind I find myself opposed to my Nationalist Friends in this matter. This has been called a concession to Ireland. If I thought it a concession to Ireland I should not have voted against it, but it is a concession to the liquor trade in Ireland, and that is a very different matter. I confess that I felt something like despair at my heart when I heard hon. Members opposite saying that distilleries were the only industry left to Ireland. I have not a very large knowledge of Ireland, but I claim that there are some industries—
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Nobody said the distilleries were the only industry.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: It was distinctly stated.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: What was said was "one of the few."
  Mr. LEIF JONES: That was not the sentence used. However, I will only say that the attempt which has been made to identify Ireland with the interests of the liquor trade in Ireland is not welcomed by all true friends of Ireland, and I think my hon. Friends will believe me when I say that I go into the Lobby against this concession because I believe that the Government's concession to Ireland is injurious to
  2062
  that country, and not a benefit. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) have, I think, made out the very best case for the Government concession that could be made. I am bound to say that case leaves me wholly unmoved. The figures no doubt point to the fact that the tax will press more severely on the liquor trade in Ireland than in this country. But, at the same time, I think that is because the conditions under which the liquor trade in Ireland are carried on are worse than in this country, and as this tax would have helped to raise the standard on which the trade is carried on, I think it is a great misfortune that those who wish to raise the condition of Ireland generally should have been refused the leverage contained in it. A great point has been made about mixed trade, which is an unmixed evil. Everyone who has interested himself in the temperance question, everyone who has studied the licensing question in this country or in any other, every Commission that has gone into the question has practically recommended that there should be a separation between the sale of liquor and all other articles. Therefore, when I am told that this concession is made as the Prime Minister told us largely because there is mixed trade, I can only say that is a reason why this concession should not have been made, and why it should have been left to act as leverage to lead to that separation of trade, which I suppose every one desires. I heard my hon. Friend the member for Huddersfield to my utter amazement declare that he was prepared to give his vote quite apart from any moral consideration, or from any moral effects which might follow from this taxation.
  An HON. MEMBER: He did not say so.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I understood him to say so.
  Mr. SHERWELL: May I point out in correction of what my hon. Friend said I declined to consider a strictly fiscal proposition on moral or ethical grounds.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I wonder what would become of the taxation of the liquor trade if you left out moral considerations. What would become of the licensing system if you are going to rule out moral considerations? I have heard the argument used that we ought not to introduce moral considerations into the Budget. I have never accepted that argument. The only grounds on which we can justify the taxation of liquor and the licensing system,

  2063
  and wish that it should be made heavier, the only grounds on which you can justify that is that you do not think it a wrong thing, but that you think it a wise thing to discourage trade in liquor and to diminish the consumption if it can be done. An hon. Member tells me they are luxuries, but they are the luxuries which one Chancellor of the Exchequer after another has sought to tax up to the limit of taxation. I would say that it is no argument against these proposals that they are going to have certain moral effects on Ireland if carried out. I do not want to pursue the matter further. I am sorry the Government have found it necessary to alter their Bill as it was brought in. I think it would have been fairer to leave the standard the same for the three countries. I think no case has been made out for lowering the standard, and therefore I shall go into the Lobby against the Government.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: We make no complaint of the speech which has just been delivered. Although we cannot agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member, we certainly recognise fully that he goes into the Lobby reluctantly under the coercion of a very strong conviction. I must tell the hon. Member when he says that this concession, if it is to be called a concession, is not a concession to Ireland but to the liquor trade of Ireland that he is very wrong. Some modification in the scale is absolutely necessary if you want to even approach equality of burden between the two countries, and you could not attempt to apply the same measure of taxation to Ireland as to England. The hon. Member really, I think, acting under the operation of a very strong principle on this matter, said that the spear entered his heart when he heard the Irish Members identifying themselves with a liquor interest, and saying that the distilleries were the only industry. We did not do either one thing or the other; we said, and we said truly, that distilling was one of the remaining industries of Ireland. We pointed out the fact that the industries of Ireland had again and again been destroyed by this House, and that therefore any attempt to abolish any of the remaining industries by special taxation aroused great resentment. The hon. Member spoke about our identifying ourselves with the liquor interests and defending the liquor interests—
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I do not think I said
  2064
  identified themselves. What I spoke of was a statement made by one hon. Member identifying the cause of Ireland with the cause of the liquor interests in Ireland.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: That is really a difference with a distinction, which is rather worse. That is a thing we have never done. I want to say this to the hon. Member: We really do in Ireland resent, and I think we are entitled to resent, any lectures coming from any Englishman on this question. If we had our own way we would be miles ahead of England in all temperance legislation. We would, and will be if we get the chance, and whenever temperance Bills come up in this House a large section of the Irish party always support them. You have never carried any temperance legislation without the help of the Irish party, and never could carry it without that help, because England has always been against temperance legislation. Really these things make us a little inclined to resent lectures. What we claim in this matter of temperance is that we should be allowed to carry out our own temperance legislation in our own way and in a way that will carry with us the moral conviction and the approval of our people, because I have always held that no temperance legislation in any country can be effective if you carry it out in such a way as to arouse the general public opinion of the country against it. You must in temperance legislation carry the public opinion of the country with you. I say, give us a chance in Ireland and I am quite convinced that we will show you an example in this matter. The hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) made an even more insulting and more outrageous charge. He spoke of us as the representatives of the liquor interest, and he said that we have subscriptions from the publicans.
  Mr. MOORE: No.
  Mr. DILLON: That was the principal part of the hon. Member's speech. I do not in the least deny that a great number of publicans in Ireland are Nationalists and support our party; but for every £1 of subscription that we have from the brewers and distillers, the party above the Gangway have at least £20 in their party funds. It is, therefore, rather a curious charge to make against us that we are the representatives of the liquor interest. We are much less the representatives of that interest than hon. Members above the Gangway. Our desire has been to defend a section of the population engaged in a

  2065
  legitimate trade from a gross injustice, and I thank the Government for the step they have taken. As for the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Mr. J. Campbell) and his philippic, I said last night that he did not represent the Unionist party in Ireland in what he said, and this morning the "Irish Times," the journal of that party, absolutely repudiates the right hon. Gentleman and the whole of his colleagues. In its first leader it says:—
  "It sounded somewhat strange to hear so prominent an Irishman admitting that his country is the spoilt child of licensing legislation….. It is difficult to put a good construction on the action of Irish Unionists in this matter, and certainly they did not show to advantage in the discussion, some of them using language in regard to the concession which the facts do not warrant."
  The right hon. Gentleman himself will not deny the right of the "Irish Times" to speak for the body of Unionists in Ireland. Within 12 hours Members above the Gangway are repudiated by their own party in Ireland; therefore I claim that in this matter we are expressing the views not only of Nationalist Ireland, but of the overwhelming majority of the Unionist party in Ireland.
  Mr. G. FETHERSTONHAUGH: It seems to me that the alteration now proposed by the Government somewhat conflicts with an answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury on 17th June, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was then asked:—
  "If, in view of his announcement of substantial concessions in respect of the Scottish and Irish Licence Duties and analogous provisions in the Finance Bill, he will undertake not to differentiate his proposed taxation to the detriment of English taxpayers?"
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:—
  "My right hon. Friend has no intention of differentiating between the English taxpayer and the taxpayer in Scotland and Ireland."
  Having regard to the minimum now proposed, the vast majority of the publicans in Ireland will practically escape from any increase of taxation whatever. The hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) said that the result of the increased duties in Ireland, if the original proposals of the Government had been persevered in, would have been to close 8,000 houses. Speaking as one interested in the cause of temperance more than in any other cause in Ireland, I can only say that that result would
  have given me unmixed pleasure, and when one considers the kind of public-houses that would have been closed, I think it would have been one of the most beneficial measures ever passed for Ireland. In that country there are 7,190 public-houses, which may fairly be described as hovel public-houses, paying a duty of £4 10s. on the minimum valuation. It is safe to assume that if 8,000 houses were wiped out as a result of the additional taxation, they would have been mainly in that class of house. The hon. Member for Louth made a great point that they would have been abolished without compensation. Even in regard to licensed property I am one of those who disapprove of abolition without compensation. But you must have something of some value to be compensated for. If these 8,000 public-houses would have been wiped out by an increase of duty, which in their case could hardly have amounted to more than £2, I do not think they would have provided very great subject-matter for compensation, and their being wiped out would have been one of the greatest possible benefits to the country. Therefore I extremely regret that the Government have not seen their way to maintain their original proposal. The only justification put forward is that the Irish publican for the last 29 years has been paying duty upon a valuation wholly different from the valuations in England and Scotland, and one very much in his favour. The value of the licence has never been taken into account, and even the 20 per cent. provided for in the Act of 1880 has never in practice been added to the valuation, the duty having been assessed on nothing but the Poor Law valuation. We have in Ireland 17,393 public-houses, and everyone who has any interest in the prosperity of the country knows that that is many thousands too many. Therefore, I should have welcomed any fiscal measure which, treating Irish publicans on the same basis as English, would have got rid of a number of those houses for the benefit of the country.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 246;: Noes, 74.

  Division No. 776.]

  AYES.

  [7.25 p.m.

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Alden, Percy

  Astbury, John Meir

  Barker, Sir John

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Partington, Oswald

  Beale, W. P.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

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

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Boland, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brigg, John

  Hodge, John

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

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hogan, Michael

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Reddy, M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Clough, William

  Jenkins, J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Joyce, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Keating, M.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kelley, George D.

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Cullinan, J.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Seddon, J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Seely, Colonel

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lundon, T.

  Sheehy, David

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

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dillon, John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Steadman, W. C.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  M'Kean, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Elibank, Master of

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Erskine, David C.

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

  Summerbell, T.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Massie, J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Middlebrook, William

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mond, A.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Mooney, J. J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Findlay, Alexander

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Toulmin, George

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morse, L. L.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Muldoon, John

  Verney, F. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Murnaghan, George

  Walters, John Tudor

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Myer, Horatio

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gill, A. H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ginnell, L.

  Napier, T. B.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nicholls, George

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph

  Weir, James Galloway

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilton, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Young, Samuel

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  O'Malley, William

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balcarres, Lord

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Black, Arthur W.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  2068

  2069

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Renton, Leslie

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renwick, George

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Robinson, S.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Clark, George Smith

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerry, Earl of

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Keswick, William

  Stanier, Seville

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lamont, Norman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Essex, R. W.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Winterton, Earl

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Moore and Mr. Lonsdale.

  Haddock, George B.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in Scale 3 (Minimum Duty Payable for Publicans' and Beerhouse Licences), to add at the end the words: "The boroughs of Burslem, Hanley, Longton, and Stoke-upon-Trent, and the urban districts of Fenton and Tunstall, which, in pursuance of the Borough of Stoke-on-Trent Order, 1908, as confirmed by the Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1908, are, as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten, to form (subject to certain provisions as to differential rating and other matters to have effect for a period of twenty years) one borough to be called the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that Order, continue for the period of twenty years from the said date to be separate urban areas for the purposes of this scale."
  The Amendment refers to the special case of the Pottery towns. The six towns are about to be federated under an Act which was recently passed by Parliament. This Act comes into operation next year. The effect of it will be that these six towns become one town of over 100,000 inhabitants, and therefore will fall under the maximum rate of Licence Duty in the part of the scale we are now considering. The Act leaves the towns separate for purposes of finance for a period of 20 years. Their rates are to be separate rates, their loan charges separate, and in other particulars the Act allows a certain differentiation, That is because these towns, although continuous, although they verge into one another, really are, owing to their local circumstances, still, to a certain degree, separate towns. They have their separate centres of population, and they have, to a considerable degree,
  2070
  their separate local life. Consequently it was alleged to be a hardship, and the Government admitted that it was a hardship, for them to be treated, for the purposes of the Bill, as they are not treated for the purposes of their local finance—as a single town, and not as six separate towns. This Bill, if unamended with a view to this special case, means an increase of £4,000 per year Licence Duties compared with what it would have been if federation had not taken place. On reviewing the whole of the circumstances, the Government thought that this concession was legitimately asked for, and, for that reason, I beg to move the Amendment.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: When did the Government discover this state of affairs which has been described by the right hon. Gentleman? Were they not aware of the fact when the Budget Bill was first drawn? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me that?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is a very special case which was not taken into consideration before the Budget was drawn. It was brought to our notice by the hon. Members for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) and Hanley (Mr. E. Edwards), and by a deputation which came to me, accompanied by the public officers of the towns concerned, and made out a very strong case, with admirably prepared statistics. The result is this Amendment.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider, if these cases are to be considered, that a special case has been made out for London?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL'SMr. HERBERT SAMUEL'S reply was inaudible to the Press Gallery.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have come to the conclusion, even antagonistic as I am to the Government, that this Amendment is an honest and fair Amendment, having regard to the local Acts. The local finance is separate, and I do not think that the Government could have resisted putting forward their Amendment.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I want to say just one word regarding the subject. The statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy in suggesting this alteration is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, there are two or three of these districts, like Fenton, which are only urban districts. They were opposed to this federation entirely. It is not an amalgamation. It is not like a borough extending its boundary by swallowing up some suburb. It is a scheme of federation by which, for certain purposes, these distinct entities, so far as municipal life is concerned, are to be fetched together, but they have their distinct and separate rating areas, separate loan charges, and are separate in everything except that for the future they will be managed by one council instead of half a dozen. For that reason, I think, the case is overwhelming for the exception, which I think ought to be made.
  Mr. C. S. HENRY Mr. C. S. HENRY moved, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "In the case of the borough of Wenlock the sanitary divisions shall be the area upon which the population shall be calculated and the licence based, instead of the borough as a whole."
  When I first put this Amendment on the Paper I had the impression that there were several places like Wenlock. Hence the change in the wording. I think it is a special case which deserves special treatment. The borough of Wenlock is situated partly in the Constituency which I have the honour to represent and partly in the Ludlow Division. It is divided by the River Severn. It comprises four sanitary divisions. The area of the borough is 22,522 acres. Its extreme length is from 10 to 12 miles, and its extreme breadth from four to five miles. In spite of that large area the population is only 15,894 persons. I think it is a case which really should commend itself to the Government. What I ask is that the four sanitary divisions should be treated as the area upon which the Licence Duties should be based. It
  2072
  is a borough which has a small, scattered population, and is quite the opposite to the idea of what a borough should be. I do not know that anyone can cast any reflection upon me in view of the action I am taking, for so far as my part of the division is concerned I do not think that one publican will vote for me at the next election or did so at the last election.
  Mr. B. STANIER: I should like to support the hon. Member for Wellington in the Amendment which he has proposed, because I can bear him out as to the peculiar character of this borough. It is, the largest borough in England, in area containing no less than 22,000 acres. It is a borough composed of three towns in the middle of a large agricultural area. Each of these towns has a population of from 2,000 to 3,000, but if the whole borough is taken the population is only 15,000, and therefore the licences would come under the larger scale. This borough has been treated in a peculiar manner in times gone by, therefore it comes under no new application. The exceptional nature of the borough was recognised by an exceptional section in the Education Act of 1870, and again in the Local Government Act of 1888. The hon. Member for Wellington has said that the borough asks that the sanitary divisions should be taken as the area for the licensing question. The Chancellor of the Duchy has told us of the particular case of the federated Staffordshire towns, and I think that we have here a case of even greater claim to exceptional treatment. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government will give the matter sympathetic consideration.
  Mr. REES: I would like to say a word in support of this Amendment, and of the Mover and of the hon. Gentleman who has last spoken. I am, myself, well acquainted with this borough and its peculiar circumstances. But one of the boroughs which I represent myself, though not the largest in England, is the next largest, and only 600 acres less than Wenlock. I refer to Welshpool. The circumstances of this town are also extraordinary. It is a small town situated in a very large area which comes within the Parliamentary borough, and I had wished, had not this point been raised on behalf of Wenlock, to raise it on behalf of Welshpool. The circumstances are very much the same. I hope the House will not be prejudiced by the fact that Welshpool is not known as Much Welshpool as Wenlock is known as Much Wenlock, because that is a difference

  2073
  which merely proceeds from the fact that the Welshpudlians are as modest as the Salopians are proud.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The circumstances of Wenlock are certainly peculiar, but the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down shows in what the Government will be involved if this Amendment were accepted. For immediately it establishes a precedent, and many anonymous boroughs would appear in various parts of the United Kingdom, and would make a claim analogous to that of Wenlock. I point out, further, the case is distinct from that of the Potteries in many particulars. In this case the towns have been united for 20 years. The Potteries are to be united next year, and the exemption allowed is to last the period of only 20 years, which has already elapsed in the case of this town of the borough of Wenlock. Secondly, the Pottery towns are separate for the purposes of rating and finance generally; and, thirdly, the minimum duty in the potteries is very considerable. As they have a population of over 100,000 the minimum duty will be £35. It is only little more than half that in the case of Wenlock. The minimum charge in the case of the beerhouses in the Potteries will be £23, whereas in the case of Wenlock it will be only £13. More than that, my hon. Friend does not propose a limit of 20 years, which is the period adopted in the case of the Amendment in connection with the Potteries which I have moved. For all these reasons the cases are not parallel, and although I shall be very willing to listen between now and the Report stage to any new and more cogent arguments which hon. Members can advance to show that this town is differentiated from that of any other boroughs which cover the same large area and have
  the same proportions of population, as at present advised I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. HENRY: The reason I did not bring the parallel of the Potteries to that of Wenlock was that I did not think the cases were analogous. If my right hon. Friend would make the concession I am quite willing to accept the limit of 20 years. Personally, I do not want to press this matter to a Division, especially when the right hon. Gentleman promises that between now and the Report stage he will consider the matter, and I may say I have no objection whatever to the case brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery Boroughs being also considered.
  Mr. REES: May I make the same plea as my hon. Friend has made? If my right hon. Friend will consider the matter I, like him, have no desire whatever to go to a Division.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have already said I will consider any representations my hon. Friends may make to me. I am not prepared to pledge myself to the word "favourably."
  Mr. REMNANT: As the right hon. Gentlemen has promised Members upon his side to consider between now and the Report stage their Amendments, will he make a similar promise to Members upon this side of the House to consider the case of London?
  Mr. HENRY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Leave withheld.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 184.

  Division No. 777.]

  AYES.

  [7.50 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Morse, L. L.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haddock, George B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Renton, Leslie

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Renwick, George

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Keswick, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clyde, J. Avon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Walker, Col. W. H. Lancashire)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Taber, George Denison (York)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Henry and Mr. Stanier.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pointer, J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Beker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barker, Sir John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Beale, W. P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robinson, S.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robson, Sir Walter Snowdon

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hodge, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rowlands, J.

  Brigg, John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jenkins, J.

  Seddon, J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Seely, Colonel

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Shackleton, David James

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Clough, William

  Kelley, George D.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Clynes, J. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lament, Norman

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Steadman, W. C.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Summerbell, T.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Crossley, William J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Toulmin, George

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Massie, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Middlebrook, William

  Walters, John Tudor

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Mond, A.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Elibank, Master of

  Myer, Horatio

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Essex, R. W.

  Napier, T. B.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Nicholls, George

  Watt, Henry A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Findlay, Alexander

  Norman, Sir Henry

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Partington, Oswald

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Gulland, John W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Viscount CASTLEREAGH Viscount CASTLEREAGH moved to insert, at the end of Scale 4 (Wine Eetailers' On-Licence), the words: "Where a retailer's on-licence for wine is taken out by a person who is the holder of a beerhouse licence, the duty payable on the retailer's on-licence for wine shall not exceed 25 per cent. of the duty payable on the beerhouse licence."
  This Amendment raises a question of very great importance. I am not asking by this Amendment any concession, but I
  2076
  think the grievance which I seek to remedy is due to an oversight on the part of the Government, and upon this ground I venture to claim for it the sympathetic attention of those in charge of the Bill. I think the sooner this matter is elucidated the better for all parties concerned. As the Bill stands it is possible that in many cases it may occur that the united duties upon the combined on-licence for beer and wine may be equal to or exceed the duty upon the full licence, which authorises the

  2077
  sale of all kinds of drink, and this may occur upon premises of identically the same annual value. That appears to be a case of anomaly, and the case becomes more apparent if we consider it in connection with the minimum charge. It is in the knowledge of the Committee that the minimum charge for wine is exactly the same as the minimum charge for a full licence, and consequently if a house is desirous of selling beer and wine they would have, in addition to the minimum charge for selling wine, to take out a minimum licence for selling beer.
  8.0 P.M.
  I am glad to see that the Solicitor-General is going to answer this Amendment, because it appears to me that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster revels in anomalies, and this is one after his, own heart. I would like to give an instance showing the justice of the Amendment I am bringing forward. Take the case of a £24 house. The full licence would be £12, the beerhouse licence would be £8, and a wine on-licence would be £4 10s., or altogether the combined licences in a beerhouse where the proprietor desires to sell wine would be £12 10s., whereas a full licence would be only £12. Take the case of a £36 house. The full licence would be £18. The beerhouse licence would be £12 and the wine on-licence £6, and taken together the cost would be exactly the same. It will be obvious to the Committee that a full licence is by far the most valuable. If I have succeeded in pointing out an anomaly to the Committee, I am very glad to have been able to do so, and without any further argument I will move my Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The object we have in view in proposing this scale of licences is to make them distinct one from the other. The publican's licence is one thing and the beer licence or the wine licence is quite another thing. Until the year 1880 there was a separate licence required from the Excise for wine and for beer, but after that year, for some reason or other, the two separate licences were combined into one licence for beer and wine for the sum of £4. There was no justices' licence which corresponded to these licences which enabled them to sell both beer and wine upon the premises. In this Bill we have a separate scale for the wine retailers. It is possible that these two licences combined will in some cases come to more than the full publican's licence, but I submit to the Committee that that is not the proper test. I have known
  2078
  cases of applications for full licences where there existed before only a wine and beerhouse licence refused over and over again. The amount is very small for a house the annual value of which is under £30, the licence being £4 10s., and that is only £1 more than it was before and up to the year 1880. In no case, whatever the annual value of the house may be, can the wine licence be more than £12. This is considered to be a reasonable sum, having regard to the incidence of taxation and the question of the revenue to be raised. If we accept this Amendment there will be an irresistible case for applying the same principle to off-licences. To adopt that course would entail a very great diminution of revenue, and having regard to the smallness of the scale and the maximum sum and the fact that we are only reverting to the state of things which existed before 1880, when the beer and wine licences were separate, I am afraid the Government, notwithstanding the forcible speech of the Noble Lord, are not in a position to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. RENWICK: In some cases the combined Beer and Wine Duties will exceed the amount of a full licence, and for this reason I think the Amendment ought to receive some consideration. We are in the extraordinary position that the Government have in the whole of this Finance-Bill favoured the importation of wine by imposing very small duties upon wines as compared with beer and spirits. That, I take it, will lead to a further increase in the importation of wines, and if you are going to do this surely you ought to take some steps in the direction of facilitating, the drinking of wine. I take it that the object of the Government in giving this preference to wine is that they think it is much less injurious than spirits, which has a very much heavier duty. I ask the Solicitor-General how can he justify this proposal? He may be able to justify in the eyes of his own party, but he cannot justify in the country, the fact that the combined duty on wine and beer will in some cases exceed a full licence. I cannot imagine how, for the sake of facilitating the passage of this Bill, he can justify a charge of this description. I sincerely hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider this matter, and if he does not give us some assurance on this point I shall certainly vote in favour of this Amendment.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: The Solicitor-General's argument appears to be that if

  2079
  you remedy the injustice in this case you will also have to remedy it in the case of the off-licence. Surely that is not an argument that will commend itself to the Committee from the point of view of justice. I think that is a strong reason for remedying the injustice in both cases, but the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think it is a sufficient reason for remedying neither. In the cases quoted by my Noble Friend actually the full licence would be cheaper than the joint licence for beer and for wine, and that cannot be justified. I agree that the words proposed may not come in quite conveniently in the position in which they are proposed to be inserted in the Bill by this Amendment. The Solicitor-General has frequently shown himself sympathetic in cases of this kind after we have pointed out the injustice which will be done, and I ask him before the Report Stage to look into the matter in order to see whether this injustice cannot be remedied.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: There is no doubt an anomaly exists, but it is far more apparent than real by reason of the fewness of the cases. I do not like anomalies, and I will undertake to look into the matter to see whether the case put forward requires separate treatment, whether it is a small matter, whether we need to stick to it as a question of revenue, or whether the anomaly is a really great one. I will undertake to consider the matter on the Report stage.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I do not think the Solicitor-General should look at this matter solely from the point of the revenue, but he should look at it all round.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Under the circumstances I think I am justified in withdrawing this Amendment. I would suggest, however, that the Solicitor-General should give additional attention to the words I have proposed, because I think they will meet the case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In Scale 4 (Off-Licences—Beer), paragraph (1), leave out "c. 41, s. 20," and insert instead thereof "c. 20, s. 41."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  In same Scale—Wine, leave out "Scale 6." and insert instead thereof "Scale 7."—[Mr Herbert Samuel.]
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in the same Scale, to add after the second
  2080
  paragraph relating to Wine, "Licence as a dealer in wine, on which duty is payable under 6 Geo. 4, c. 81, s. 2, so far as such a licence authorises sale by retail."
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I think the right hon. Gentleman might give us a word of explanation in regard to this proposal.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The wine keeper's licence authorises sale by retail as well as wholesale. A justices' licence is required to authorise the sale not only wholesale, but also by retail. Consequently it is necessary in this definition to make clear that this Act so far as it authorises sale by retail has reference to the licence with which we are now dealing.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in Scale 5 (Spirit Retailers' Off-Licence) to leave out:—

  £

  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

  and to insert instead thereof:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding £10

  …

  10

  0

  0

  Exceeding £10 and not exceeding £20

  …

  11

  10

  0

  Exceeding £20 and not exceeding £30

  …

  14

  0

  0

  Exceeding £30 and not exceeding £50

  …

  15

  0

  0

  Exceeding £50 and not exceeding £75

  …

  16

  0

  0

  Exceeding £75 and not exceeding £100

  …

  17

  10

  0

  Exceeding £100 and not exceeding £250

  …

  19

  0

  0

  Exceeding £250 and not exceeding £500

  …

  30

  0

  0

  Exceeding £500

  …

  50

  0

  0

  This Amendment has been on the Paper a long time and it was promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as long ago as July last. The Scale in the Bill was recognised, on reconsideration, as being unduly onerous. There are a number of cases in which off-licence holders who hold all the various licences in respect of spirits, wine, and beer, and who would be required to pay a higher sum than publicans who have both on and off-licences for the same beverages. That cannot be avoided in some cases of the lower-rated premises without lowering the duties already paid. It was represented to us very strongly that the sales carried on by large numbers of grocers in highly-rated premises are frequently very small. They may have a considerable business as grocers, and their liquor business be a

  2081
  very trifling adjunct to it. The effect of charging the high Licence Duties proposed in the Bill would be not to bring in any additional revenue, as anticipated, but merely to induce grocers to surrender their liquor licences and deal in groceries only. We are familiar in all these cases with the argument that the duties will be found so oppressive that they will bring in no additional revenue; but it may nevertheless sometimes have substance and have to be admitted by the Government that the rate of taxation may be so high that fresh revenue will not be obtained. We thought it desirable for all these considerations to remodel the scale of duties for off-licence holders, and the Amendment I now move is the first of a series to effect that purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have been in communication with the off-licence holders of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and it is estimated that this scale we now propose would, to a large extent, meet the requirements of the business, and at the same time considerably increase the revenue. All taxpayers object to increased taxation upon their business, and the off-licence holders are by no means addicted to have their duties raised, but if they are to be raised the scale now proposed is the form which would cause them the minimum of inconvenience. Under the Bill, the duties, if a man wants to sell spirits, wine, and beer, start at £21 on the lowest rated houses, and go up to £70 on the highest rated houses of £100 and upwards. The new scale begins at £14, and rises to £70 and upwards. A large proportion take out spirit, wine, and beer licences; consequently, they will have to take out three licences, and, if hon. Members will look at the three sets of duties set out, they will see that on the lowest rated houses they come to £14, and on the highest rated houses to £70. The wholesale Licence Duties remain as proposed in the Bill, but we propose as a further concession that where the two are held in combination, as they very often are, the wholesale licence may be had at a reduction not of 25 per cent. as proposed in the Bill, but of 50 per cent. If there are any other points hon. Members opposite desire me to explain, I shall be pleased to do so, but meanwhile I hope these considerations are sufficient to commend the proposals to the Committee.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of the cost?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Supposing the same number of licences are taken out in the future as in the past, the proposal would cost about £200,000, but, as it is certain that that estimate is really a paper estimate, and that the effect of the Bill would be to deter a large number of grocers continuing their licences, the loss would be very considerably less than that amount. It is impossible to say how much less till we know how many licences will be taken up.
  Mr. REMNANT: This change, considerable as it is, does not remove the objection which has been urged during the Debate to placing the off-licence duties on the annual value of the premises. I think anybody who has really studied the cases of small people in the country districts must appreciate that, even reduced as these duties are now, they will be very oppressive. The case of Ireland has been constantly urged, and has been put with such force to the Government in other directions that they have made a special exception of Ireland, and I should imagine this case would apply as strongly to Ireland as it does to England and Scotland. I have had numerous letters from members of my Constituency stating that these taxes are so onerous and oppressive, both directly and indirectly, that their businesses, small as they are, stand a great chance of having to be sacrificed. I cannot understand the position of the Government. On the one hand, they wish to be fair and not oppressive, but they have no sooner said that than they get up and speak in favour of taxes which are considered most oppressive by those who have really studied and understand the question. I believe if the Solicitor-General who took such an active interest and a large part in the Licensing Bill was here he would appreciate in this case, as he has done in others, that there is considerable reason and ground for relief. In his absence I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge at the present moment to favourably consider this matter. I would like to move an Amendment to substitute £10 for £5 in the first line.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): We had better leave out lines 47 to 50 first.
  Question, "That Scale 5 (Spirit Retailers' Off-Licence) stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Mr. REMNANT Mr. REMNANT moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in the first line of the proposed new scale, to leave out "£10" (the amount of the duty) and to insert instead thereof "£5."
  This cannot be a very serious matter from a revenue point of view, while it certainly would relieve a great many of the hardships to which attention has been drawn. I commend it, therefore, to the serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government cannot accept this Amendment. The scale has been agreed upon between the parties concerned, and I would point out that if this Amendment were carried it would allow grocers to get spirit licences at a considerably cheaper rate than they now do.
  Mr. REMNANT: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that this scale has been arranged between the parties?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I told the hon. Member that the Government had been in communication with the Off-Licence Holders' Association, and this scale was agreed upon as one which would impose a minimum amount of inconvenience, providing, of course, the duties are to be raised.
  Mr. REMNANT: Have they agreed to it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: I thank the Government for their concession in this matter. When first the Bill was published I had communications from off-licence holders in my Constituency, and since the new scale has been brought forward I have been given to understand by those who felt that they had a just and legitimate complaint against the original scale that they are satisfied with this proposal. On their behalf, therefore, I desire to thank the Government for the concession which it has made.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I congratulate the Government on having at last discovered, five months after the Budget was introduced into this Chamber, that there comes a breaking-point in taxation, and that the higher the tax is the smaller will be the revenue return. That has been a matter of common knowledge to great Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past, but apparently the present Government have a
  2084
  great deal to learn in this direction. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has told us that this remission in favour of off-licence holders will cost something like £200,000, but, he added, that it would not really be so large as the scale, as originally fixed, would have acted as so great a deterrent to those accustomed to take out these off-licences that they would drop their licences rather than pay the amount set down in the scale. That is a great confession for the right hon. Gentleman to have made, and I thank him for it. What we have been saying from first to last, ever since the Licensing Duties were laid before this House, was that that would be the effect—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This has nothing to do with the Amendment.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I understand that the object of the Amendment is to still further reduce the charge—to reduce it from £10 to £5. I am glad that that proposal is made. I have been championing the cause of the on-licence holders, but I am none the less delighted at any prospect of getting a concession for the off-licence holders. I shall be only too glad, if the right hon. Gentleman will agree, to substitute £5 for £10. I have simply been overwhelmed with representations from members of the off-licence trade with regard to the burdens these new duties will cast upon them, and if we are able to get this concession from the hard-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer I shall be only too glad. I hope that, on a subsequent Amendment to this proposal, I may be permitted to indulge in remarks of a more general character. I would point out to hon. Members that to the thousands engaged in this trade this is a matter of great importance.
  Mr. G. RENWICK: I confess I cannot see my way to support this Amendment, and I must join in the thanks which have been expressed by an hon. Member opposite for the concession which has been made to off-licence holders. It is undoubtedly a valuable concession, but one cannot help thinking that this tender regard for off-licence holders has underlying it some motive which has not yet been disclosed. I should like to know what that motive is. I have a shrewd suspicion that votes are at the bottom of it. When we compare the way in which these gentlemen have been met with the bitter hostility which has been displayed to the on-licence holders, one cannot help thinking that if

  2085
  there had been an equal number of votes on each side the on-licence holders would have received the same consideration as the off-licence holders are getting. When concessions like these are made they ought not to be made to a particular body of men. They should be made in a general way. If the right hon. Gentleman has £200,000 or £300,000 to give away, he surely might have spread it over the off-licence holders and the on-licence holders equally. I cannot help expressing my regret once more at the way in which the on-licence holders have been treated, and I hope the remarks I have made will induce the right hon. Gentleman to adopt a more conciliatory attitude to that body. Perhaps he will consider that the question of votes is, after all, something—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These observations are really too general.
  Mr. RENWICK: Then I will conclude my remarks by appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to give the same consideration to the on-licence holders as he is giving to the off-licence holders.
  Mr. REMNANT: If this is the result of an arrangement between those representing the off-licence trade and the Government I will not attempt to upset it. Under the circumstances, I would ask permission to be allowed to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: When I was interrupted I was trying to point out that the improvement in this new scale, although I understand it has been agreed to by representatives referred to is an enormous increase upon Mr. Gladstone's scale under the Act of 1880. There, I believe, the licence in all such cases was £3 10s., and now for the first time as regards off-licences it proceeds upon the basis of annual value. Mr. Gladstone, for some reason of his own, in the scale of 1880 disregarded annual value and made a charge of £3 10s. all round. One cannot help contrasting this scale of off-licences with the scale for on-licences. I can only say that I wish the right hon. Gentleman had discovered there was a breaking point in the scale for on-licences as he has discovered it in the case of off-licences. He came to the conclusion that by proceeding with the scale as regards off-licences he would have lost more than he would have gained. He would have drawn the enormously increased duty prescribed in the
  2086
  original scale, but it would have had such a deterrent effect upon the trade as a whole, that the traders, rather than pay such an exorbitant amount, would have dropped the licence altogether, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have found himself no richer, but poorer, in consequence. I do not complain of his having arranged the matter with the off-licence trade, but I wish in his financial wisdom that he had tried to make a similar arrangement for the on-licence holders.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is quite correct that the off-licence holder can get a spirit licence for £3 10s. He can get a retail licence for £3 3s., but there is this anomaly in the present law, that he cannot have a retail licence without first taking out a wholesale licence, so that no grocer can take out a licence to sell in retail quantities alone, and for the two in combination he has to pay £13 13s. Now we propose to allow him to have on the lowest rated houses a licence for spirits at the rate of £10, but although there is no graduation according to rateable value in England, there is for off-licence holders in Scotland and Ireland.
  Colonel W. H. WALKER: Do I understand from the Chancellor of the Duchy that a grocer who wishes to sell spirits retail and nothing else can get a licence cheaper under this new scale than previously?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If he has a comparatively small place he can get a licence for £10 now instead of £13 13s., but he is now restricted, as he was not before, to selling in retail quantities.
  Colonel WALKER: The rate under this Bill must be to the advantage of the individual grocer who confines his trade to selling retail.
  Lord BALCARRES: I confess I have not appreciated the point of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend. I am quite sure that the public at large have not yet understood that the effect of this alteration in the Schedule is to allow the duty for retailers of spirits to be lower than it was 12 months ago. Perhaps, to some extent, that accounts for the enthusiasm with which we gather the Chancellor of the Duchy's scheme has been accepted by this particular branch of the trade. As to the financial effect of this new series of Schedules, it is true I did not give the right hon. Gentleman notice of my question on that point, and

  2087
  perhaps he was not at that moment prepared to deal with it as fully as the subject demands. I gathered that he said the effect of these reductions might be to incur a loss to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of something like £200,000 a year. I think it is very important that we should have a more definite and revised estimate. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that he expects in certain cases the number of licences taken out will be reduced.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Under the scale proposed in the Bill.
  Lord BALCARRES: In view of the fact that the retailer will be able to take out his licence at a smaller figure than is the case to-day, does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate in consequences of that very great concession, and considering how very heavy other portions of the licensed trade are hit, that more licences will be applied for? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee a financial estimate on his revised Schedules.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cases in which a grocer will be able to get a licence cheaper than now are exceedingly few, because it is only in the case of the smallest houses that this can possibly occur. If the house does not exceed a rateable value of £10, a spirit licence costs £10, which is less than the wholesale plus retail licence now. I do not know how many cottages there are less than £10 in annual value and grocers' shops which have a spirit licence, but there must be hardly any, if indeed there are any. As to the next step in the scale, exceeding £10 and not exceeding £20, again he will be able to get his licence at £11 10s. retail instead of 13 guineas, retail and wholesale. There there is a very small decline; but there again the number of grocers' shops of less than £20 which have these spirit licences are few, if any. As soon as we come to the third step, exceeding £20 and not exceeding £30, there at once you get a £14 licence for retail only in place of the present 13-guinea licence, both retail and wholesale, so that the charge will be higher than it his been hitherto. Therefore the cases must be so small as to be quite negligible in making these estimates of the probable yield of the duties. Further, this must be taken into account, that the existing law was obviously anomalous. To say to a man, "You shall not have a retail licence unless you also have a wholesale licence," as clearly wrong, and it was necessary to
  2088
  split the licence in two. When you have split the licence in two you have to take all the circumstances into account, and it was thought right to charge a sum of 15 guineas for a wholesale licence and to charge sums varying, according to the scale, from £10 up to £50 for the retail licence. If a man with a £10 cottage wanted to have the wholesale plus retail licence which he has now—if he wants to get the same thing that he pays 13 guineas for now—he would have to pay in future £17 odd—that is, £10 plus half of 15 guineas—to get what he now pays 13 guineas for.
  Lord BALCARRES: I am much obliged; but could the right hon. Gentleman give a general estimate of the financial alteration involved apart from houses under £20?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It was estimated that these concessions would, if the Bill made no difference to the number of licences, cost £200,000, but it is perfectly impossible to estimate how many grocers would have surrendered their licences if the scale of the Bill had been insisted upon, and how many would still retain them under the scale which we now propose to insert.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether in Scotland the value that is to be taken in order to determine the amount of the Licence Duty is to be the value appearing in the valuation roll?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Scotch licensed grocers are now charged upon their rateable value on a scale varying with their rateable value, and as at present advised I am of opinion that the same principle will apply in future as now.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In Scale 6, to leave out "or wine retailers" ["beer retailers' or wine retailers' off-licence"].—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  To leave out:—

  £

  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

  and to insert instead thereof:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding £10

  …

  1

  10

  0

  Exceeding £10 and not exceeding £20

  …

  2

  0

  0

  Exceeding £20 and not exceeding £30

  …

  2

  10

  0

  Exceeding £30 and not exceeding £50

  …

  3

  0

  0

  £

  s.

  d.

  Exceeding £50 and not exceeding £75

  …

  3

  10

  0

  Exceeding £75 and not exceeding £100

  …

  4

  0

  0

  Exceeding £100 and not exceeding £250

  …

  4

  10

  0

  Exceeding £250 and not exceeding £500

  …

  7

  0

  0

  Exceeding £500

  …

  10

  0

  0

  Scale 7.
  Wine Retailer's Oil-Licences.
  Annual value of licensed premises—

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding £20

  …

  2

  10

  0

  Exceeding £20, but not exceeding £30

  …

  3

  0

  0

  Exceeding £30 but not exceeding £50

  …

  3

  10

  0

  Exceeding £50 but not exceeding £75

  …

  4

  0

  0

  Exceeding £75 but not exceeding £100

  …

  4

  10

  0

  Exceeding £100 but not exceeding £250

  …

  5

  0

  0

  Exceeding £250 but not exceeding £500

  …

  7

  0

  0

  Exceeding £500

  …

  10

  0

  0

  —[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in same scale (Provisions applicable to Retailers' Licences (General)), paragraph 1, to leave out the word "The" ["The sale at any one time"] and to insert instead thereof the words "A retailer's licence authorises."
  This is a drafting Amendment, which is consequential upon the alteration which was made in respect of wholesale licences, and with regard to the quantities which may be sold under those licences. I made a very full explanation when dealing with the Amendment of the wholesale licence part of this Schedule. This Amendment makes no change at all in the proposals which appeared in this part of the Schedule, but the form in which they appeared must he altered on account of the alterations which were made to the wholesale part.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I am not quite clear that the retailer's position is not altered for the worse by this series of Amendments. I am told it is very doubtful whether there has been any such general restriction of the amount which may be sold by the retailer which is proposed in this Amendment. The definitions of sale by retail as a rule have been intended merely to show what the wholesale dealer might not do, and not to limit the amount which the retailer might do. The only restrictive provisions on retailers I am told are those contained in Section 102 of the Spirits Act, 1880, which forbids the
  2090
  spirit retailer to sell to another retailer or to a dealer unless he also holds a dealer's licence, and in the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1845, which forbids a spirit grocer in Ireland to sell more than two quarts of spirits at one time. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will explain whether his Amendments do alter for the worse the position of the retailer in regard to what he is allowed to do under his retail licence.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Amendments make no difference at all. This Amendment merely recasts the form in which the Schedule now appears. Whether the Schedule itself makes any difference is, I think, what the hon. Member has in his mind. It would be advisable if I were to consider it before the Report stage, but, as at present advised, I am certainly of opinion that the retailer is restricted under the existing law and may not sell any quantities above those specified in the retail licence.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I am perfectly satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter consideration.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made, in Scale 6, to leave out the words "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," and to insert instead thereof the words "but not in any larger quantities."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, in paragraph (3) ('Provisions applicable to Retailers' On-licences), to leave out the word "seven" ["annual value of the premises exceeds seven hundred pounds "], and insert instead thereof the word "five."
  This is the concession which was announced some time ago to enable publicans and other persons with licensed premises of over £500 to have the option of being assessed upon annual compensation value instead of annual value.
  Mr. JOHN GRETTON: It has been repeatedly stated by the Government in this House that this concession is one of very great value, but they have always refused to explain what they mean by it. The whole point of this Amendment depends entirely upon how they arrive at annual compensation value. No one representing the Government has ever explained to the Committee or the country

  2091
  how annual compensation value is to be arrived at. This matter has been very carefully investigated. The Amendment has been brought forward specially to meet the case of the large houses in London. Many of the owners of these large houses have paid great attention to this matter, and having expert knowledge, and being fully acquainted with all the terms, decisions, and precedents created under the Act of 1904, they have endeavoured to estimate the annual compensation value to which this paragraph would apply in the case of houses over £500 value. In no case does their calculation result in any reduction of the tax. These houses are of great value owing to the value of the site and the buildings, and when the trade done in houses is added to the value of the site and building the result is that a very large amount is taken for compensation under the Act of 1904. On the other hand, having regard to local taxation, which is already very heavy on the licensed trade, and the rents which such houses would command in many cases, the Government have already sucked the orange dry. But when you come to assess for ascertaining what the annual compensation value will be the amount is swollen beyond that which the Government propose in their scale, and under these circumstances I cannot convince myself that this so-called concession will be of the slightest value to any of these houses. It is no mitigation of the burden which this Bill proposes to impose upon them. I think the time has come when the Government should unravel the mystery of this concession by submitting figures, or by some method of calculation in order that the Committee may really know the meaning of the Amendment, and how the concession is to be worked out to afford some relief of the overwhelming burden of taxation which the Schedule proposes to impose on these licensed premises.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government have never said that this different basis would be a concession to all the houses above £500 or £700 value. There may be cases in which the rent is very moderate in proportion to the trade done, and there may be houses standing on sites of no very great value—buildings which are rated on a value of £600 a year—which may be doing a colossal trade, and if their compensation value were taken as the
  2092
  basis, I daresay they would not get an advantage. But these are not the houses that the Government have in view. These houses already, ex hypothesi, are being assessed on a low rateable value. The houses we have in view in proposing this option, as I have stated on more than one occasion, are houses which are in main thoroughfares perhaps, or at the corners of streets. They stand on very valuable sites and are commanding buildings, but, nevertheless, when they come to be examined, are found to do a very small liquor trade in consideration of the value of the buildings. There you will find that the compensation value would be remarkably low in proportion to the annual value. The hon. Member asked what is compensation value? Compensation value is the difference between the value of the premises with a licence and the value of the premises without a licence. That is a capital sum. Having got the capital sum, you have to ascertain what is the equivalent. The precise formula for effecting that calculation has not yet been laid before the Committee. We have undertaken, before we reach the Clause to which this matter is really germane, to give a statement of the general lines on which the calculation may be made. The importance of this point has been greatly exaggerated by hon. Members opposite. The law says that the annual compensation value shall be calculated in such a way, and the Licence Duty is to be levied on what is the annual equivalent of that capital sum. It must be the equivalent, but if a sum is arrived at which is not the equivalent, then we should be departing from the clear terms of the Act of Parliament. The hon. Member omitted one point in his speech. Not only are we taking a valuation which, in many cases, is lower than the annual value would be, but, for the purpose of Licence Duty, we divide that not by a half but by a third. That is an enormous difference. The difference between one-half and one-third is much greater than at first sight appears.
  Mr. BARNARD: Is it on all houses?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Only houses above £500. We are speaking about this particular paragraph in the Schedule which relates to these houses. The hon. Member is thinking of small houses and beerhouses in rural districts.
  Mr. BARNARD: The number you quote is only a minority of the whole.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly they are a minority over £500 in value. That is obvious. The contention is that these houses are too highly valued, especially in proportion to their high rateable value. The difference between one-half and one-third is one-sixth, but the reduction is not a reduction of one-sixth, but a reduction of one-third of the revenue to be derived from it. Take the houses which are assessed for annual compensation value at £600, If you take half the compensation value as duty it would be £300, and if you take one-third of it it would be £200. Therefore the Amendment which I am going to move in a few minutes to reduce it from one-half to one-third will mean a difference in the duty on both houses from £300 to £200. That is, you lower the charge by one-third, which is a very great reduction indeed.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: The change which you make of substituting £500 for £700 is, pro tanto, a concession; but to me the matter still remains wrapt in Cimmerian darkness as to what the annual compensation value is. I have been trying hard to understand the Finance Bill, and more especially what the compensation value means, and not only am I unable to understand it, but our professional advisers are unable to understand it, and I have waited for that happy moment when the right hon. Gentleman, with that perspicuity which we all so greatly admire, will make clear to us what remains wrapped in mystery. Until that happy moment arrives we fear that when we get the duty based on annual compensation value we may be out of the frying-pan into the fire.
  Mr. MOONEY: I had an Amendment down on the Paper on this point in reference to Ireland to reduce the amount to £200. I wish now to direct attention to the fact that even the reduced figure which has just been put, before us does not give any advantage, and I desire to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that between this and the Report stage he should consider the advisability of putting in a corresponding figure for Ireland, having regard to the trade, the valuation, and everything else, and the number of houses affected. The number of houses which would be affected in Ireland would be very small. There would be only 29 houses above £200, and between this and the Report stage I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if necessary, to put in an Amendment on the lines I have suggested.
  Mr. DILLON: I wish to support the suggestion that has just been made. I understood that this concession was to be extended to Ireland. Anyone who examines the figures will see that in order to extend it to Ireland it will be necessary to name, not the same figure, but a corresponding figure, because there are only six houses in the whole of Ireland above £500, and therefore to name the same concession for Ireland would be no equivalent at all. Having examined the figures very carefully, I would suggest that the very highest figure in Ireland corresponding to the £500 valuation which you propose in England would be £200.
  Mr. GRETTON: The right hon. Gentletleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel) has really not helped his case very much by the remarks he has just made. It is quite true you have reduced the tax on the compensation value from one-half to one-third in the case of houses over £500 annual compensation value, but the figure still remains higher in every case, as I say, working it both ways, than the charge proposed to be made in the Schedule, except in the case of very few houses—such houses as those which the right hon. Gentleman has himself described in which the charges very nearly approximate. In most cases they are slightly over; in some cases they are practically the same. But these cases ere absolutely exceptional when you go through the houses which are tied to various breweries. There are only two or three cases in a long list of such houses valued over £500. This concession is really no concesion at all, dealing with the broad case, so we may conclude that this reduction of the limit is no substantial relief whatever for the larger and more expensive houses. The right hon. Gentleman has promised a full explanation. I want to clear his mind before he makes that explanation of a confusion that appears to have crept into it. In the Act of 1904 there was only one way of arriving at compensation value. You took the difference between the annual value of the premises with the licence and the annual value without the licence, and then capitalised that value. You then took the annual trade done in those houses, you capitalised the value of the trade on a certain number of years' trading, and you then put the two sums together. You have to deal in that case with a lump sum, but, at the same time, you are compensating the house for every

  2095
  interest in that house—the ground landlord's interest, if he has one, the tenant's interest, and the interest of the manager. There is no indication whatsoever how you are to arrive at the annual compensation value. The only other indication is given in the Act of 1894, as applicable to this case.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On a point of Order. Does this question of the annual compensation value arise on this Amendment?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The principle of how to arrive at the compensation value comes on in another part of the Bill.
  Mr. GRETTON: I will not press that view of the case further. It has been put forward that the Government are making a concession, but I contend that it is no concession except in cases which are infinitesimal in number as compared with the whole number of houses. This concession will have no value whatsoever until we know how the annual compensation value is arrived at, and I may add that at a later stage we shall have to consider that matter. The Government evidently do not understand at the present moment what is the meaning of "annual compensation value," and we are all still in the dark in relation to it.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the Solicitor-General whether it is his intention to consider the possibility of reducing the sum from £700 to £200 on Report? I understand the hon. Member below the Gangway has an Amendment to reduce the amount to £200.
  Mr. MOONEY: My proposal is not to reduce the English figure to £200.
  Mr. REMNANT: I thought it was generally to move that the figure be reduced from £700 to £200, and I understood that the Government had undertaken to consider it, if possible, between this and the Report stage.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I shall certainly vote for this reduction, but I would urge seriously upon the Government to consider the absolute necessity of reducing this figure to at least £200. I am perfectly satisfied from my own calculations that the duty payable under the alternative of compensation value, one-third of the compensation value, will be less than the 50 per cent. on rental. Let me point out exactly how hard it would be in the case of a man under £500, and
  2096
  down to £200, compared with the licence holder whose house is £600. Suppose the house is £600. A man comes for his licence; he is over the £500, therefore he pays £200 certain, whereas the other man, who is below £500, will have to pay £245; that is to say, if his rent is £490 as against the man who pays £600, he will pay £245 absolutely, while the other man, at the higher rent, will pay £200, or it may be less. Therefore, unless the minimum is reduced to £200, or some similar amount, very great injustices and anomalies will arise between the figures, say, of £150 up to £500.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: One man may have annual value, and the other man may have compensation value.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: As I understand, the man who is over £500 is required to pay a certain sum by anticipation. It is surely so in the Section—he at once accepts the option, and, if he accepts the option, he has got to pay one-third; but the man of £490 rent actually has to pay £45 more than the man with the £600 rent. It is quite clear that if you have the compensation value it will be less than 50 per cent., the ordinary duty, and it stands to reason that you are giving to owners of houses where the rent is above £500 an advantage which you are not giving to lessees under £500. I want to know on what earthly ground you refuse to give the same advantage to lessees between, say, £100 or £200 a year up to £500 a year rent. The Committee will remember that these lower rented houses are overwhelmingly the largest number. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Charles Roberts), I think, stated that the average house was £332 rent. If that be so, then the man who is going to be injured is the man who has a less rent than £500. The number of houses over £500 is undoubtedly the smaller number, and the lessor of the larger house will get an advantage that you are going to deny to the £200, £300, or £400 man, until such time as he can obtain the compensation value in substitution for the annual value, and that may be one year, or two years, five years, or ten years hence—we do not know. But, during all that time, the Committee may take it from me, a substantial injustice will be done to the man of £200, £300, or £400 rent, as against the man of £500, £600, and £700 rent. I only want to impress a little more strongly on the Government than has yet been done a few of the

  2097
  anomalies and injustices which will arise in the case of the lower rented man. Now on £150 he pays 30 per cent., and he would have to pay 75 per cent.—150 per cent. more. I think that is quite enough. Take it at any reasonable figure you like under £500, by this proposal all privileges are with the higher rented man. That is what I impress upon the Government, and if they want to do justice to the smaller man they must reduce the limit from £500 to some such sum as £150.
  Mr. RENWICK: I wish to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman who has an Amendment to reduce the sum from £700 to £500. An hon. Member below the Gangway has an Amendment to reduce it to £200, and I think he said he did not intend to move that Amendment. I gather from him that an arrangement has been made with the right hon. Gentleman by which the Irish case will be met.
  Mr. MOONEY: My Amendment is on the Paper, and speaks for itself, and if the hon. Member will read it he will see what it is. I did not say anything about any arrangement.
  Mr. RENWICK: I apologise. I understood him to say it was an arrangement. Then may I ask if in this case also Ireland has been met, and that there the minimum is to be £200 while it is to be £500 for Great Britain?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No such decision has been arrived at. My hon. Friend has put down an Amendment for the first time to-day. His point is that we recognised that the valuation is on a different scale in Ireland to the valuation in England, and that for that reason we have a different kind of minimum for the lower value houses in Ireland than in England, because if we had the same minimum we would not arrive at the same effect. His point, as I understand it, is that the same principle applies to the higher houses, and that if we apply the English minimum of £500 to Ireland we should be applying it to a different class of house from that in England, and that if we want precisely to have the same class of house it must be a somewhat lower valuation in order to get at a house of the same character and really doing the same kind of trade. I interjected a remark across the floor that the Government would consider that point and look into it on Report stage.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Have the Government also considered the English case as
  2098
  to the £500 put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson)? If they have promised to do so, I would say no more about it; if not, I wish to ask for an explanation why they have taken a limit of £500 when it has been perfectly clearly shown, and no attempt has been made to answer it, that certainly in London, to houses of £300 or more in valuation, an injustice will be done in regard to this matter? It seems to me, if what is stated is a fact, and apparently it is not denied, that an overwhelming case for a lower standard has been made out.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The reduction from £700 to £500 was; very largely done in order to meet the case. The only reason for taking into consideration the other figure for Ireland would be the argument, if it is a valid argument, that a house in Ireland of £500 in valuation is not equal to a house of £500 valuation in London, or that it has not really the same effect by using the same figure. I quite agree with my hon. Friend opposite that the house above £500 has an advantage over that below that sum, but suppose you take the figure at £300, precisely the same thing would happen, the man above £300 would have the advantage. The same would happen if you took £100, or wherever you drew the line. The reason why the principle is not applied universally, because that is the real alternative, is a simple one. We think the principle is a far better principle; we believe in this compensation value, and we think the annual value basis is unsound, and that you ought to have regard to the trade, and that you ought not to have regard to the building. We want to get away from the annual value basis altogether, and universally apply this compensation value to all houses, whatever their value. That means an investigation of the circumstances of 120,000 licensed premises and the formation of a register of compensation value. That cannot be done in a moment. We have got a clause, which hon. Members have attacked again and again with the utmost vigour, authorising the Board of Customs and Excise to form this very register in order that the whole basis of Licence Duties may be shifted for all classes of houses. My hon. Friend desires that we should have, not annual value, but compensation value. That we propose to go on with as rapidly as may be, but it is a physical impossibility for the Department concerned to carry out this in a few weeks or a few months.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Why, in the meantime, and it may be a very long time, is an admitted injustice to continue?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not agree it is an admitted injustice. What I say is, a compensation value basis is a better basis than the basis which has existed in this country from time immemorial, which is now the law, and which has been the basis for a very long time past, and in respect to which we are obliged through the necessities of the case to adhere for the time being. Since the new duties will be far heavier on the larger houses than the small houses, and since the additional weight of the new duties increases in progressive ratio the larger the building, we thought it right not to require half annual value to be made on a house of, say, £1,000 a year or £1,200 a year, or £900 a year, doing perhaps a smaller trade than the smaller valued house. From the outset we wished that those houses should be at once assessed on the compenation value basis, and we would gladly have brought them all in the first year if that were possible. We found it practicable to bring in many thousands, about one half of which would be in London, by putting the figure at £500. To bring it lower would involve the whole undertaking practically.
  Mr. RENWICK: Before this question is disposed of I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman is going to meet the demand for a lower basis of £500 with regard to Ireland, and that he refuses to meet the English demand for a similar reduction. The right hon. Gentleman has just acknowledged that the £500 house is more leniently treated than the £300 house, and that is an additional reason why he ought to favourably consider the case of Great Britain.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: The £500 house in London would be totally different from the £500 house in Ireland; but so it would be from the £500 house in Scotland or, say, the North of England. I want to impress this matter upon the right hon. Gentleman for further consideration. The man of £500 and over is included; but surely the higher you go the bigger the business. The man with the £500 or the £600 or £700 house is not to be called upon to pay the full 50 per cent., while the man with £400 is. Why are you going to relieve the £500 man, who is doing the bigger business, and leave out the man who has the £300 or £400 house, and is doing a smaller business?
  Mr. J. WARD: That is an argument against every exception.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The man with the large house has not to pay the 50 per cent., but if he is doing the big business then the option would be no use to him, because his compensation value would be large.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: In my opinion, the compensation value will work out smaller than the 50 per cent. Assuming it is so, you are asking him to pay a smaller sum down, and from those who form the great bulk you are almost immediately going to take the full amount without the slightest chance of return. I want this Bill to be a success, and a measure such as the people will ultimately approve; but anything that is unjust or contains great anomalies cannot possibly last as a first-rate measure. Therefore, I want to give everybody, no matter what his rent may be, the same opportunities and privileges, and, although I shall vote for this proposal, I shall use my best endeavours to get the matter reviewed so that every licensee, whatever his rent, may have the full benefit.
  Mr. REMNANT: The hon. Member apparently is going to vote for something which he thinks is unfair. It would be very easy for him to move an Amendment now to secure what he desires, and I am surprised that he has not done so. Of course, we are very thankful for small mercies, although I think they would have been larger if we had had the Solicitor-General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with. We know that the Chancellor of the Duchy has told us that he is not in a position to accept any Amendments.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not say anything of the kind.
  Mr. REMNANT: I beg pardon; it was the Secretary to the Treasury. But really there are so many changes in the Minister in charge of the Bill that one gets confused. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been here I am sure that he would not only have agreed that Ireland is entitled to exceptional treatment, because the annual value there is taken in a different way from the annual value in England, but he would also have accepted my contention that London is entitled to special treatment for the same reason.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into the question of the special grievance of London. The question referred to is not under discussion at all.
  Mr. REMNANT: I am objecting to the present Amendment, and giving as a reason the case of London. I understand that the case of Ireland would have been moved with the proposal to reduce the amount to £200 had it not been that that case was to be specially considered between now and Report; and my contention is that if Ireland is to be specially treated London also is entitled to special treatment for the same reason.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already said that that question does not come into this discussion at all.
  Mr. REMNANT: I will not pursue the point; but with all seriousness I would urge the Government in considering this matter to consider also the special circumstances of London.
  Mr. E. H. CARLILE: The Committee are labouring under a great disadvantage in being without proper data for judging the position of these licences. Unless we know the compensation value of the various houses it is impossible to judge as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the Amendment. When asked whether he proposed to meet one portion of the United Kingdom by preferential treatment the Chancellor of the Duchy has always evaded the point; therefore, we do not know what importance we can attach to the assurance given on 17th June on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I then asked the right hon. Gentleman:—
  "If in view of his announcement of substantial concessions in respect to Scotch and Irish license duties and analogous provisions in the Finance Bill, he will undertake not to differentiate his proposed taxation to the detriment of the English taxpayer."
  The reply given by the Secretary to the Treasury was:—
  "My right hon. Friend has no intention of differentiating between the English taxpayer and the taxpayer in Scotland and Ireland."
  There we have a specific assurance on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no preferential treatment would be given, but yesterday and to-day, like many other promises received from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that assurance has been torn up and destroyed. We are always treated in this way. Whenever we require data to enable us to come to a sound decision we are told either to wait until a later stage or until next year or the year after, or that this is only a temporary
  2102
  arrangement, and that if it proves to be so unjust that it cannot be worked it will be modified.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Those general observations do not apply to this Amendment.
  Mr. CARLILE: Thank you, Mr. Caldwell, for your guidance. Unless the Government is willing to do what it has specially not done we cannot say at this moment whether £500 is a suitable substitute for the figure which stands in the Bill. I am inclined to think with a great many Members on the other side of the House that the hon. Member for Aberdeen is right, and that this proposed alteration is very insufficient as a substitute for what is proposed in the Clause and the various anomalies consequent thereon, and that this is the right moment for the right hon. Gentleman taking efficient steps towards obviating this very undesirable condition of things.
  Mr. BARNARD: These two or three Amendments appear to be very kindred to one another. Now we have at last got from the Chancellor of the Duchy that it is a physical impossibility for the Commissioners to be quick in their operations. We knew that before. He has told us that they are going to start on the big houses. I venture to put to the Committee that that practically creates a very serious condition for the small houses, who will have to wait whilst the big ones are being dealt with. Yesterday we were told by the Chancellor of the Duchy that he was able to compute the amount of money he expected to get under these arrangements by means of the technical advisers at his disposal. It would have been a great convenience if he had told the House, or the Committee, how he arrived at this annual compensation value. Everyone of us has wanted to know that for weeks past. What does the position to-night amount to? We are told that in London there is a particular position regarding valuation. I speak at a disadvantage, because I have not—although I asked a question on Mon day, and asked for an answer at once—the knowledge in my possession which the Chancellor said he had last night. Very well; I must take things as I find them. A house of £500, if rightly rated, would have to pay £167 contribution as Licence Duty, whereas a house of £498 would have to pay £249 to the Revenue under the circumstances proposed. That may be right or it may be wrong—
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is not quite right. He has omitted the fact that there is a minimum.
  Mr. BARNARD: I have not omitted any fact except that I do not possess the answer to the question I put to the Treasury Bench. If I had got it I should be able to deal with absolute facts, which under present circumstances I cannot. I will repeat the position. I understand—and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that if a house is rated to-day in London at £500, and if London rating, as his own speeches have shown, is a more or less correct idea of the proper value—in comparison with other parts of the country—as he has repeatedly said—then one-third of £500 is £167—
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no question of any house being charged one-third of the rateable value.
  Mr. BARNARD: I have already tried to point out that I have asked continually for the definition of annual compensation value. I am still willing to sit down if the right hon. Gentleman for the third time will interrupt me by giving me that definition now. I therefore assume, as we have been told continually by London Members, that the London quinquennial valuation more or less approximates to the right valuation of these premises, and it has not been contradicted. If I am wrong the Government's speakers can correct me afterwards. Whether my calculations are exactly correct is immaterial. The question is: Why do you require to draw any distinction of any sort between the houses of the country? Why, if it is right to give to rich houses the option of being between the two scales, cannot you give it to all houses? I have never yet heard a single argument put forward of any description which deals with that aspect of the question. The Chancellor of the Duchy has told us that there are reasons: that these people are getting advantages. He said that because a halfpenny had been taken off the tax on sugar that they gained so much per barrel. He said that the price of brewing materials had altered. So far as my experience goes, I share the views expressed from that side of the House rather than his. But I do not pause to discuss that. He then said that a shilling war tax—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the Amendment, which is an extremely simple
  2104
  one. It is to take out £700 in order to put in £500. It is a question of a different amount.
  Mr. BARNARD: I will do so. At the same time, Mr. Caldwell, without any disrespect to you in any shape or form whatever, we have raised no question touching the incidence of this duty, but we have been invariably beset by assertions from the right hon. Gentleman that the licensees gained in other side issues. I drop it, and leave it at that. I turn to the other aspect of the question. We are dealing with the distributers, and the distributer is the person who has to pay this duty. However much advantage the manufacturer may gain, I do venture to put to the House that the distributer absolutely stands to lose by the proposed arrangement. We heard last night that the small houses in Ireland are gaining. We know that in London the big houses will gain. What about the rest of England? I should very much like to hear from the Chancellor of the Duchy why he does not make this apply to the whole of England indiscriminately, without any fear or favour.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not see myself how we can dispose of this Clause until some answer is given to the questions put by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I contend that the reason the hon. Member does not get an answer to the question is this, it would let the large Irish cat out of the bag. The reason is this, that we are to be valued in Ireland, we were told by the Prime Minister, upon what is called Griffith's valuation. That was contradicted at once by the Chancellor of the Duchy, who said, "Nothing of the kind. There is to be a register which will apply to the three countries." Here we now have the narrow question apparently whether this is to apply to houses of £500 or of £700. I would ask two or three questions in regard to how this is to be applied to Ireland. It is a question of great importance, and for this reason. Whatever principle you adopt in valuing the larger houses, whether £700 or £500, £400 or £300, £200 or £100, you must apply, according to the Chancellor, to all Irish houses not subjected to the minimum scale this new valuation when it comes into force. I admit that the Chancellor of the Duchy tries by a later Amendment to meet the difficulty as far as regards Ireland. I really do not see how his Amendment does that. It is not a concession to us, as hon. Members above the

  2105
  Gangway suppose, but it is an endeavour to meet what otherwise would have been an impossible case, because as I understand the later Amendment it is this: The Clause as it stands says that where the compensation value has not been certified for the purpose of the register to be prepared under this Act, the licensed holder may require that amount to be so certified—that is to say, the licence holder in Ireland might require something that is impossible—it cannot be done. How can a man with a £700 house in Ireland require a certificate of what is non-existent? I presume it is to meet that that the right hon. Gentleman proposes his Amendment, "And where the annual compensation value has not been certified the licence shall be granted on a provisional payment of the minimum duty payable under this provision," and so on. I am right in that. I thought so. What really ought to be done, therefore, is this. You ought not to be afraid to mention the name of Ireland in the Clause. However, as it is a touch-and-go matter, I will not say any more about it; but certainly it is a very curious result of the Debate we had yesterday and the Debate upon Clause 30, and I respectfully say it entirely bears out the view that I took of the Clause. Let me now ask the Government to how many houses will their new Amendment apply? I hope the Opposition will believe me when I say that in no sense is this any concession to Ireland that England and Scotland does not share. If it is a concession at all—about which I say nothing—it is applicable to the three Kingdoms. We are entitled to ask what would be the principle applied in Ireland in regard to this matter of compensation, seeing that no compensation exists.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to ask you, Mr. Caldwell, whether such a question as this is not wholly irrelevant to the point which is now under discussion, namely, whether the figures should be £500 or £700? We spent days of this matter in Committee.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: But we never got an answer.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should be happy to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it would simply be leading to a repetition of the Debates which we have already had.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I could ask it on the Clause.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The whole basis of the principle upon which compensation is to be calculated—a lengthy statement—as I already stated, is to be laid before the Report stage as to the method by which annual compensation value is to be derived.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I accept that.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I already pointed out—
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am sorry I did not catch it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think the hon. Member was in the House, and now, if he will excuse me, I would rather not enter into a detailed discussion of the manner in which the compensation value is to be calculated in connection with all the annual values in the country.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will it be circulated next week?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope so.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in paragraph (3), to leave out the word "half" ["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"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one-third of."
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "one-third" and inserting the words "one-quarter."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not in order. It amounts to a direct negative, but I must take the word out first.
  Question, "That 'half' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That 'one-third' be there inserted."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must now point out to the hon. and learned Member that to insert "one-quarter" would be to negative this Amendment.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I would like to know, upon a point of Order, what my position is at this moment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will explain to the hon. and learned Member. A vote will have to be taken on the question

  2107
  "that the words 'one-third' be there inserted." If these words are negatived the hon. and learned Member can then bring forward his Amendment to insert "one-quarter." It can only be moved if the proposal of the Government to insert "one-third" was negatived.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: As I am not quite certain that these words will be negatived, I desire to say a few words upon the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am not so sure, after the ruling which has just been given, that I shall have an opportunity of placing before the Committee the Amendment standing in my name, but I think I shall be in order now in making a few observations. I address myself to the Committee because I wish to place before hon. Members certain figures of considerable interest and importance. Nothing will show how entirely in the dark the Government are as regards what will be the practical effect of this wholly novel basis of licence taxation which they are proposing so much as the change which is now before the Committee to shift the proportion of the annual compensation value upon the Licence Duty to be paid from one-half to one-third. The Government admit that in the higher range of the scale some mitigation must be found, but instead of graduating their scale upon the same basis throughout, they draw an arbitrary line at £500 and give the publican an option above that line, "to fly from evils that he has to others that he knows not of," and in regard to which the Government are in entire ignorance as to the amount this taxation will be. We have heard a great number of confident statements from the Government to the effect that this new basis—which is not like the annual value, which is a familiar basis, but a wholly novel basis—will be more favourable to the taxpayer than the old annual value basis. We have never had a single figure given to justify those confident assertions. Basing themselves upon that statement the Government first of all thought that one-half of the annual compensation value would be an advantage over the one-half of the annual value. That idea they have now apparently abandoned, and they are now proposing in place of one-half of the annual value one-third of the annual compensation value. It would be interesting to know upon what information they originally
  2108
  formed the idea that one-half of the annual compensation value would be an advantage to the publican.
  Speaking yesterday, if I followed him correctly, the hon. Member for Hudders-field expressed some doubt as to whether the compensation basis now proposed would prove to be so favourable to the publican as had been stated. I venture to say that careful inquiries which have been made go to show that it is very clear indeed that a change from the basis of compensation value is not in the interest of the publican even when you take one-third as the Government now propose to do. Inquiry has been made into this question, and I have before me here the result, and I think this point is well worth the attention of the Government and of the Committee. This is an inquiry which has been made by people beyond suspicion of the highest experience, and it has been made upon such a scale that it really is impossible for anyone to say that it deals with exceptional or hard cases. I am sure I am at liberty to mention the names. These inquiries have been made by Messrs. Watney, Combe, and Reid; Messrs. Whitbread, and Messrs. Truman, Han-bury, and Buxton, all brewers whose names are well known. In the case of Messrs. Watney, Combe, and Reid inquiries were made in regard to 71 London houses running up from £500 to larger amounts, and it was found that the Licence Duties upon half the annual value basis amounted to £26,273. That is the total for the 71 houses. On the basis now proposed by the Government, that is the reduced basis of one-third of annual compensation value, the Licence Duties payable upon those 71 houses will be £36,000.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: How was the annual compensation value taken?
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I will answer that question and then I will throw myself upon the mercy of the Government. I will not make any terms with them, but I ask them to be as frank with me as I am with them. Before I give the remaining figures I will answer the natural question which has been put to me. The annual compensation value was taken in this way. The beer was taken at 10s. per barrel profit; the spirits' profit at 2s. 6d. per gallon, and then the difference between the rent licensed and the estimated rent unlicensed was considered. Those familiar with these matters can judge for themselves as to the reliability of these figures, which I know are well within the mark. The element

  2109
  to be considered is the unlicensed rent, and for that the Committee must assume that it has been clearly estimated by competent persons. That is how the compensation value was taken. It was not capitalised. The Committee knows that when obtaining compensation value for the purpose of compensation it is capitalised, but under the new system the Licence Duty is to be paid on the annual equivalent, and, therefore, it is absurd, having obtained the annual difference to multiply that by so many years and then divide it by the same number of years. Having obtained these three elements, they have taken them to be the annual compensation value. That is my answer to the Solicitor-General, and I hope we shall be told whether, in the view of the Government, that is the correct and proper way, and, if not, in what respect is it defective.
  I will now give the result of the inquiry made by Messrs. Whitbread. In this case 24 houses were inquired into, and upon half the old basis the duties amounted to £10,487, and upon one-third of the annual compensation value to £10,301, so that they would stand to gain a few pounds. I am told the reason why the new basis works out so much less unfavourably in their case than in others is that they happen to own a considerable number of houses in the City on very valuable sites. Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton made inquiries in the case of 30 houses. On the old basis they pay £16,250, and on the Government's new basis they will pay £20,584, so that this generous concession and this alternative offered in mercy and in consideration to the publican, whose injustice was admitted, will result in one of these cases in a loss of £10,000 a year, in another case in a loss of upwards of £4,000, and in a third in a trifling gain. The houses in regard to which these inquiries have been made are in all parts of London, and they are 135 in number. I do not think it would be possible for any hon. Member to suggest that that does not give a very important and, for London, at any rate, a very reliable general average result. They are, at any rate, figures with which it behoves the Government to deal, and to deal with at once. I hope it may be possible under the Rules of Order to put my Amendment to substitute one-quarter for one-third to the vote of the Committee. If the Government really desire to do any justice to the publican in the upper part of the scale they must go below a third and to a quarter. Taking these 135 houses together, they would, on
  2110
  the old scale of half the assessment, pay £53,016. On a third of the annual compensation value, the Government's present proposal, they would pay £67,260, a loss of £14,000 a year. If the third were reduced to a quarter, then the duties would be reduced from £53,016 to £50,520, so that at a quarter of the annual compensation value there is a trifling, but only a very trifling, advantage. I submit those figures are of considerable importance, and I ask the Government to say in what respect they can challenge them. Do they challenge the method in which the compensation value has been obtained, and, if not, can they possibly resist the conclusion that they must, in justice, reduce the proportion from a third to a quarter?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must congratulate the hon. Member on having successfully steered his way through the obstacles which the forms of the House strewed across his path. If he has not succeeded in moving his Amendment he has made a lucid and interesting speech in support of it. But these arguments have been to some extent dealt with already in my reply to the hon. Members for York and Rutland, both of whom advanced the view that taking the houses of a high value as a whole they would in many cases gain no advantage at all from this alteration. We have never said that this concession would be of advantage to every house above £500, indeed, we have said the contrary. The hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke said the injustice was admitted in the case of houses over £500.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I said it was admitted that there must be a mitigation of the scale at the other end.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: What has been admitted is that in respect of a considerable number of houses above £500 there is no injustice in applying the scale. But there are hard cases, and this concession is intended to meet those hard cases. If a house is rated at £600 a year and does a vast trade, it is no reason because its value happens to be £600 that there should be a reduction of the duty. This paragraph in the Schedule is intended simply to meet the case of the house which does a trade out of proportion to, and much less than might be expected from a house of that rateable value. It is no answer to say that if you lump all the houses above £500 a year together there may be no concession to be derived from this particular paragraph. That is my answer to the

  2111
  speech to which we have just listened. The Committee must not draw the conclusion that the effect of this Schedule would be to increase the duties upon any brewery companies who own these houses. In any case it is optional, and they can always elect to be assessed on the half rateable value, and, therefore, in no circumstances can this be held to be extracting more from the trade than the provisions of the Clauses in the earlier part of the Schedule would. If the hon. Member will submit figures to me I shall be happy to see if there are any hard cases which we intend to meet that are not met, but I repeat we do desire to insure that where a house does a small trade it shall get this concession.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman, in my opinion, has given no answer to the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke. What strikes me as the extraordinary point is this: My hon. and learned Friend was challenged by the Solicitor-General to say how do you arrive at the compensation value. That is information which the hon. Member for Kidderminster and I have been trying to get for some time. The Solicitor-General seemed to think that the question was put by the Government merely as a puzzle, and if the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke had not been armed and equipped with a very careful method of investigation he might have been floored by the question of the Solicitor-General. But he had his answer ready. He told the Government most distinctly: "I take a certain amount of profit on each barrel of beer, a certain amount on each gallon of whisky, and then I take the difference between the rent which would be paid by a tenant as an ordinary tenant and the increased value which is paid because of the licence." That is a scientific method. I do not know whether the Government intend to employ it or not, but certainly it has a foundation based upon science.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, whether we are now discussing the basis on which the annual compensation value is to be assessed or whether we are discussing, on the assumption that there is to be an annual compensation value as fixed in the Clause, what proportion is to be taken as duty. I intend no disrespect to the hon. and learned Member, but I would point out that the time is passing very
  2112
  rapidly, and we have still a great many matters to discuss.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: On the point of Order, may I say that this whole question was raised by the Solicitor-General for England? It was he who put a question to the hon. Gentleman, and it was in reply to the Solicitor-General that the hon. Member for Basingstoke said, "I arrive at it in a particular way." Whether the point of Order be good or bad, the matter was raised by the Solicitor-General for England, who asked the Member for Basingstoke, "How do you arrive at the compensation value?" The Member for Basingstoke said, "Take the profit on beer and the profit on spirits and the difference between licensed rent and unlicensed rent."
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I have not heard the whole of the argument, and am hardly in a position to decide at present.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I immediately bow to your ruling. I certainly would not care to say a thing which is out of Order. The Member for Basingstoke, whose learning in this matter must be the admiration of everyone, has put forward a scheme at the request of the Government, and when he asks the Government, "Do you challenge it or do you not," the Government raise a point of Order. I do not think that is fair to the House. This question, if it has been put once it has been put 165 times, and it has never been answered. Would it be fair to pass this Clause without getting some insight into what the Government intend by this compensation value? If the method of the Member for Basingstoke be agreed to it would be far fairer to Ireland to leave out compensation value altogether. In regard to those large Irish houses, you are doing the thing the Prime Minister said should not be done. You are proposing to exact from them £250 as the minimum under this Clause. We are told that the same principle will be applied to the whole of Ireland. You will have this result, that every publican in Ireland will have to give an account of the beer and spirits he has sold, and you will have a system of torture far worse than any system of Income Tax ever invented.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in paragraph (3), to leave out the word "three" ("less than three hundred and fifty pounds"] and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Now I think we are entitled to know how this figure of £250 is arrived at.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The figure £250 proposed to be inserted is arrived at by dividing £500 by two. The £350 is half of £700. The purpose of it is this. The hon. Member (Mr. Barnard) said the effect of giving this privilege of option would be to enable larger houses to pay a less duty than much smaller houses, and in order that houses below £500 shall not be put at too great a disadvantage we say that at all events a house of £700 or £800 annual value, if it chooses to pay on its compensation value, may be assessed on that basis, but it is not to pay less than a £500 house which has not the privilege of this option. A £500 house pays £250, and a higher house if it chooses the option is not to be allowed to pay less than £250. £350 is the sum payable by a £700 house, which was the value previously in the Schedule.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved to insert, at the end of Paragraph (3): "This provision shall apply to premises, whatever their annual value, if they are structurally adapted for use as an hotel and are bonâ fide so used, and it is shown to the Commissioners that it is impracticable to obtain a reduction of duty in respect of the premises under the provisions of this Act enabling such a reduction to be obtained for hotels in certain cases, owing to the fact that visitors resort to the place where the premises are situated only during certain seasons of the year.
  "In such a case, the minimum amount of duty payable shall be fifty pounds instead of two hundred and fifty pounds."
  This is intended to meet a particularly hard case. Hotels are placed in a very different position from public-houses in respect of the amount of duty that they have to pay. The duties are very considerably lower in the case of hotels than in the case of public-houses, but in order for a particular licensed house to be valued as a hotel less than a third of its total receipts must, be liquor receipts. It has been represented that there is a considerable number of hotels, for example, in the Highlands or in certain seaside resorts which are unable to show a proportion of liquor receipts less than a third, and thus to qualify as hotels for the purpose of duties, because during the winter months they are closed; but their bars may remain open for the convenience of the people of the locality. They are none
  2114
  the less genuine hotels, and they ought not to be made to pay half their rateable value in Licence Duties. To meet that case we have put down that particular Amendment. I believe it is generally accepted in the main as meeting the case of the seasonal hotels. As regards the three Amendments which appear on the Paper in the names of the hon. Members for Wandsworth (Sir H. Kimber), the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire (Viscount Helmsley), and Hereford (Mr. Arkwright), it may save time if I say now that the first is really unnecessary, because it expresses the intention of my Amendment. There is no objection to inserting the words if desired. The second Amendment would make my Amendment far too wide. The third Amendment is one of some substance, but the Government will require a case to be shown why the minimum should be reduced from £50 to £35, as the hon. Member for Hereford suggests.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I desire to thank my right hon. Friend for moving this Amendment. Many of us were in a position of extreme anxiety, not only in regard to hotels in our respective districts, but also as to the effect which the original proposal of the Government might have had as to the number of people who would be able to visit the resorts in the Highlands and islands of Scotland and also seaside places in England. This Amendment will meet the hard cases which I had the honour of placing before the Chancellor of the Duchy. One of the objections to making the Amendment was that when one concession is granted further concessions are asked. In view of the hour we have reached, and the amount of business still to be done, I sincerely trust that the hon. Member for Hereford will not press his Amendment to reduce the minimum to £35. At the same time, I would express the hope that between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration whether he could not further reduce the limit in order to bring in a large number of hotels which otherwise may suffer.
  Mr. BARNARD: I understand that the abatement will be upon one-third of what is received in connection with the sale of alcohol. Will that bring into the account the money received from a garage, livery yard, boats, and other things?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That question does not arise on the Amendment.
  Mr. BARNARD: I am very anxious about this.
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise here.
  Mr. BARNARD: With all respect, this is a very important point which does arise on other matters before that which we have discussed this evening. I am extremely anxious to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether or not in his proposal the intention is simply to include what Happened under the hotel roof.
  The CHAIRMAN: It really does not arise here at all.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: What is the minimum in the case of the seasonal seaside hotels? Is it in no case to be less than £50?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is a mistake to think that whether the receipts are less than one-third or more than one-third from liquor these places will have to pay £50. This only applies to ordinary public-houses which carry on a public-house business during the winter when the hotels are closed, and, consequently, the receipts from liquor are more than one-third. In the majority of hotels the receipts from liquor are far less than one-third. Hon. Members have drawn my attention to letters from constituents whose receipts from liquor are only one-sixth and who ask why should they pay a minimum duty of £50. In such cases the minimum duty will not be £50 but will be the minimum duty of one-third, or the minimum fixed in the scale according to valuation.
  Mr. RENWICK: By how much will this concession reduce the estimate?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The number of cases is very small, and the amount will be very small.
  Mr. A. FELL: There is this difficulty with regard to many seaside hotels and restaurants. During two or three summer months they do a large business and make a profit; during the rest of the year they have to keep open, but they lose money. I trust that consideration will be extended to these cases, and that they will not be penalised because they have to remain open during the winter months, when they do not make a profit.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Each case, of course, must be treated on its merits. It is impossible to lay down an absolute rule,
  2116
  but I should say that the vast majority of seaside hotels which remain open all through the year, even if they do a small business during part of the year, would be able easily to show that less than one-third of their receipts are from liquor. Of course, if a hotel is genuinely a hotel and is not merely a public-house, it would certainly be brought by the Commissioners within the scope of the Clause.
  Mr. BARNARD: The Chancellor of the Duchy has several times used the word "receipts." Will that word, in comparison with the 33 per cent., include matters under the roof of the hotel and outside the hotel?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The receipts will be the receipts ordinarily belonging to an innkeeper's business—livery stables, boats by the riverside, and other means of bringing in receipts.
  Sir J. JARDINE: The explanations which the Chancellor of the Duchy has given will really be the means of greatly relieving the minds of many worthy hotel-keepers in out-of-the-way places in Scotland.
  Mr. J. S. ARKWRIGHT Mr. J. S. ARKWRIGHT moved to amend the Amendment by adding after "seasons of the year," the words, "or mainly on the occasions of fairs or markets." My point is, in submitting this Amendment that there is no difference in principle between making a concession to seaside and other hotels who do a seasonal business, and making a concession to small struggling hotels which do their chief business on certain days. The hotels on behalf of which I speak are to be found in almost every constituency. I hope a similar concession will be made to them, and I feel a growing anxiety on the point in view of the concessions which have been made to other classes of hotels. I am afraid that in the kind of district which I represent still greater annoyance will be felt if they are refused a concession which is given to other hotels.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If this Amendment were accepted it would deprive the Revenue of a very large part of the income expected from the Licence Duties. If you take an hotel in a market town it may be doing some hotel business, and may have perhaps only two or three bedrooms for commercial travellers. Ninety per cent. of its receipts may be from liquor, and, if the Amendment were adopted, such places

  2117
  would escape altogether from the ordinary Public-house Duty, and come under the Hotel Duty, which is on an exceedingly low scale, with a very low minimum. It is obviously a provision which would go far beyond the oases for which it is intended, and the Government cannot possibly see their way to accept the Amendment
  Mr. GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misjudged the Amendment, which refers to business done on fairs and market days. There is not a great number of market towns, and in the market towns with which I am acquainted there are only some two or three of these hotels. These are genuine hotels, and do a genuine hotel business for six days in the week. On the market day it is customary to have what is called a "market ordinary." A large number of persons attending the market go in to that ordinary, and when the business of the day is done, before departing by train or driving to their homes in the country, it is customary to meet in the bar and talk over the prices of the market and the gossip of the countryside. A considerable amount of trade is done on those occasions, which take place on one day in the week. Every other day those are quiet hotels, where drink is an inconsiderable factor. They come easily within any rational definition of hotels; but the business to which I have referred
  will probably, in the majority of cases, place them outside the scope of the definition in the Bill. They are quite respectable houses, where people who are visiting their friends can stay. It is a class of hotel that is well known, and for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this is going to make a serious inroad on the revenue is entirely to misrepresent the matter. I press on the Government that this is really a serious grievance, and that if they persist in the course indicated they will cause a vast amount of dissatisfaction.
  Mr. RENWICK: On what figures does the right hon. Gentleman base the statement that this concession will cost an enormous amount of money to the revenue? When I asked him a similar question he said no calculation had been made, but I think it is quite evident a calculation must have been made when the rght hon. Gentleman ventures to say that this would cost an enormous sum. I ask why a calculation has been made in one case and not in another? I think I am entitled to this information, as on it would depend my vote. I would be largely influenced in the amount it would cost the Revenue.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted" (in the proposed Amendment).
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 202.

  Division No. 778.]

  AYES.

  [10.54 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Haddock, George B.

  Renton, Leslie

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur clavell

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Clark, George Smith

  Keswick, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentin, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Winterton, Earl

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Fell, Arthur

  MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gretton and Mr. Renwick

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  M'Arthur, Charles

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barker, Sir John

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Beale, W. P.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Hodge, John

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

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Hope, John Deans (File, West)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott. (Bradford)

  Brigg, John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robinson, S.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jenkins, J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Clough, William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rowlands, J.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kelley, George D.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

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

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Seely, Colonel

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Crossley, William J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Duckworth, Sir James

  M'Callum, John M.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Duncan, J. Hastings, (York, Otley)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Summerbell, T.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denblgh)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Elibank, Master of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Essex, R. W.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Toulmin, George

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Massie, J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Verney, F. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Middlebrook, William

  Vivian, Henry

  Findlay, Alexander

  Mond, A.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Gill, A. H.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morrell, Philip

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morse, L. L.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Myer, Horatio

  Watt, Henry A.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Napier, T. B.

  Weir, James (Galloway)

  Gulland, John W.

  Nownes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nicholls, George

  Wiles, Thomas

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Philippe, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pointer, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Hothouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Mr. ARKWRIGHT Mr. ARKWRIGHT moved to leave out the word "fifty" ["in such a case the minimum amount of duty payable shall be fifty pounds instead of two hundred and fifty pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-five." This would give the Government the chance of doing justice in another way to that suggested by the last Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I said previously, in moving my Amendment, the Government will be very glad to take into consideration any cases that can be quoted
  2120
  in which hardship would be done. If it can be shown that there are any considerable or appreciable number of seasonal hotels coming within the purview of this paragraph of the Schedule, and that £50 Licence Duty is really too much, then the Government will consider the case, for they are very anxious not to cause any hardship in cases such as these. If the hon. Member will be good enough between now and the Report stage to communicate with me or lay before the Government any cases which he may have in his mind—or

  2121
  any from any hon. Member—those representations will be treated in a friendly spirit.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in Scale 6 (Provisions Applicable to Retailers' On-Licences), at the end of paragraph 3 ["not be less than three hundred and fifty pounds"] to add the words:—
  "And (b) where the annual compensation value has not been certified, the licence shall be granted on a provisional payment of the minimum duty payable under this provision, or of one-fifth of the full duty, whichever is the higher, and, upon the annual compensation value being certified, the duty shall be adjusted by the return of any over-payment or by the recovery, as a debt to His Majesty, of any sum by which the amount paid falls short of the amount which is found to be payable."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman used the words "these hotels." Dees this provision apply only to hotels?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should have said hotels and public-houses.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: In paragraph (4) after the word "proprietor" ["retailers on-licence granted to the proprietor of premises"] to insert the words "or occupier."
  In paragraph (4), to leave out the words "to be" ["premises to be used only for"] and to insert instead thereof the words "adapted to be and bonâ fide."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in paragraph (4), after the word "namely" ["any of the following purposes, namely"] to insert the words "for judicial or public administrative purposes or."
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Will my right hon. Friend say what are "administrative or public purposes "?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: For instance, the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, unless we made this provision, would have to pay on half the annual value of the premises.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved in paragraph (4) to leave out the words "or as railway refreshment rooms."
  Mr. H. A. WATT: Does this mean each refreshment bar in a railway station? There are many railway stations where there are at least six refreshment bars. Is the £50 to be charged for each? The object of my inquiry is to point out that it is unfair that these bars should have to pay so much less a figure than the outside licensed houses with which they are in competition.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If there are a number of refreshment bars on one station, it will be treated as one licensed premises.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In paragraph (4), to leave out the words "in respect of the premises."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  In paragraph (4), to leave out the first word "be" ["in respect of the premises shall be fifty pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the words "in the case of a theatre, the annual value of which does not exceed two thousand pounds, be twenty pounds, and in any other case."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Mr. G. D. FABER Mr. G. D. FABER moved in paragraph (4), to leave out the words "to persons bonâ fide using the premises" ["and to persons bonâ fide using the premises, for the said purposes."]
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Those are words which cannot be properly applied to a railway refreshment room because it is impossible to enforce the provision that they should be persons bonâ fide using the premises for railway purposes. We shall move to omit those words, and we shall make an addition to bring railway refreshment rooms in again without those words being applied to them. The words bonâ fide using the premises" are applicable to theatres, music halls, public gardens, picture galleries or exhibitions.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: How can you tell whether a person is bonâ fide using a picture gallery? I think in this case the words are uncalled for and cannot be enforced.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The words are inserted merely to prevent evasion, and to stop a public-house trying to pass,

  2123
  itself off as a picture gallery. A bogus picture gallery might be established for the sale of liquor, the public being admitted really for the sale of liquid refreshment.
  Mr. GRETTON: I hope we shall have some explanation of what is meant by "private entertainment" in this Subsection.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: There is nothing penal in this Clause whatever.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It is quite clear, if a man sells intoxicating liquor without a licence, he contravenes the law and is subject to prosecution.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: All I say is that, as the Clause stands, it is not a penal Clause.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: These words are taken from the Licensing Act, 1904, under which places of public and private entertainment, picture galleries, etc., are entitled to a reduction in the compensation levy charged upon them. There has been no trouble in interpreting this Act in deciding which places are entitled to the lower charge, and there will be no difficulty in applying the same words in respect of licence duties.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved at the end of paragraph (4) [condition attached to theatre licence] to insert the words, "The maximum amount of duty payable in respect of a retailer's on-licence granted to the proprietor or occupier of premises adapted to be and bonâ fide used as refreshment rooms at a railway station shall be fifty pounds."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: If I read the Amendment correctly, it is that £50 shall be payable in respect of every railway refreshment room. It seems to me that, as regards Irish railway refreshment rooms, that is excessive.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is the maximum.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, at the end of the words last added, to insert the following new paragraph:—
  (Provisions as to Duty Where Premises Include a Place of Public Entertainment.)
  Where any premises include a music hall or other similar place of public entertainment (hereinafter referred to as a place of entertainment), a retailer's on-licene may be granted, at the option of the licence holder, on payment of a duty of fifty pounds, together with such sum as would be payable as duty under this Act on the part of the premises not used as the place of entertainment if that part were a separate set of premises, but it shall be a condition of any such licence that intoxicating liquor is not sold under the licence in the place of entertainment except whilst that place is open and being used, and to persons bonâ fide using that place, as a place of entertainment."
  This is another Amendment moved to meet exceptional cases of hardship. It would not be just if music halls, which have public-house bars as part of the same premises, were charged on half the rateable value of the entire premises, and, consequently, we make a provision to enable music halls to pay as music halls holding licences and as a public-house bar in respect of so much of the premises as are used for that purpose.
  Mr. T. H. SLOAN Mr. T. H. SLOAN moved, in Scale 6—(Provisions Applicable to Retailers' Off-Licences)—at the end of paragraph (1) [Restriction to sale off] to insert the words, "And a person holding a retailer's off-licence must not supply gratuitously or otherwise any intoxicating liquor for consumption on the licensed premises." In the north of Ireland, particularly Belfast, we find that abuse is very prevalent of drinking on "off" licensed premises, and the police have been unable to obtain convictions because it is alleged that the drinks are supplied gratuitously.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I submit that this Amendment is not in Order: it is an attempt to regulate the publican's conduct of his business.
  Mr. SLOAN: It does not refer to the publican. It is the off-licence holder. We find in the City of Belfast—
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth is perfectly legitimate, and that the Amendment is not in Order.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I have on the Paper an Amendment to omit from the Provisions applicable to Retailers' Off-Licences, paragraph (2), after "open vessels," the words "or in any quantity less than one reputed quart bottle." I desire to know what is the Government proposal on this point. I take it, that so far as Scotland and Ireland are concerned, there is to be no limitation of the quantity hitherto sold, but that in future it must be sold in sealed bottles.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government proposal is to leave out the words mentioned by the hon. Member and to insert instead thereof the words "in England." I understand the hon. Member does not wish to raise the question of the "small bottle" in Scotland.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: If the Government Amendment will complete the matter I am content, but the words "in England" might be out-voted, and then the Clause would stand as it is.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must take the risk of that.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I had better move the Amendment to omit from paragraph (2) of the "Provisions Applicable to Retailers' Off-Licences" the words "or if any quantity less than one reputed quart bottle."
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I think it very desirable that the Government should give some explanation of this Clause and their Amendments to it. In spite of a good many exhortations from different quarters, and in spite of a great many observations, which have been made with much force, as to the sale of small measures of spirits producing secret drinking, especially among women, so far as I can judge, the effect of the Government Amendment is to preserve the status quo exactly with regard to sales by ordinary licences, plus the purely illusory provision in regard to the sealing of the quantities in Scotland. It is now urged that the existing provisions with regard to the sale of noggins in Scotland are preserved. We have only, what I have said is a purely illusory provision, that these noggins must be sealed. After a great show has been made of dealing with the temperance question by this Clause an absolute abdication has been made by the Government, and the temperance party are asked to
  2126
  seal down their consciences in the same way as the noggins are to be sealed down.
  The Government really have a part in this matter, as to which I invite an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To thoroughly appreciate the courageous policy taken by the Government in this matter we must go back to the negotiations which took place, a matter of public notoriety, between the licensed grocers and the Government. The public were led to believe that an arrangement had been made by which uniformity between the two classes could be secured. The Scotch grocer was not to have liberty to sell under half a pint, and the reputed quart, which is the present limit of the English grocer, was to be reduced to a similar amount. That was the arrangement which everybody believed had been entered into, and had been actually consummated as between the English grocer and the Government. A pretence was made that uniformity, which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he desired to aim at, had been secured in the matter. Not merely do I understand that that settlement was believed by the grocers to have been absolutely arranged, but actual transfers have taken place on the supposition that the arrangement was complete. The upshot of those negotiations and that arrangement was that a Government Amendment was placed upon the Order Paper of this House on Friday, 27th August, embodying the arrangement to which I have referred, and it was not taken off the Paper until the following Wednesday. At the time it was taken off, I will not say an official statement was made, but a very authoritative statement was made to the effect that that Amendment had been placed upon the Order Paper of the House by error or inadvertence of the Government draftsman. That was stated in the public Press. From September 1st to September 9th the Government draftsman lay under the imputation that it was by his inadvertence that this extraordinary Amendment had been placed upon the Order Paper, and there was no statement volunteered by the Government that it was not the Government draftman's mistake. But on September 9th questions were addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this matter, and then for the first time, and as the result of those questions, the Government draftsman was exonerated by the right hon. Gentleman, who said he accepted the full responsibility for placing the Amendment

  2127
  on the Paper. That statement is really a formula which conveyed to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had nothing to do with the mistake, but that someone else had, and that he accepted the responsibility for it. I think we ought to know whose mistake this was. I do not really believe for a moment that it was the fault of anyone in the Government draftsman's office, or of the Government draftsman himself, and I have every reason to believe that there was no permanent official who was responsible for this mistake. If it was a mistake the Committee is entitled to know whose mistake it was.
  I do not think it is right that the Order Paper should be used as a kind of trial advertisement as to how much the temperance party will stand. It really ought not to be used, as it were, as a test tube to ascertain the digestive powers of the temperance party, and it looks very much as if that were the case. I am quite aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said this was a matter of inadvertence, but was it an inadvertence which was a clerical mistake, or was it the inadvertence of a Minister desirous to ascertain what was the feeling of the temperance party in regard to the matter. I do not easily suspect, but I confess this transaction appears to me to be of a slightly suspicious character. First the Amendment is placed on the Paper after these elaborate negotiations; secondly, that it remains there from Friday to Wednesday; and, thirdly, a public announcement is made that it was the fault of the Government draftsman, one of the most indefatigible, able, and loyal servants of the Government. I do not think, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, it is creditable that this Government, above all Governments, should have allowed such an imputation to rest on the Government draftsman for one day, let alone several days, because no Government ever owed more to, or laid such heavy duties upon their draftsman. I do not know how many abortive Bills he has had to prepare for the Government.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not so many as for your Government.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: There have been three or four abortive Bills, but I do not wish to go beyond this Budget alone. Not until eight or nine days had elapsed was this imputation removed from the draftsman, and I really think it is due to the Government themselves that they
  2128
  should explain, with frankness to the House, what was the real source of this alleged inadvertence, and whether it is not to be ascribed to causes which I have ventured to indicate.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyttelton), I must say, has not given us very much assistance in the examination of this Budget, but he has made up for the rareness of his appearances in Debate by the gross violence of his language when he has intervened. If he really wants to challenge our proposal he has plenty of opportunity for doing so, but instead of discussing the merits of the proposal before the Committee, he enters into an elaborate examination of a problem of not very much importance, I can assure him, and he sets up all sorts of conjectures which are purely figments of his own imagination, and he suggests that a frank explanation should be given to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had great experience in the late Government, and I suppose he desires me to give what he was accustomed to give, an open, frank, and straightforward answer. I shall give a perfectly straight, frank answer to the question which he has put to me. When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that imputations were made against the Government draftsman, he is making a statement which is absolutely without warrant, a statement which he has no right to make, and one which he ought either to prove or withdraw.
  The imputations against the Government draftsman appeared in papers supporting the right hon. Gentleman. No imputations against the Government draftsman appeared, as far as I know, in any papers supporting the Government; and the very first opportunity which I had of making an explanation I volunteered the statement that the Government draftsman had not the slightest responsibility for it at all; I had seen it stated in Opposition papers that he had. I go beyond that. I say, then, whatever responsibility there was was entirely mine. I still say it. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman to censure me, to find fault with me; but at any rate I still say the responsibility, as Minister in charge of the Bill, was entirely mine. What really happened was: there were negotiations—the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly accurate there—conducted as far as I can recollect with the officials of the party. There was no arrangement. Otherwise, if there was an arrangement

  2129
  with the grocers it was an arrangement with the English grocers, and not with the Scotch grocers, and the Scotch grocers repudiated the idea that there was an arrangement. It was an arrangement, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that reduced the quantity that could be sold by the English grocers, but increased the limitation upon the Scotch grocer. Does he say that the Scotch grocers were under the impression that there was an arrangement? On the contrary; they repudiated it. There was a discussion upon it between the officials and the grocers—Scotch and English—and I believe the Irish as well.
  Mr. J. M. CAMPBELL: Did they get a promise?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There was absolutely no promise.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) who is not here now, stated to-night that so far back as the month of July they had got a promise on this matter of the small complement.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: He did not say so. He said a wholly different thing.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets up and contradicts he ought to know that the transaction that was referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) is a totally different one. This is purely a negotiation between the representatives of the Scotch, English and Irish grocers and officials, and the whole question is whether there was an arrangement entered into between the officials about the pint bottle. That is the whole point. That is not the matter referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was referring to a deputation upstairs.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: And I said so.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman see now how irrelevant his interruption was? It will show the Committee how hopeless it is to pursue the subject with him. I think I have been in the habit of treating the House pretty frankly, and I am not going to depart from it on the present occasion. Negotiations were entered into between the grocers and the officials. This suggestion was put forward by the officials as a basis of arrangement. They were under the impression that all the grocers agreed to it. The Scotch grocers said they did not agree to it, and
  2130
  this draft Amendment was put down in my absence from town, when I was away on a Friday night, under the impression that it, had been approved of. That is the whole story. I never saw it until I saw it in the paper. When I came back on the Monday morning I instantly put myself into communication with the draftsman and with the officials, and made it perfectly clear that there was no approval on the part of the Government, and it was a mistake; and I took the very first step to take it off the Paper that night and not on Wednesday. That is the whole story from the beginning to the end. The right hon. Gentleman may deny it. Does he dispute that?
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I asked you to put it down.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was put down by the Government draftsman.
  Earl WINTERTON: By whose authority?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have told the hon. Gentleman that it was put down by the draftsman under the impression that it was approved. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Member challenges that. Very well, he can do as he pleases. I tell him frankly it will make no difference to me whether he believes it or not, though it may make a difference to him. That is the whole story. The Amendment was put down without the knowledge of the Minister, under the impression that it had been approved, but the Government draftsman, under the misapprehension that the Minister had approved it, took his instructions from the officials, and it was the only amendment put down that night. There were several Amendments, and I had gone through all the other Amendments except that one. That was put down afterwards, under the impression that the Minister had approved it, and on the very first opportunity it was taken off the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that some sort of kite had been flown to see what would be agreed to. There is not a word of substance in that suggestion. I have now given him the whole of the facts. With regard to the merits, I regret that it is impossible to establish uniformity. I think it would have been exceedingly desirable, but it was found impossible owing to the pressure in the three countries. There was resistance in England to the reduction, and resistance in Ireland and Scotland to an increase, and under the

  2131
  circumstances it was impossible to establish uniformity, though it was desirable. I agree that the grocers were under the impression that there was no limitation at all, but that has nothing to do with the negotiations referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. They were under the impression that a pledge of that kind was given to the deputation. I do not agree. But it does not matter. The mere fact that there should have been an impression of that kind makes it of the utmost possible importance that there should not be the slightest doubt that a pledge had not been given. The right hon. Gentleman has not thought fit to examine the proposal on its merits; he simply entered into an elaborate examination of this suspicion which has no foundation in fact. I have given the Committee the whole of the facts, and I take upon myself the whole responsbility as Minister, but I think it is due to the Committee that they should know every circumstance and every fact.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: The Committee will judge whether the opening observations of the right hon. Gentleman were well founded or not. If he believes that my intervention in the Budget discussion has been grossly violent, I am perfectly willing to leave him in that opinion, which I am certain will not be shared by the House. Of course, I accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman. He has now made to us a full statement. I do not, for a moment, regret the speech that I made, because it must have been perfectly well-known to the right hon. Gentleman upon September 9th, a good many days after this general misapprehension existed upon this matter, and he had the fullest opportunity, as the OFFICIAL REPORT will show, of making the full explanation that he has made to-day. He did not give that full explanation, and it was only right those upon this side of the House, who have a right to criticise such a thing as this, and not only to criticise it, but that they should take the opportunity of asking for a full disclosure of the whole matter. That he was then challenged to do by my hon. Friend behind me, and which he abstained from doing. He was asked how this mistake arose, and he gave no reply to that at all. That was a question which the House of Commons and its Members had a right to put and which ought to have been answered there, and it ought not to have been left to this later
  2132
  stage of the Bill to elicit this information. We have now elicited it in its fullness. I accept it, but when the right hon. Gentleman or his friends ask me to withdraw anything I have said, I am not aware there is anything to withdraw at all. I stated these were suspicions, and suspicions which naturally and justly arose owing to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, and owing to the answer he gave. I regret he did not give the answer more fully. I fully accept it now that it is done, but when I am asked whether I regret the action I have taken, I say I have no regret whatever.
  Mr. G. N. BARNES: I have no intention of following both sides in this unfortunate misunderstanding that has arisen. Let me say, that if the Government have been understood to make a promise to the Scotch grocers, I suppose they will be bound to carry that promise out. Neither am I going to prejudge the case which I gather is to be put later on, by the hon. Member for West Belfast, for Ireland. There may be special circumstances in regard to Ireland which will justify some alteration in the Bill. If the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) puts this to a division, I shall be compelled to vote against him, and I should like to say why. I believe the purport of this Amendment is to-enable Scotch grocers to sell in less quantities than one-fourth. I am quite well aware that the Bill will make an alteration in the Scottish practice so far as grocers are concerned. For my part, speaking of the matter on its merits, I shall vote for that Amendment—that is, I am going to vote for the Bill as it stands. I believe that the grocers' shops in Scotland that sell intoxicating liquors have been the centre of demoralisation so far as the Scotish workmen's wives are concerned, and for my part, having the opportunity to vote for the alteration in the law, I think I would be wanting in my duty did I not avail myself of the opportunity. It is said by some I know in favour of retaining the old practice that if the women are prevented from going to the grocers to get small quantities of liquor that the women will simply go to the public-house which may be next door.
  Personally, I think that that is much overstated, because in Scotland public opinion is very much against women going into public-houses, and there is a social stigma attaching to women who do so. Therefore,

  2133
  I believe, that if grocers in Scotland were prohibited from selling in the small quantities they are now allowed to sell it would be an invaluable measure of temperance reform? Inasmuch as I am interested in temperance reform, and in removing a temptation which has often been availed of by women to their own detriment and the demoralisation of their homes, I should be wanting in my duty did I not, as a representative workman from Scotland, vote in favour of a Bill which would remove that temptation.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: I should like to endorse what the hon. Member has just said in reference to Scotland. I speak on behalf, not only of myself, but of the great majority of Scottish Liberal members, when I say that we regret extremely that there has not been some limitation put in this Bill in reference to the small quantities sold by grocers. Somehow or other the licensed grocers in Scotland thought a pledge had been given them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not believe any such pledge was given, because one of the grocers who attended the deputation told me, in the presence of another Member of this House, that he could not gather from anything the right hon. Gentleman had said that he had given any such pledge. While a great deal of disappointment has been created amongst temperance people in Scotland that some limitation has not been placed on the selling of very small quantities, we recognise that, this impression having gone abroad, it was better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give way this time. We still retain our opinion that the selling of small quantities by grocers is an unmitigated evil, and the first opportunity we get we shall press for its removal.
  12.0 P.M.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: As I understand, the English off-licence holders never pressed for quarter-bottles; they asked for half-bottles. A meeting was held towards the end of June, and an arrangement was drawn up on paper in the office of the Solicitor to the Inland Revenue. That agreement, in order, as I understand, to satisfy all parties, provided amongst other things that spirits might be sold in bottles containing a quarter of a reputed quart. That agreement, arranged between the representatives of the off-licence holders of England, Scotland, and Ireland, was in existence, typewritten, and
  2134
  in possession of those gentlemen from the end of June till the end of August without anybody raising a voice against it, and all that time the representatives of the English off-licence holders understood that that was an agreement which was come to between themselves and a Treasury official, and the Scottish and Irish representatives. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the Scottish and Irish representatives did not agree to the quart bottle. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this plain question: How is it if this memorandum; was drawn up on Treasury paper that the Scottish and Irish representatives of the off-licence holders never put forward any protest to it between the time at which it was drawn up and the end of August? There is only one other point I shall raise. I cannot see that it was any excuse whatever, if it were the fact—and the allegation was made or hinted at about that time by the morning papers that support the Government—that this mistake was due to a Government draftsman. It makes no difference whatever to my mind, but I wish to correct the Chancellor on that point.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: A great deal of irrelevant matter has been brought forward on this Amendment. This Amendment has been down for months, and we are discussing it now! The only hon. Member that I am called upon to answer is the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. George Barnes). What is the whole case? The first grocers' licence was granted in England in I860, The Scottish grocers' licence goes back as far as the days of Mary Queen of Scots. When you talk about temperance reform, I say I am as strong a temperance advocate as my hon. Friend opposite. But he has got to convince me—and I have never yet heard an argument put forward that did convince me—that a man—or a woman—is more likely to get drunk upon one glass of whisky rather than upon a quart bottle. There is another element in it which is apt to be overlooked. It is very necessary in districts in Scotland, especially in districts of my own Constituency, that small quantities of brandy should be allowed to be sold. Brandy is not used for ordinary drinking, it is used medicinally. Anyone taken ill on a Sunday in Scotland must get the local medical authority's certificate before they can get any brandy. An ordinary medical man's certificate would not do, and

  2135
  doctors in my Constituency have over and over again complained of this, and the Lord Advocate has promised to have it amended if he could. In Scotland they have been accustomed, from time immemorial, to sell liquor in small quantities. I do not believe that small quantities produce drunkenness. I know the stories about the gill and half-gills being taken round corners for consumption. Of course, drink, wherever it is found, will be abused, but I am perfectly satisfied that it is more for the interest of the community that people should openly go into the grocers for what they want and take it home than that they should be forced into the public-house for small quantities. There is another reason why this Amendment should be adopted. These grocers' licences are going to pay more by a considerable
  amount than the publicans pay. Those under £10 will have to pay £15; the publican will have to pay £5. The grocer of £20 will have to pay £16 10s. as against the publican's £10. A very large number of grocers in my Constituency will have to pay £20 as against the publican's £15. If you are going to heavily increase the duties on these shopkeepers, I think it would be very cruel to cut away their trade at the other end. I hope the Committee will accept my Amendment, which will not hurt the temperance cause while it will do justice to these people.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in the same paragraph, after the word "or" ["may not sell spirits in open vessels or"], to insert the words "in England."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 67.

  Division No. 779.]

  AYES.

  [12.10 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Marnham, F. J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gulland, John W.

  Middlebrook, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Barker, Sir John

  Healy, T. M. (Louth, North)

  Morrell, Philip

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morse, L. L.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Muldoon, John

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Murnaghan, George

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Murphy, John

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

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nicholls, George

  Boland, John

  Hogan, Michael

  Nolan, Joseph

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Brigg, John

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Joyce, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clough, William

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lehmann, R. C

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Philipps, John (Longford, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pointer, Joseph

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pollard, Dr.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lupton, Arnold

  Reddy, M.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred (Clare, W.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Elibank, Master of

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Erskine, David C.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Essex, R. W.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Robinson, S.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Summerbell, T.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rowlands, J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Seely, Colonel

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Toulmin, George

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Verney, F. W.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Vivian, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagrh

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Haddock, George B.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Clark, George Smith

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Seddon, J.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hodge, John

  Shackleton, David James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hope, John Deans (File, West)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kelley, George D.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Keswick, William

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lamont and Mr. Barnes.

  Fletcher, J. S.

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved after the word "or" ["may not sell wine in open vessels or "], to insert the words, "in England or Ireland."
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I wish to ask a question on a matter on which there is some uncertainty. I understand this is a limitation on total quantities, and the grocer is at liberty to sell spirits or wine in such vessels or in such quantities as he pleases, providing the total sale to one person at one time does not exceed the amount in a quart bottle in the case of spirits, or a pint bottle in the case of wine. I understand the Excise officers have in some cases expressed another opinion.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct in his assumption.
  Amendment agreed to.
  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.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved to insert:

  (1) A licence for a railway restaurant car may be granted without the production of a justices' licence or certificate.

  (2) The position with regard to selling intoxicating liquors on railways has, since the custom started, been a very peculiar one. So far as I know, there is no provision in the law which allows the sale of intoxicating liquors on railway cars. There was a provision, which enabled a licence to be given by the Excise to a particular officer named on passenger vessels, as far back as the year 1828. That was before railway travelling became in vogue in this country, but from that time till this there has never been any Act of Parliament making it legal to grant licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors in this manner. The custom has grown up, and has become very strong, and we, therefore, propose to insert in this Bill a provision authorising the Excise authorities to grant the licence.

  Mr. T. M. HEALY: In 1880 Mr. Gladstone proposed an Amendment something like this, but it was not carried.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS moved, in paragraph (2) after the word "car" ["in respect of a car"] to insert the words "in which passengers are supplied with meals."
  I attach real importance in reference to two points affecting railway cars. As the Solicitor-General has explained, the sale of intoxicants on these cars is at present—generally—illegal. There is a pretence of complying with the law which takes what we regard as the objectionable form of touting for orders for drink, and perhaps when the custom is legalised that practice may be dropped. The words used in this provision—applicable to railway restaurant car licences—really go beyond what the Solicitor-General has said, for it legalises more than the custom of supplying drink in restaurant cars with meals. Personally, I do not wish to protest against that practice, though at the same time—by reason of the absence of a protest—I do not wish to be bound to the opinion that these licences ought to be granted without control. I think the proper form of control would have been the Licensing Commission proposed to be set up in last year's Bill. I restrict myself, therefore, to this point about meals. I think one might easily get, under the form of words now proposed, a new custom started—viz., having mere drinking bars on wheels attached to these cars. The words would, I think, quite cover that, unless you introduce safeguards, and if such a custom were once started it might be found to be too late to protest against it. Hon. Members may say, "trust the railway company," but these companies have been breaking the law quite deliberately for the last 30 years. Only the other day when travelling on the Great Eastern I saw small bottles of spirits and wine hawked down the platform in an illegal way. It may be, or it may not be, a very desirable thing to do, but it is illegal, and when I am advised to trust the railway companies in this matter, I say at once I am not prepared to do so. I ask the Government to safeguard it in this way. The Amendment which I now
  2140
  move would secure that these cars should be restaurant cars, really supplying meals, which might be accompanied with drink. It would not make it impossible for a man to get a drink without meals. This would only mean that the existing restaurant cars would be continued. I hope the Government will accept those words, which will make the meaning clear.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think it is a little hard upon the railway companies to say that they have openly broken the law for the last twenty or thirty years. My hon. Friend mentioned the matter of control, but it would be very difficult indeed to fix upon a particular body which ought to control the licence. A railway car travels 300 or 400 or 500 miles, as the case may be, and goes through the jurisdiction of a very large number of licensing justices. The Amendment which I propose is to allow the Excise authorities to give a licence to restaurant cars, and my hon. Friend's Amendment does hardly more than give some sort of definition as to what a, restaurant car is. I entirely agree that it would be undesirable to have drink hawked from parish to parish. So far as this is a definition of restaurant cars, I do not object to it with the limitation that after the words "restaurant car" there should be inserted "in which passengers can be supplied with meals." My hon. Friend's Amendment might be construed to mean that you would really have to take a meal in the car, whereas, what I propose, is to define a restaurant car in which passengers can be supplied with meals if desired.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think it is very undesirable to extend the law in this way. Take the case of Dublin. The Dublin Railway Company can get a licence cheaper than the ordinary publican. As I previously pointed out, the ordinary publican in Dublin has, in addition, to pay a 10s. Licence Duty to the State. I remember Mr. Gladstone proposing this in the Budget of 1880, and I remember the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. W. Russell) distinctly canvassing the Irish Members against this proposal, and the result was that it was dropped. Seeing that the proposition to take 10s. off the Dublin publican has been so poorly met by the Government, I do not see why we should

  2141
  give a railway company for £1 the right to keep a travelling drinking shop.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the Amendment is inserted, a man going for a long journey who may have dined before he got into the train, and who desires a smoke and a brandy and soda before he goes to the sleeping car will be unable to get it unless he goes into the restaurant car. There might not be a seat in the restaurant car, and although if he stood in the car he might get a drink, he could not have it if he sat in the next car to it. Then there might not be a restaurant car on a long journey, and a person who wanted the guard to get him a brandy and soda at a refreshment room could not have it because no meals were served on the car. As regards temperance the matter is so small that even the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) will see that it can make no difference. I really think this is temperance gone mad. In order to promote temperance a man may not have something to drink when he is thirsty. I presume there is nothing to prevent a man taking his own whisky and soda in his portmanteau. Is the hon. Member going to travel in every carriage to see that no one produces a flask out of his pocket? The thing is simply absurd.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in order to move it in the form suggested by the Solicitor-General—"in which a passenger can be supplied with meals." It is not all I wanted, but I will take as much as I can get.
  Mr. HAY: Am I to understand the Solicitor-General to mean that if an invalid passenger is lying in a compartment which is not in a restaurant car, he would be deprived of the opportunity of getting any alcoholic beverage at all?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It would not be regarded as a contravention to supply liquor in another carriage under those circumstances. It might be technically against the law, but it would not be a case for prosecution. Has anybody ever heard of a person being prosecuted for committing a technical breach of the law when the offence only took the form of administering alcohol to a sick or dying man?
  Mr. HAY: Are we to understand that an invalid in a train can only obtain liquor when he is in a sick or dying condition?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means. As the hon. Member for Lincoln is not to be allowed to withdraw his Amendment, I move to leave out the word "are" in the proposed Amendment, and to insert instead thereof the words "can be."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will this licence be subject to annual review?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It is only an Excise licence.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: There is Sunday closing in Ireland except in the large towns. The Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company is a hard-up company, and I wish to know whether it could be dealt with in any way, supposing it put on restaurant cars and ran them on the day when the public-houses are closed. It is all very fine to believe that that will not be done, but we should not run these risks. I understand that the licence is to be granted by the Excise, and that if there is any irregularity whatever there is to be no check upon it.
  Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: May I ask whether in the case of a passenger having a luncheon basket handed into a carriage, the sale would be regarded as having been effected in the carriage itself? It seems to me that the sale would be made, not in the refreshment car, but on the train.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That would be a sale out of the refreshment room.
  Mr. W. W. ASHLEY: Am I to understand that if this Amendment is carried there cannot be any liquor sold on the train except in the restaurant car, where meals can be served? Is the practice which has gone on in the past of allowing a passenger in a sleeping car to be served with a brandy and soda to be regarded as illegal?
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I travel a great deal, and I have never found that liquor was served in a sleeping car.
  Amendment made in the proposed Amendment: To leave out the word "are" ["passengers are supplied"], and to insert instead thereof the words "can be."
  Question put, "That the words in which passengers can be supplied with meals' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 48.

  Division No. 780.]

  AYES.

  [12.45 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Partington, Oswald

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Barker, Sir John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Barren, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Pointer, Joseph

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Beale, W. P.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Reddy, M.

  Boland, John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Jenkins, J.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Robinson, S.

  Charming, Sir Francis Allston

  Keating, Matthew

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Clough, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Clynes, J. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Cooper, G. J.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

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

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Seddon, J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Seely, Colonel

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Crean, Eugene

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

  Crossley, William J.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Cuilinan, J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred (Clare, W.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Lei trim, S.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Devlin, Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dillon, John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Summerbell, T.

  Duckworth, Sir James

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Marnham, F. J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Erskine, David C.

  Massie, J.

  Toulmin, George

  Essex, R. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Middlebrook, William

  Verney, F. W.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Mond, A.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Worrell, Philip

  Watt, Henry A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morse, L. L.

  Weir, James (Galloway)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Muldoon, John

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Murnaghan, George

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gill, A. H.

  Murphy, John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Nannetti, Joseph p.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nicholls, George

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gulland, John W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  NOES.

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Clark, George Smith

  Fell, Arthur

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Clyde, James Avon

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Brotherton, Edward Alien

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Forster, Henry William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  2144

  2145

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Stanier, Beville

  Gretton, John

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Haddock, George B.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Harris, Frederick Lever ton

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Renton, Leslie

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Renwick, George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl

  Keswick, William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Winterton and Mr. Ashley.

  Mr. LEIF JONES (for Mr. Hart-Davies)Mr. LEIF JONES (for Mr. Hart-Davies) moved, after the words "for consumption on the car," to insert the words "provided that the train to which the car is attached makes at least one non-stop journey of over thirty miles."
  I move this Amendment merely for the purpose of eliciting from the Solicitor-General some definition of a "train." It is not unreasonable, seeing that you limit sale in other directions, that you should limit it in railway trains. I take it that no one wants these trains to become travelling public-houses. The whole object is to meet the convenience of travellers. The Government recognise that they are entitled to have their convenience met, but they cannot wish that trains should be drinking places. I think there may be some real danger on short journeys. Take the Underground Railways in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] It may be very absurd at present, but if we limit public-houses, and put a very small tax on railway trains, we make it easier to sell liquor in railway trains. I quite imagine that it would be more profitable to sell in trains than in public-houses, with the heavy Licence Duties that are now being put on public-houses. I suggest that there should be a bonâ fide journey.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This is not the definition of my hon. Friend, and as the author is not here I will not attempt to describe it or say what I think about it. It is an Amendment the Government cannot possibly accept, even though pressed to do so by the hon. Gentleman. We intend that these licences should only be granted to restaurant cars. I do not think it would be reasonable or in the interests of the public to restrict the matter further than we have already done.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think the proposed Amendment should be not a "non-stop journey" of 30 miles, but a "non-drink" journey of 30 miles.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Mr. H. J. WILSON Mr. H. J. WILSON moved, after the words "for consumption on the car," to insert the words, "Any offence committed with reference to the sale of liquor on any railway restaurant car may be heard and determined by any court of summary jurisdiction through whose jurisdiction such car passed in the course of the journey during which the offence was committed."
  This is practically only an extension of the Section in the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, to meet the case of any irregularity which might be committed on the cars now under consideration.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: Is this within the scope of a so-called Finance Bill?
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly some of these Amendments go very far in reference to a Finance Bill; but in this case we are putting on a new licence which has not existed hitherto, and I think it is not beyond the scope of what is in the Bill with regard to that new licence.
  Earl WINTERTON: The effect of this Amendment would be that if an offence was committed in a district through which the train was passing, where the train had not a regular stopping place, the train would have to be stopped in order that a magistrate might be fetched.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not think this Amendment is necessary. If an offence were committed by a railway company in connection with one of these cars, which I do not think is at all likely, there would be no difficulty in dealing with it under the ordinary law.
  Amendment negatived.
  1.0 A.M.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved, in the last paragraph of the First Schedule [Provisions applicable to occasional licences], to leave out the word "those" ["and any provisions relating to those licences shall apply accordingly"], and to insert instead thereof the word "occasional."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put, "That Schedule One, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 49.

  Division No. 781.]

  AYES.

  [1.0 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pointer, J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barker, Sir John

  Henry, Charles S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robinson, S.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Beale, W. P.

  Hope, John Deans (File, West)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hornlman, Emslle John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rowlands, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Seddon, J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Seely, Colonel

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Shackleton, David James

  Clough, William

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cooper, G. J.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Summerbell, T.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

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

  Toulmin, George

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Verney, F. W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Elibank, Master of

  Middlebrook, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Erskine, David C.

  Mond, A.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Essex, R. W.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Weir, J. Galloway

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morrell, Philip

  Wiles, Thomas

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morse, L. L.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Gill, A. H.

  Nicholls, George

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Partington, Oswald

  Gulland, John W.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Renton, Leslie

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gretton, John

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Barnard, E. B.

  Haddock, George B.

  Stanier, Seville

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Starkey, John R.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Hills, J. W.

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Winterton, Earl

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

SECOND SCHEDULE.

  SCALE OF RATES OF ESTATE DUTY.
  Where the principal value of the estate

  Estate Duty shall be payable at the rate per cent. of

  £

  £

  Exceeds

  100

  and does not exceed

  500

  1

  Exceeds

  500

  and does not exceed

  1,000

  2

  Exceeds

  1,000

  and does not exceed

  5,000

  3

  Exceeds

  5,000

  and does not exceed

  10,000

  4

  Exceeds

  10,000

  and does not exceed

  20,000

  5

  Exceeds

  20,000

  and does not exceed

  40,000

  6

  Exceeds

  40,000

  and does not exceed

  70,000

  7

  Exceeds

  70,000

  and does not exceed

  100,000

  8

  Exceeds

  100,000

  and does not exceed

  150,000

  9

  Exceeds

  150,000

  and does not exceed

  200,000

  10

  Exceeds

  200,000

  and does not exceed

  400,000

  11

  Exceeds

  400,000

  and does not exceed

  600,000

  12

  Exceeds

  600,000

  and does not exceed

  800,000

  13

  Exceeds

  800,000

  and does not exceed

  1,000,000

  14

  Exceeds

  1,000,000

  15

  Major DUNNE Major DUNNE moved to omit—

  Where the principal value of the estate

  Estate Duty shall be payable at the rate per cent. of

  £

  £

  "Exceeds

  500

  and does not exceed

  1,000

  2

  Exceeds

  1,000

  and does not exceed

  5,000

  3

  Exceeds

  5,000

  and does not exceed

  10,000

  4

  Exceeds

  10,000

  and does not exceed

  20,000

  5

  Exceeds

  20,000

  and does not exceed

  40,000

  6

  Exceeds

  40,000

  and does not exceed

  70,000

  7

  Exceeds

  70,000

  and does not exceed

  100,000

  8,"

  and to insert instead thereof:—

  "Exceeds

  500

  and does not exceed

  750

  1½

  Exceeds

  750

  and does not exceed

  1,000

  2

  Exceeds

  1,000

  and does not exceed

  2,000

  2¼

  Exceeds

  2,000

  and does not exceed

  3,000

  2½

  Exceeds

  3,000

  and does not exceed

  4,000

  2½

  Exceeds

  4,000

  and does not exceed

  5,000

  3

  Exceeds

  5,000

  and does not exceed

  6,000

  3¼

  Exceeds

  6,000

  and does not exceed

  7,000

  3½

  Exceeds

  7,000

  and does not exceed

  8,500

  3¾

  Exceeds

  8,500

  and does not exceed

  10,000

  4

  Exceeds

  10,000

  and does not exceed

  12,500

  4¼

  Exceeds

  12,500

  and does not exceed

  15,000

  4½

  Exceeds

  15,000

  and does not exceed

  17,500

  4¾

  Exceeds

  17,500

  and does not exceed

  20,000

  5

  Exceeds

  20,000

  and does not exceed

  25,000

  5¼

  Exceeds

  25,000

  and does not exceed

  30,000

  5½

  Exceeds

  30,000

  and does not exceed

  35,000

  5¾

  Exceeds

  35,000

  and does not exceed

  40,000

  6

  Exceeds

  40,000

  and does not exceed

  47,500

  6¼

  Exceeds

  47,500

  and does not exceed

  55,000

  6½

  Exceeds

  55,000

  and does not exceed

  62,500

  6¾

  Exceeds

  62,500

  and does not exceed

  70,000

  7

  Exceeds

  70,000

  and does not exceed

  77,500

  7¼

  Exceeds

  77,500

  and does not exceed

  85,000

  7½

  Exceeds

  85,000

  and does not exceed

  92,500

  7½

  Exceeds

  92,500

  and does not exceed

  100,000

  8."

  This Amendment does not in any way alter the rate at which Death Duties are charged, but it endeavours to remove some of the anomalies which are incidental to a graduated scale. It will be seen that the Amendment graduates the scale by quarters instead of drawing the full 1 per cent., according to the estates which pass at death. To illustrate my point, I will take the case of estates between £20,000 and £40,000. Under the scale proposed by the Government, any estate not exceeding £40,000 will pay at the rate of 6 per cent. It seems a little hard that an estate of £20,100 should pay at the same rate as one proved for £40,000. By the scale I have put on the Paper, the incidence of the tax will be graduated much more in comparison with the amount that passes on death. No doubt if the Amendment were accepted the Chancellor of the Exchequer might lose a certain amount of revenue. The answer to that would be that by removing the temptations to avoid the tax, or rather, to endeavour to get the property transferred from the higher scale into the lower scale, would be largely removed by charging a graduation of one-quarter instead of the full scale of one per cent.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: My hon. and gallant Friend has put down on the Paper a very elaborate alternative to the scheme submitted by the Government. My fatal objection to it is that it does not produce the revenue we want. After all this is a revenue Bill. We propose to raise a certain sum to meet the deficit with which I am confronted by an increase in the Death Duties. I am not sure that I should not be short by some hundred thousand pounds if I accepted my hon. Friend's proposal. I am not sure that he knows how much it involves. He naturally has not the material which the Department have at their command, and he cannot estimate or even guess the effect of his scale. They have had before them all the estates of the past few years, and it is easier for them to make the calculation. I can assure my hon. Friend that this little one quarter per cent. would make a considerable difference to the revenue. I do not think that on the whole it would be an improvement on the Government's plan, and for that reason I cannot possibly accept his alternative.
  Major DUNNE: I do not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, and I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That this be the second Schedule to the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 45.

  Division No. 782.]

  AYES.

  [1.15 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pointer, J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pollard, Dr G. H.

  Barker, Sir John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Beale, W. P.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robinson, S.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rowlands, J.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Jenkins, J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Keating, M.

  Seddon, J.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  King, Afred John (Knutsford)

  Seely, Colonel

  Clough, William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Shackleton, David James

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Summerbell, T.

  Crossley, William J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Dillon, John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Massie, J.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Elibank, Master of

  Middlebrook, William

  Watt, Henry A.

  Erskine, David C.

  Mond, A.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Essex, R. W.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Worrell, Philip

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Morse, L. L.

  Wills, Arthur Waiters

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

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

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nicholls, George

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Gulland, John W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rosendale)

  Partington, Oswald

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Renton, Leslie

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gretton, John

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Haddock, George B.

  Stanier, Beville

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)'

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerry, Earl of

  Winterton, Earl

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Question, "That the Schedule be the third Schedule of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.
  TOBACCO.

    PART I.—CUSTOMS DUTIES.
    Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.:—

    Containing 10 lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof:—

    s.

    d.

    Unstripped

    the lb.

    3

    8

    Stripped

    the lb.

    3

    8½

    PART II.—EXCISE DUTIES.
    Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.:—

    s.

    d.

    Tobacco containing 10 lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs.

    the lb.

    3

    6

    Tobacco containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof

    the lb.

    3

    11

    PART III.—RATES OF DRAWBACK.
    s.

    d.

    Cigars

    the lb.

    4

    2

    Cigarettes

    the lb.

    4

    1

    Cut, roll, cake, or other manufactured tobacco

    the lb.

    4

    0

    Snuff (not being offal snuff)

    the lb.

    3

    10

    Stalks, shorts, or other refuse of tobacco (including offal snuff)

    the lb.

    3

    9

    Mr. H. W. FORSTER: In order to facilitate the arrangement at which we arrived last night, I would suggest to my hon. Friends on this side of the House that we should content ourselves with dividing against the Schedule, and should take the discussion on the Tobacco Duty when the Clause is recommitted, as proposed by the Government.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can only say that if that meets the convenience of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I shall be very glad to consent to the arrangement. The suggestion is that hon. Members should be content on the present occasion with dividing on the Schedule, and, that as the Government propose to recommit the Clause on the Report stage, there should be a full discussion on it later on.
    Mr. FELL: Will the Amendments which have been put down be moved?
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot help thinking that the recommital on the Schedule would be the most convenient plan, because the Amendments could then be moved as they have been put down.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of the date when the Clause is likely to be recommitted?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have not had an opportunity of consulting the authorities of the House, but, subject to that, I should think the recommital would come before we take the Report stage of the Bill. In that case it will be taken the first thing on Tuesday week, October 19.
    Mr. RENWICK: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we knew whether the Government are going to commit the Clause and the Schedule as well.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think, if I may say so, following the suggestion of the

    2155
    Chairman, that the best course we could take would be to recommit the Schedule, because every point can be raised on the Schedule.
    Mr. RENWICK: I do not mind, so long
    as it is understood what the Government intend doing.
    Question put, "That the Schedule be the Fourth Schedule of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 71.

    Division No. 783.]

    AYES.

    [1.25 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Philippe, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Helme, Norval Watson

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

    Barker, Sir John

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Henry, Charles S.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Robinson, S.

    Beale, W. P.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rowlands, J.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jenkins, J.

    Seddon, J.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Seely, Colonel

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Shackleton, David James

    Clough, William

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Lamont, Norman

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Cooper, G. J.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Strachey, Sir Edward

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Crossley, William J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

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

    Thomasson, Franklin

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

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Toulmin, George

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Massie, J.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Elibank, Master of

    Middlebrook, William

    Watt, Henry A.

    Erskine, David C.

    Mond, A.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Essex, R. W.

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morrell, Philip

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Nicholls, George

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Norton and Mr. Whitley.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Partington, Oswald

    Gulland, John W.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    NOES.

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

    Devlin, Joseph

    Keating, M.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Kerry, Earl of

    Ashley, W. W.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Kilbride, Denis

    Balcarres, Lord

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fell, Arthur

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mooney, J. J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Muldoon, John

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gretton, John

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Haddock, George B.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

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

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shee, James John

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pointer, J.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Retcliff, Major R. F.

    Condon, T. J.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Reddy, M.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Hills, J. W.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Crean, Eugene

    Hogan, Michael

    Renton, Leslie

    Renwick, George

    Starkey, John R.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Summerbell, T.

    Winterton, Earl

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Sheehy, David

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormikirk)

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

FIFTH SCHEDULE.

  PART I.—REBATE OF MOTOR SPIRIT DUTY.
  Motor spirit used for the purpose of supplying motive power:—

  (1) To a motor car which is constructed or adapted for use, and is used solely, for the conveyance of any goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry, and whereon the Christian name and surname and place of abode or place of business of the person, or the name or style and principal or only place of business of the company or firm keeping the same, shall be legibly and visibly printed in letters of not less than one inch in length.

  (2) To a motor cab, motor omnibus, or other vehicle being a hackney carriage within the meaning of Section four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, while it is standing or plying for hire.

  PART II.—RATES OF DUTIES ox MOTOR CARS.
  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Motor bicycles and motor tricycles, of whatever horse power

  1

  0

  0

  Motor cars—Not exceeding 6½ horse power

  2

  2

  0

  Motor cars—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Exceeding 6½, but not exceeding 12 h.p.

  3

  3

  0

  Exceeding 12 but not exceeding 16 h.p.

  4

  4

  0

  Exceeding 16 but not exceeding 26 h.p.

  6

  6

  0

  Exceeding 26 but not exceeding 33 h.p.

  8

  8

  0

  Exceeding 33 but not exceeding 40 h.p.

  10

  10

  0

  Exceeding 40 but not exceeding 60 h.p.

  21

  0

  0

  Exceeding 60

  42

  0

  0

  Amendments made: In paragraph (1) to leave out the word "printed" ["legibly and visibly 'printed'"] and to insert instead thereof the word "painted."—[Mr. Lloyd-Georye.]
  To insert, after paragraph (2), the following, "(3) To a motor car kept by a duly qualified medical practitioner while it is being used by him for the purposes of his profession."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. FELL Mr. FELL moved, after the words last added, to insert the following, "(4) To a motor car used by a veterinary surgeon for the purposes of his profession."
  Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 143.

  Division No. 784.]

  AYES.

  [1.35 a.m.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Renton, Leslie

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Forster, Henry William

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Gretton, John

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Haddock, George B.

  Seddon, J.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Stanier, Beville

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Valentia, viscount

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hills, J. W.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Winterton, Earl

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lamont, Norman

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Sir W. Bull.

  Essex, R. W.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beale, W. P.

  Clough, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Barker, Sir John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crossley, William J.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robinson, S.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rowlands, J.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lupton, Arnold

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

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Faikirk Burghs)

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

  Elibank, Master of

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

  Seely, Colonel

  Erskine, David C.

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sheehy, David

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Marnham, F. J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Massie, J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Middlebrook, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mond, A.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Summerbell, T.

  Gulland, John W.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morse, L. L.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

  Toulmin, George

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholls, George

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Shee, James John

  Miles, Thomas

  Hogan, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Partington, Oswald

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Isaacs, Ruins Daniel

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Reddy, M.

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Question, "That this be the Fifth Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

SIXTH SCHEDULE.

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved to amend the extent of repeal in the case of the Inland Revenue Act, 1880. The Schedule, as it stood, provided for the repeal of "Sections 40 to 45," and the Amendment was to repeal "Sections 40 to 42; Section 43, except Sub-section (7); and Sections 44 and 45."
  Mr. MOONEY: The Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) has an Amendment on the Paper relating to this Section. It is quite true that the Solicitor-General's Amendment is practically the same, but I think he has omitted Section 41. Under this Amendment, Section 41 will still be an operative Section, and I think he must amend the Amendment by inserting the words "forty-one."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: As my Amendment cannot be moved, I think I ought to call attention to this extraordinary tax. It is
  2160
  really too bad that the public in Dublin should be worse by 10s. than the public in any other part of the country.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman does not arise. Whether "Section 41" ought to be inserted or not I am not sure at the present moment, but perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to consider it on Report.
  Mr. MOONEY: I would suggest that the words should run "Sections 40, 41, 42," and so on.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: If my Amendment is carried, Sections 40 to 42 will be repealed, and that will include Section 41. But I will look into the matter.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the learned Solicitor-General take the opportunity now of telling us how the law with regard to Ireland stands?
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Sixth Schedule of the Bill."
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I wish to express a hope that, as one of the Acts to be repealed is an Act for the encouragement of trade, and as we on this side are in favour of the encouragement of trade,

  Division No. 785.]

  AYES.

  [1.50 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Partington, Oswald

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Philippe, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Barker, Sir John

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pointer, J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Scale, W. P.

  Hogan, Michael

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robinson, S.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jenkins, J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rowlands, J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Clough, William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Seddon, J.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Seely, Colonel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shackleton, David James

  Cooper, G. J.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Summerbell, T.

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

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duckworth, Sir James

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Duncan J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Toulmin, George

  Elibank, Master of

  Massie, J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Erskine, David C.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Essex, R. W.

  Middlebrook, William

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Mond, A.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morrell, Philip

  Wiles, Thomas

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morse, L. L.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

  Wilis, Arthur Walters

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nicholls, George

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Gulland, John W.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Shee, James John

  NOES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Renton, Leslie

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Renwick, George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Haddock, George B.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Stanier, Seville

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerry, Earl of

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Winterton, Earl

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  F. Banbury and Sir W. Bull.

  The CHAIRMAN (referring to Amendments on the Paper in relation to the Preamble):The CHAIRMAN (referring to Amendments on the Paper in relation to the Preamble):
  my hon. Friends will divide against the Schedule.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 39.
  What has been thought to be a Preamble is not a Preamble. The paragraph

  2163
  is composed of enacting words, the form of which has been adopted for many-years, and my predecessors in this Chair have ruled that they cannot be amended.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday, 19th October.

LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell) moved "That the Bill be now read a second time." I only want to say that this Bill is agreed to by all parties in Ireland, and that it is for the rectification of a serious administrative difficulty which has arisen in the county of Cork. Unless the Bill is passed, the objects of the promoters will be delayed. All parties agree that it is most necessary that the Bill should become law, and I therefore move that it be read a second time.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: The Chief Secretary has said that this Bill is absolutely necessary for the conduct of business in Ireland, and that if delayed it will cause very serious inconvenience. That, I think, is ample proof that the placing of this Bill among the dregs of the Session, and the bringing of it up at two o'clock in the morning, instead of as the first Order of the day, is not only an outrage on Parliamentary procedure, but an outrage on Ireland.
2.0 A.M.
Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I hope the House will allow this Bill to go through. I have had an opportunity of studying it. It is a very generous and very courageous attempt, at a rather late hour I admit, on the part of the Government to settle a very difficult question which has arisen, and which has been the subject matter of litigation and friction for the past four years. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has devised a very excellent remedy for it, to which all parties have assented. As the matter is an urgent one in the interests of the Irish people concerned in the registration of land, I would ask the House to accept the Bill.
Mr. BIRRELL: I move "That this Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House."
Committee to sit to-morrow, Thursday.

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES (IRELAND) BILL.
[Mr. EMMOTT, Deputy-Speaker, in the chair.]
Considered, as amended.
Mr. HAY: I rise to protest against this Bill being taken now. It is not even printed. Last night it was under discussion, and the Solicitor-General for Ireland moved or approved certain Amendments, which he said were merely drafting Amendments.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot object to the Bill being taken.
Mr. HAY: On a point of Order. Is it permissible that a Bill should be submitted to a vote of the House without being printed? The Bill was substantially amended and has not since been reprinted. I was in the Vote Office an hour ago to get a copy of it, and was informed that it had not been reprinted.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I find that this being a private Member's Bill, the hon. Member can object to its being taken.
Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: May I appeal to the hon. Member for Hoxton to give way? I do not profess myself to know anything about the Bill, but I know it is backed by hon. Members representing all parties in Ireland. There is no opposition to it so far as I know, and I suggest it would be a gracious act on the part of the hon. Member to withdraw his objection.
Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: May I also appeal to the hon. Member to allow this Bill to proceed? It is absolutely non-contentious and is backed by Members of all parties in Ireland. That it is non-contentious is shown by the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for East Down (Captain Craig) and myself have both backed the Bill, and any Bill he and I agree upon must be non-contentious. I would remind the hon. Member that we do not know what is going to happen in politics in the next few days. There may be a General Election and this Bill may be massacred amongst others. It is really a simple Bill to protect Irish seaside resorts against growing foreign competition. It is therefore really a Tariff Reform measure, and as the Government is giving facilities for it, I think the hon. Member for Hoxton ought to be delighted to see signs of grace from such a quarter.
Mr. ASHLEY: I must support my hon. Friend. I am interested in Ireland, and when I went to the Vote Office to get a copy of the Bill to see what it was, I was unable to obtain one. I do not even know what Amendments have been made.
Mr. MacVEAGH: They were on the Order Paper yesterday.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Hoxton persist in his objection?
Mr. HAY: Yes, Sir.
Consideration of Bill accordingly deferred until to-morrow.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Five minutes after Two o'clock a.m. Thursday, 7th October, 1909.

  Irish Postal Service (Surveyors).
  Irish Postal Service (Surveyors).
  Death of Rev. N. Hodgson (Court of Inquiry).
  Death of Rev. N. Hodgson (Court of Inquiry).
  Army Quartermasters and Riding Masters (Pensions).
  Army Quartermasters and Riding Masters (Pensions).
  Royal Field Artillery.
  Royal Field Artillery.
  Indian Police Commission.
  Indian Police Commission.
  Head Teachers (Notice to Terminate Engagement).
  Head Teachers (Notice to Terminate Engagement).
  Great Lakes (Canadian Government).
  Great Lakes (Canadian Government).
  Boycotting and Maltreatment (Alleged), Fawney Cross, North Derry.
  Boycotting and Maltreatment (Alleged), Fawney Cross, North Derry.
  Wallis Estate, Lisnabrien, Comity Cork.
  Wallis Estate, Lisnabrien, Comity Cork.
  Duke of Devonshire's Estate, County Cork.
  Duke of Devonshire's Estate, County Cork.
  Reinstatement Application, Ballingarry, Limerick.
  Reinstatement Application, Ballingarry, Limerick.
  Irish Pension Applicants.
  Irish Pension Applicants.
  Old Age Pension (Case of Mrs. C. Murphy).
  Old Age Pension (Case of Mrs. C. Murphy).
  Dalkey Granite Quarries.
  Dalkey Granite Quarries.
  Irish Imports and Exports (Returns).
  Irish Imports and Exports (Returns).
  Exhibition of Irish Agricultural Produce.
  Exhibition of Irish Agricultural Produce.
  London Postal Supervisors.
  London Postal Supervisors.
  Civil Service Assistant Clerks' Salaries.
  Civil Service Assistant Clerks' Salaries.
  First-Class Battleships.
  First-Class Battleships.
  Valuation of Salved Materials.
  Valuation of Salved Materials.
BURY CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with several of the Amendments agreed to; and one disagreed to, together with a Reason for such disagreement: The said Reason considered: The Amendment to which the Commons disagree not insisted on, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS BILL. [H.L.]
Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

IRISH LAND BILL.
House again in Committee (according to order).
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD moved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 14. He apologised for a mistake in the printing of the proposed new clause on the Notice Paper, and said it should read as follows—
"No advance shall be made under the Land Purchase Acts to the owner of a congested estate not situated in a congested districts county unless such estate has been brought by the Land Commission under section six of the Act of 1903."
He said that no congested estate at the present time could be perfectly or efficiently improved unless the Estates Commissioners had the full powers which Section 12 of the Act of 1903 conferred upon them. He was dealing now with congestion outside the scheduled or congested districts, not with congestion under the Congested Districts Board. In order to effectively improve an estate possessing congested holdings, it was absolutely essential that the whole of the internal arrangements of the holdings should in most cases be altered. In congested holdings, as their Lordships well knew, much of the land was in detached plots and much of it was separated from the nucleus of the holdings. The essential part of the work of improvement was the consolidation of holdings, bringing the various parts together, and in such a way consolidating the holdings as nearly as possible within a ring fence. That could
814
only be done if the authority dealing with congestion had the powers which Section 12 of the Act of 1903 conferred on the Congested Districts Board. If a landlord sold a congested estate to his tenant the tenants thereupon became the owners of their several holdings, and it was impossible to effect any improvement except with the consent of all the tenants concerned—a consent which the Estates Commissioners had, up to date, found it practically impossible to obtain.
If their Lordships would consult the recent Report of the Estates Commissioners, they would find that from the beginning of the operation of this Act—namely, from November 1, 1903—to March 31 last, the Estates Commissioners were only able to deal with twenty cases of congestion. The result was that, of course, outside the scheduled districts the congestion had continued; estates had changed hands, and congestion had been perpetuated in all those estates which had been so sold. The object of his Amendment was to enable the congestion to be relieved, and in order to enable the Estates Commissioners to do that he proposed that all congested estates should in future be sold to the Estates Commissioners under Section 6 of the Act of 1903; that no longer direct sales should take place between landlord and tenant of these congested estates. He trusted he had made it clear that if a direct sale between landlord and tenant took place no power conferred upon the Estates Commissioners to spend money on these estates would be effectual for the object in view, because it would be necessary before the Commissioners could effectually interfere that they should obtain the consent of every individual tenant on the estate to place the whole of their holdings in hotch-potch, as it were, and let the Commissioners deal with them as they pleased. That was practically impossible to expect, once a sale was completed; so that if their Lordships did not accept the proposal he made they would perpetuate congestion everywhere outside the scheduled areas. Within the congested areas the Congested Districts Board had the power which he claimed now for the Estates Commissioners.
Landlords would naturally ask themselves, "Are we to accept the prices which the Estates Commissioners offer us for our estates? Are we to have no appeal

815
from the price or against the arrangement proposed by the Estates Commissioners?" That was provided for in the second portion of his plan, which they would come to later; in such a case there should be a tribunal to which a landlord could appeal in the event of his being dissatisfied with the price offered him by the Estates Commissioners. They might say that that was compulsion. He admitted at once that the tribunal was common to the proposals which he now made and the proposals which might be made under a system of so-called compulsion, but he did not apply the word "compulsion" necessarily to his scheme. It was giving the landlords an opportunity, if they disagreed with the Estates Commissioners, of having the matter submitted to an impartial arbitration. Every landlord in Ireland, with few exceptions, was anxious to sell his property, provided he could get a fair and equitable price. It was a question of price with most Irish landlords, and he was anxious that the price to be given to them in order to settle once for all this great question should not only be fair but generous. Where there were two parties to a transaction, one anxious to buy and the other anxious to sell, the ordinary common sense procedure was to refer the matter in issue between them to the arbitrament of an impartial, intelligent, and competent arbitrator. That course was adopted in commercial transactions, and he did not see why it should not also be applicable to matters connected with Irish land. Proof in support of his proposals could be found in the evidence given before the Dudley Commission, but he preferred to submit this matter to the judgment of their Lordships on the plain issue. If their Lordships, however, did not adopt this plan, the relief of congestion outside the congested districts became a matter of impossibility. It would be for them to determine whether that congestion outside the scheduled districts was to continue a scanda to every observer or whether they would take advantage of this proposal. It might not be all that their Lordships wished, but at all events they might suggest such an improvement in the proposal as would give effect to the purpose he had in view.
Amendment moved—
"In Part II of the Bill, to insert the following new clause:
'15.—(1) No advance shall be made under the Laud Purchase Acts to the owner of a congested estate not situated in a congested districts county
816
unless such estate has been brought by the Land Commission under Section 6 of the Act of 1903.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I was rather waiting to hear what noble Lords opposite would say about this Amendment, because although I appreciate the object which my noble friend Lord MacDonnell has in view, there is no doubt that this Amendment considerably stiffens the clauses of the Bill. The proposal is that no direct sale shall take place in any part of an estate which is described as a congested estate under the definition of the Act of 1903. The noble Lord spoke of a congested estate as consisting of congested holdings, but, of course, there may be a great number of holdings on an estate of this kind which are not congested, and it certainly does seem a strong order, although the noble Lord may be right in thinking it necessary, entirely to abolish direct sales in cases of estates of that kind. I may also remind my noble friend that though there is much to be said for his Amendment, I think it could not possibly be applied to pending agreements.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: No; it does not apply to pending agreements.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am advised that it does as it stands, but that, of course, would be a matter, if necessary, of a small alteration. The only other point on this first Amendment to which I ought to allude—although I do so with some diffidence when it comes to correcting the drafting of an Amendment drawn by my noble friend Lord MacDonnell—is his alteration of the words "tenant of a holding in" to "the owner of." That means that advances are made to the owners of estates by the Estates Commissioners; but advances are made to the persons who buy from the owner, and I think therefore that will require some alteration.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: Very probably.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The clause was right in its original form.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: The meaning is clear.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The meaning is perfectly clear.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURI THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURI said he did not like to let the opportunity pass without saying a word in support of Lord MacDonnell's Amendment. There was a great deal to be said for this Amendment. He could take noble Lords to places in Ireland and show them cases where owing to the fact that the estates had been sold direct from landlord to tenant congestion was stereotyped for ever, and it had passed out of the possibilities of any Board like the Congested Districts Board to deal with it. The same thing really applied outside the congested districts, as Lord MacDonnell had pointed out. Of course, there were difficulties. His noble friend proposed to extend this to the whole of Ireland. He also saw a difficulty in understanding exactly what "congested estate" might mean in the rest of Ireland. Though he thought there was a great deal to be said for this Amendment, at the same time he did not suppose that his noble friend would press it when he saw that noble Lords were not quite prepared to accept it in the form in which he had presented it to the House.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD moved another Amendment to follow Clause 14. He said the last proposal he made had reference to the relief of congestion outside the scheduled areas. This proposal dealt with the relief of congestion within the scheduled areas, because that congestion could not possibly be relieved unless the untenanted land necessary for migration and for the enlargement of holdings was secured. This proposal substantially meant that in the province of Connaught untenanted land should be earmarked for the purposes of the Congested Districts Board. It was clearly proved in the evidence given before the Dudley Commission that there was not in the province of Connaught sufficient land to relieve the congestion in the existing scheduled areas, and the strongest evidence was brought before the Commission to show that day by day the stock of available land was being reduced and was passing into the hands of other than the congested people. He had the honour of being a member of that Commission, and the Commission came to the unanimous conclusion that if the relief of congestion was to be anything substantial, or to be anything more than a mere name, it was necessary to take immediate steps to forestall the further sale and
818
disposal of grass lands in the province of Connaught. It was a question of whether their Lordships were going to relieve congestion, or whether they were going to allow the land to get into the hands of the landless men. That was a point in which he had ventured in the Minute which he wrote to ask for a decision from the Government. It was a very difficult matter upon which to come to a decision; the decision had not been come to in the Bill as it stood, and he proposed this provision therefore with a view of challenging a decision on that point. If no decision was come to and if matters went on as they were, it would be better at once to say that the relief of congestion was a pious opinion which could not possibly be carried out in a practical way. In this instance also his drafting might be defective, but he trusted he had made his meaning clear. The grass lands in Connaught ought to be earmarked for the relief of congestion. In securing that land he thought the poor people who had small holdings in the neighbourhood, either on the land itself or in the immediate neighbourhood, ought to be the first to be helped. They had always been looking upon those lands, and if they were not satisfied it would be difficult to bring migrants into the neighbourhood. If they did not secure those grass lands now, it would be much better if they said "We will not go on any longer with the relief of congestion." They might spend money in Connaught on local industries or improving small holdings, and so on. That money, no doubt, would be well spent for the time, but it would not relieve congestion. A few years hence the same trouble would recur, and they would be faced with this difficulty in an even larger degree than now. On their Lordships' decision rested the question whether or not the relief of congestion in Connaught was or was not to be successful.
Amendment moved—
"In Part II of the Bill to insert the following new clause:—
'(2) No advance shall be made otherwise than on behalf of the Congested Districts Board under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of untenanted land situated in an administrative county which contains a congested county unless the Land Commission are satisfied that the land is not needed for the relief of congestion in such administrative counties. This subsection shall not apply to demesne and home farm land.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: As my noble friend Lord MacDonnell has stated, his

819
second Amendment opens up a question of the first importance, but I should like to put it to him whether his object could not be better met by an attempt to amend Clause 55 which deals with the disposition of parcels of land. The object which he desires to achieve is to limit the class of persons to whom this land may be sold, and I should have thought that his Amendment would come in more appropriately in some other form on the clause which deals with those matters, rather than on the question of making advances under the Land Purchase Act.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: If the noble Earl prefers, I will withdraw the Amendment now, and bring it up on Clause 55.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15:
15.—(1) No advance exceeding the sum of three thousand pounds shall be sanctioned under the Land Purchase Acts to any tenant in pursuance of an agreement for the purchase of a holding entered into after the passing of this Act unless—

(a) the tenant resides on the holding, or such holding is ordinarily used with the holding on which the tenant resides; or

(b) a substantial portion of the holding has been tilled in each of the five years next preceding the date of the agreement

and the Land Commission consider that an advance of a larger amount not exceeding five thousand pounds may properly be sanctioned.
(2) A person shall be deemed to reside on a holding within the meaning of this section if he occupies a house in the immediate neighbourhood for the purpose of working or managing the holding.
(3) Section two of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888, and subsection (4) of section one of the Act of 1903, shall cease to have effect save as regards advances in pursuance of purchase agreements entered into before the passing of this Act.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to omit from paragraph (a) the words "the tenant resides on the holding, or." He said that this was the first of a series of Amendments which stood in his name. He had in addition put down at the end an Amendment to leave out the clause altogether in case the Government were unable to meet him in any way or the question of privilege was again raised with reference to this matter. The Amendments which he proposed ought to commend themselves not only to the noble Earl, but also to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, because they aimed at
820
increasing the discretionary powers of the Estates Commissioners. That was an object which the noble Earl and the Lord Chancellor had very much at heart. They had both twitted noble Lords on that side of the House with not placing sufficient confidence in the Estates commissioners, but noble Lords opposite did not quite understand the attitude of noble Lords on his side of the House in regard to this matter. They did not want the discretionary powers of the Estates Commissioners increased in cases which referred to the zones or to parts of grass lands, because they thought the Estates Commissioners were perhaps too keen and too zealous to protect the interests of the State, and that in doing so they might, perhaps, neglect to consider other interests as fully as he and his friends would like. But when it was a case of increasing the security of the State, they were all in favour of giving the Estates Commissioners full discretionary powers; at least he was. It had been remarked that this clause limited very much the advances which were made under the Act of 1903, by which the class of larger tenants was limited as regarded the benefits of the Act. This clause proposed to limit it in a great number of different cases, and to have all over Ireland small tenants of about ten acres, which would mean a very low standard of living, and a very low standard of agriculture. He could not help thinking that these large tenants with capital should have an opportunity of acquiring their holdings, and that at any rate it should be left to the discretion of the Estates Commissioners to judge whether these men were suitable persons to be given an advance under the Act. The Amendment which he now proposed was meant to meet the case of tenants who had two holdings which were not worked together, but he did not think it was a specially important one, and he rather moved it to make clear the trend of his Amendments. If, however, the noble Earl was not prepared to accept it, he would withdraw this particular Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 34, to leave out the words 'the tenant resides on the holding or.'"—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think it is impossible to quarrel with the noble Lord after the engaging candour with which he stated the purpose of this Amendment.

821
The discretion of the Estates Commissioners where it might conceivably be used for the public interest requires the close attention of the noble Lord, but where it might be used for the benefit of private interests he desires to enlarge it to the utmost possible degree. Now the clause as it stands limits the amount which may be advanced to £3,000 with the discretion of the Land Commission in certain cases to extend the limit to £5,000, and therefore when the noble Lord talked of ten-acre farms, I think he will admit that he was somewhat overstating the case.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: It is within strict limitations that this permission is given to the Estates Commissioners, and my object is to enlarge their powers.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I know, but £3,000 is a large price for a landlord's interest in a ten-acre farm. That is what the noble Lord proposes. By his first Amendment he substitutes £5,000 for £3,000, and by the fifth Amendment on the Paper he substitutes £7,000 for £5,000.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I have not moved that.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord does not take that?
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I have only moved the first one.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I thought he had finished. Well, I hope he will not press this, because we greatly prefer the clause as it stands, which we think covers all cases of this kind. The noble Lord will also observe that a case where a man owns two farms, and obviously cannot live on both, is covered, but we do not want to bring in a larger number of people who live nowhere near the farm.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CASTLETOWN*LORD CASTLETOWN moved to strike out the provision that in the case of any farm for which a purchasing advance of £3,000 was required, "a substantial portion" must have been "tilled in each of the five years next preceding the date of the agreement." His object in bringing forward this Amendment and two others
822
which stood in his name, was, he said, that he had a sort of paternal interest in this clause, because during the passage of the Act of 1885 he was enabled to get a section inserted which facilitated the sale of large farms to their occupiers. The suggestion made by His Majesty's Government that the advances from the Land Commission should not be larger than £5,000 at their discretion might be a wise one, but it must be remembered that in the future in Ireland as the landlords disappeared from the country, as he thought would be the case, the rural district councillors, the men of influence in different districts, would be selected from the class of large farmers. They would be the men to whom the people would go for advice and assistance. Paragraph (b), which he proposed to omit, brought in a rather absurd restriction. The clause provided that no advance exceeding £3,000 could be sanctioned under the Land Purchase Acts unless "a substantial portion of the holding has been tilled in each of the five years next preceding the date of the agreement." He yielded to nobody in his opinion that tillage was a very valuable and useful adjunct to all farms in Ireland, but he thought it rather absurd to make it a sine qua non that a portion of a farm must not be sold to a man unless a "substantial portion" of the farm was in tillage. First of all, it was very difficult to define what "substantial" would be. A man might have a farm of 400 acres, and it might be very advisable that he should have fifty acres of tillage, but the. Estates Commissioners might hold that that was not "substantial" and that he ought to have 200 acres in tillage, and they might refuse the concession which otherwise they would make to him. On the other hand, a farmer might agree with his landlord, before the actual completion of a purchase, to till what the Estates Commissioners might consider a substantial portion. Having tilled it for five years, with the consent of the landlord he would apply to the Commissioners and would receive his advance, and the next year the whole of the tillage would go back to grass. That would lead to collusion between an owner and his tenant. He could not see the advantage of paragraph (b) and he suggested to the Government that it would be far better to leave the Estates Commissioners to deal with particular applicants who came before them and when the Commissioners' inspectors had viewed the land.
The Commissioners' inspectors would go down and examine the land and see whether the farmer was living on it and actually using it in his business—whether he was the bonâ fide farmer which this clause contemplated.
Amendment moved—
In page 8, lines 37 to 39, to leave out paragraph (b)."—(Lord Castletown.)
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD could not help thinking that Clause 15 was very much against the interests of the large farmers in Ireland. He detected in this and in almost every other clause an attempt to fine down large farms and to have small ones. The restrictions which the Government proposed to put on farmers, that they should be bound to till a certain amount of land, was a great penalty to put on men, and it was calculated to also damage the grazing interest. He happened to be an owner of some large farms himself, and he would be sorry that those farms should be under penalty of being tilled after they had been used for grass for years. It was a very unfair and unjust clause on the large tenant farmers in Ireland. Their Lordships knew, those who had tenants in Ireland, that it was an enormous advantage to have here and there throughout the country a large farmer who farmed his land in a better way, and who could be of assistance to his neighbours. He looked upon this clause as the thin end of the wedge to reduce, first of all, the owners and then the large farmers, so that in the long run the landless men who were about would get the land. They could not make a rule-of-three arrangement about land. It was an open secret that at the present moment land bought, and for which terminal annuities had been paid, had come into the hands of one man, but the land was now going into the hands of one owner, and they could not prevent that going on by any Act of Parliament. He hoped that Lord Castletown would press his Amendment to this part of the clause as being unfriendly and unjust to the large farmers in Ireland.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON thought that both Lord Castletown and Lord Langford were under some misapprehension as to this paragraph. He agreed that it was most desirable to encourage large farmers, and not to penalise them. But this would not penalise them. This
824
was not a restriction, but an enlargement, and the object was to let in large tillage farmers, which was a most excellent thing.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO, no.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON said that whether that was the object of it or not, that was what paragraph (b) did. He appealed to the Lord Chancellor whether the paragraph would not admit to the privilege of purchasing farms for £3,000 if a substantial portion was tilled. But the clause as a whole, it was true, knocked out the large grazing farms. County Limerick, where he came from, was largely a grazing county; they valued their grazing farms but they were most anxious to encourage tillage. He appealed to his noble friends not to press their objection, because, as he had said, paragraph (b) would encourage tillage and do no sort of harm to the grazing farmer. It would not damage the grazing farmer nor deprive him of any privileges which would be conferred upon him otherwise under this Bill.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: May I point out to Lord Monteagle that a subsequent Amendment I have would admit grazing lands to the advantages of this clause?
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: But why do you want to shut out the tillage farms?
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I do not.
LORD ASHTOWN LORD ASHTOWN said his chief objection was that men were forced to till against their wish.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY said that to insist upon occupiers of land who had large grazing farms breaking up their land for tillage, would strike a very serious blow at what he regarded as the leading agricultural industry in Ireland—namely, the breeding of stock. In England and Scotland occupiers of large farms spent a large amount of capital on them. They also kept a good bull or a stallion, and were thus of enormous advantage to all the surrounding districts. He looked with considerable apprehension on the breaking up of any large farm. He did not own any farms in Ireland at present, although he had considerable small property in

825
England. Small occupiers of land round about the property of well-to-do farmers in this country would be the first to object to anything being done to depreciate in any way the great advantages to agriculture and to themselves which were obtained through the occupiers of large farms. Agriculture required capital, and if a man had a large holding he could develop it, but they would be virtually restricting a man of money from becoming an occupier of land if they insisted that he should break it up into tillage. It would not only be detrimental to the large occupier, but would be still more injurious to the breeding of stock. He would tell their Lordships what Ireland owed to this important industry. In a report on the trade in Irish ports it was shown that live stock was the largest export, and amounted in 1908 to a total estimated value of nearly £15,000,000, an increase over the exports in each of the years from 1904 to 1907. Surely in a country which was supposed to be poor like Ireland, when they had figures like that it seemed to be the height of folly to do anything which could injure that industry. It might be said that these exports only benefited the large graziers, but he denied that. This exporting of cattle encouraged the breeding of stock of all sorts by the smallest of farmers. The smallest farmer would breed his calf and sell it to a larger farmer; the larger farmer would in his turn sell it to the export grazier, and consequently the money brought into Ireland from this must permeate throughout those districts. He asked the noble Earl the Leader of the House what was the object of breaking up these grazing lands? His noble friend Lord Monteagle lived in a great cattle-breeding county, and spoke with authority. The noble Lord said that to break up grazing land and to put a large amount of it under tillage would do no harm; but he doubted whether in the great grazing counties such as Connaught, where the cattle trade was a great industry, they would endorse Lord Monteagle's remark. But what was the reason that these grazing lands were to be broken up? Was it not to reward the evil doers? Was it wise to break up farms and lay down tillage which required a great deal of labour? Much also depended on the climate, and Ireland it was known in some parts had a wet climate. Was it possible then, even in the most favourable circumstances, that if they laid down a certain amount of tillage the land would bring in
826
anything like the return it would from grazing? Did they think that the people living in the great grazing districts of Galway and those parts of Ireland which were devoted to cattle breeding would be so foolish as to break up their land and turn it into tillage? He did not believe it. He trusted that his noble friend who proposed the omission of paragraph (b) would press it to a Division. He agreed that to reject the whole clause would require very careful consideration, but any step that would go to ruin the graziers and the great cattle industry in Ireland would be an exceedingly unwise one for their Lordships to take.
LORD ARDILAUN*LORD ARDILAUN said it would be very unfortunate to make compulsory the tillage of a portion of a farm. At present the paragraph was absolutely vague as to what it meant, what portion and to what extent. The words were merely "a substantial portion." In his part of the country it would be absolutely impossible to carry out the improvement, if they called tillage an improvement. There were no men to do it. The young men had mostly gone to America and to other parts of the world. Therefore, to cause men to break up their lands would be penalising them, because they could not get people to carry out the tillage. It was also perfectly clear, from his experience and that of others, that tillage was not profitable, and they only tilled as far as was necessary in connection with their stock. Tillage would not pay like grazing farms.
LORD ASHTOWN*LORD ASHTOWN said there were two large portions of grass land in Galway neither of which could be tilled. Two-thirds of one was rock, and no matter how willing a man might be he could not possibly till it. As to the other portion, he resided among that land himself and any man who tried to make a profit by turning it into tillage would become bankrupt.
LORD BARRYMORE LORD BARRYMORE reminded the Committee that the whole tendency of this land legislation must be to drive the present landowners more and more out of the country, and to leave behind them no class to take their place and to lead public opinion, except the large farmer. In the interests of high policy, therefore, Parliament ought to endeavour to keep the large farmers in their present position rather than discourage them.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I desire to say one word with regard to paragraph (b) which is under discussion. Let us, in the first place, see quite clearly what it does. The clause of which it forms a part lays down a limit of £3,000, with a discretion to go to £5,000 beyond which the Land Commission shall not go. Paragraph (b) says that the £3,000 limit may be exceeded where a substantial part of a farm has been under tillage. My noble friend Lord Monteagle said that at first sight it undoubtedly appeared to let in tillage farms, and thereby to introduce a measure of elasticity in the clause. But what does parargaph (b) really in effect do? It virtually says that large holdings shall not be admitted to the privileges of the Bill unless a substantial part of them are broken up. That is a deliberate incitement to till land which would not otherwise be tilled, to till it for the purpose of obtaining the advantages of this section. Is that a wise policy? I entirely agree with what has been said by noble Lords who have a right to speak because they have practical knowledge of this question. Is this a wise condition to attach to the admission of large holdings? Those of us who have had any experience of agriculture will be unanimous in saying that agriculturally there is no greater crime than to break up fine old pasture land. An agriculturist would regard the breaking up of old pasture very much as an amateur of rare china would regard the breaking up of old Sèvres; and to put a premium an land adapted for one purpose being used for a different purpose seems to me the height of folly. There are two principles involved in this clause. There is hostility to grazing land, and there is incidentally the policy of hostility to large farmers. I entirely agree with what has been said as to the place which the grazing lands occupy in the Irish agricultural system. The question does not arise in so many words upon paragraph (b), but it is the policy which runs through the whole of this clause. You want to get rid of the grazing lands to which Irish agriculture owes so much, and you want to obliterate, as far as you possibly can do so, large occupiers of land in that country. The clause will therefore have a twofold effect. It will have an effect upon Irish agriculture, and incidentally it will have an effect, and a most unfortunate one, upon Irish society, because when the landlords have disappeared it will be to these large farmers—these substantial men who are
828
able to hold their own at the fairs and who are not at the mercy of the local dealers—to whom the Irish agricultural community will look to maintain a certain amount of agricultural efficiency. I venture to think that this paragraph (b) is a most ill-advised one, and if my noble friend Lord Castletown goes to a division, I shall vote with him.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very glad that the noble Marquess opposite has brought the discussion back to the actual terms of the clause rather than the supposed design which lies behind the words. The clause provides that £3,000 should be an ordinary advance, thereby reverting to the policy of the Land Acts before 1903, and it makes two exceptions, classified as (a) and (b). But it seems to me that noble Lords are going far when they attribute to paragraph (b), which was inserted I may mention in another place in the course of discussion, a design to break up the grass lands in Ireland. What is said is that these large grass farms are not appropriate subjects for very large advances of public money; and that is quite another matter. I think, speaking generally and apart from the particular question of the actual industry, speaking purely for the moment in the abstract, everybody would agree that a system partly consisting of grazing or dairy farming is probably from the general economic point of view of the well-being of the country superior to the grazing industry pure and simple—and for the reason that one employs labour and the other does not. That is an argument which, taking it in the abstract, must appeal to noble Lords opposite as much as to ourselves. But, say noble Lords, this restriction will cause the break up of grass lands. I confess I do not follow that. All it says is that an advance must be limited, but it does not in the least prevent the comparatively wealthy class of people who as a rule are concerned in these farms, from finding the rest of the money and acquiring them. We say that advances of public money shall be so limited, but it does not prevent a person who desires to acquire large grazing farms from raising the money in some other way, and supposing he is reasonably supplied with capital he ought to have no difficulty in doing it. We do desire, in the circumstances of Ireland, and bearing in mind the condition of the congested districts on the one hand and the

829
great pasture districts on the other, to encourage an increase of tillage farming. I quite admit that it cannot be done everywhere. The cases mentioned by he noble Lord opposite, Lord Ashtown, I have no doubt are perfectly in point. Farms which are composed of rocky pastures clearly cannot be broken up for tilling, but the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Ardilaun, struck me as a strange one when he said it is impossible in certain neighbourhoods to turn any grass land into tillage because there are no people to till it. Surely that is an epitome of the whole Irish question, that you have got half your population crowded and pressed up against your sea board, and you have other parts of Ireland which are practically empty of population. This is part of a scheme to try and increase the population in those parts of Ireland which are barren of inhabitants. We attach importance to the clause as it stands, and I fear, therefore, we must resist the Amendment to the point of dividing if noble Lords opposite desire to go into the Lobby.
LORD ARDILAUN*LORD ARDILAUN said it was not the want of employment in his part of the country that made the people go to America. They would go there if they had any amount of employment to offer them in Ireland. He had had work for hundreds, and now he could hardly get tens to do it. They were determined to go to America. It was not the want of labour in some places but the overmastering desire to go to America.
LORD CASTLETOWN*LORD CASTLETOWN regretted that the noble Earl did not see his way to accept the Amendment. The noble Earl had said that the Government attached importance to paragraph (b) because parts of Ireland were very congested and there were other parts where labour was required. He was afraid that the noble

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Airedale, L.

Lochee, L.

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Allendale, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Armitstead, L.

Marchamley, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Blyth, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Boston, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Northampton, M.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Pirrie, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L.

Carrington, E.

Eversley, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Chesterfield, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Tennyson, L.

Chichester, E.

Haversham, L.

Weardale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Hemphill, L.

Earl did not know thoroughly the view of the congests, as they were called. He was perfectly convinced that no power on earth, not even an army, would induce the congests to go down to any portion of Ireland which was short of labour, because they knew their lives would be a burden to them. The other people would object strongly to their presence.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I quite agree.
LORD CASTLETOWN*LORD CASTLETOWN said that where there were tillage areas the labour, of course, existed. Where they had old pasture, much labour was not required. That was an ordinary agricultural question which settled itself by the fact that the land was very good; and, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, had said, it would be really a sin to break it up. By this provision that a large farm must be tilled they prevented large farmers from the possibility of profiting by the £3,000. He regretted that the noble Earl had not seen his way to accept the Amendment, but as he had other Amendments he would not press this one.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Is it the wish of the Committee that the Amendment be by leave withdrawn?
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: No. This Amendment is down in my name also. If my noble friend Lord Castletown does not intend to press it to a Division, I shall move it.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Non-contents, 149.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Cross, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Northumberland, D.

De Vesci, V.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Somerset, D.

Falkland, V.

Forester, L.

Wellington, D.

Falmouth, V.

Hare, E. (E. Listowel.)

Halifax, V.

Harlech, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Hampden, V.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Ailesbury, M.

Hill, V.

Hindlip, L.

Bath, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Inchiqum, L.

Camden, M.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Lansdowne, M.

Iveagh, V.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Salisbury, M.

Milner, V.

Kenyon, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Abingdon, E.

Abinger, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Albemarle, E.

Allerton, L.

Langford, L.

Bandon, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cadogan, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Camperdown, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Carnwath, E.

Ashtown, L.

Massy, L.

Cathcart, E.

Atkinson, L.

Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

Clarendon, E.

Avebury, L.

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

Cromer, E.

Barrymore, L.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Dartmouth, E.

Bateman, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Dartrey, E.

Belper, L.

North, L.

Denbigh, E.

Blythswood, L.

Northcote, L.

Derby, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Devon, E.

Braye, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L. [Teller.]

Eldon, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Essex, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Harrowby, E.

Carew, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Howe, E.

Castlemaine, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Huntingdon, E.

Castletown, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Kilmorey, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Rathdonnell, L.

Lichfield, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rathmore, L.

Lindsey, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Londesborough, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Rothschild, L.

Lucan, E.

Clonbrock, L.

St. Levan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Sanderson, L.

Manvers, E.

Colchester, L.

Savile, L.

Mayo, E. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Sherborne, L.

Onslow, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Shute, L. (V. Barrington)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

De Freyne, L.

Sinclair, L.

Powis, E.

Deramore, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Roberts, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Stanmore, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Digby, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Stanhope, E.

Dunalley, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dunboyne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Verulam, E.

Dunleath, L.

Templemore, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Ebury, E.

Trevor, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Tyrone, L. (V. Waterford.)

Wicklow, E.

Faber, L.

Ventry, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Waleran, L.

Churchill, V.

Farnham, L.

Wenlock, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE decided to leave over until Report the subsequent Amendments in his name on the Paper to this clause.
LORD CASTLETOWN*LORD CASTLETOWN had an Amendment on the Paper to add a new subsection to the clause. The noble Lord said that this Amendment was non-contentious and was a corollary to Section 6 which he had succeeded in getting inserted in the Act of 1885. He would give an instance of the working of that section in Ireland. Where
832
the price of a holding and the amount which the Land Commission could advance, apparently now £5,000, were agreed upon, the balance of the purchase money could be made up by arrangement between the owner and the purchaser by a mortgage with any other person. But that mortgage was puisne to the advance made by the Land Commission; it in no way affected the taxpayer or the money given by the Treasury to the Land Commission, but was a transaction between the purchaser and the vendor. It had been found of great advantage, and had been to a certain extent utilised wherever large farms had

833
to pass from the hands of the owners to the occupiers. The proposal which he made now would not interfere with the annuity which would be paid to the Land Commission. There were practically two sums to be considered—the sum due to the Land Commission on which there was an annuity and a sinking fund, and the mortgage to which he had referred, which was generally at about three and a-half per cent. The Land Commission collected the annuity and the sinking fund, and the mortgagee naturally collected his three and a-half per cent. He now proposed that the annuity and the sinking fund should go on exactly as heretofore, but as that sinking fluid was paid off to the Land Commission there naturally arose a greater security for the Land Commission's advance, and he proposed that the mortgagor and the mortgagee might agree to ask the Land Commission to advance an equivalent of what had been paid off under the sinking fund Supposing the sinking fund had been reduced by, say, £500, and the mortgage was for £1,000. The Land Commission would advance the £500 to the person whose mortgage was held, but the Land Commission's security had been increased by the fact of the sinking fund having been paid off, and that fund would be collected again by the Land Commission as the payments became due. The result would be where a large farm had been sold under this system that by degrees, as the sixty-eight and a-half years elapsed, the sinking fund would be paid off and also the interest due to the Land Commission, and at the same time the mortgage pari passu would disappear from the farm. So that at the end of the sixty-eight and a-half years the man would have bought his farm. By this means they would be creating, as he was anxious to see created in Ireland, a class of strong yeomen freehold farmers, who were very necessary in that country. Such an arrangement could be made, say, at intervals of ten or fifteen years. It would have the effect of placing a valuable class of men in residence on their own freeholds in Ireland, and he hoped that His Majesty's Government would concede this small point.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 42, after the word 'sanctioned,' to insert the following new subsection—
'(2) Where the price of a holding as agreed upon exceeds the amount for which an advance may
834
be made by the Land Commission, the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) The difference between the amount advanced and the agreed upon price may be secured to the vendor by a mortgage, and the provisions of section six of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, shall apply with the necessary modifications:

(b) Section one of the Act of 1903 shall apply to the advance to be made by the Land Commission as if an application had been made and granted for the advance of the whole purchase money:

(c) When and as often as a sum representing not less than ten per centum of the advance has been repaid by the receipt of the portion of the purchase annuity applicable to the sinking fund, either the vendor or the purchaser may require the Land Commission to make a further advance of that amount, and to apply the same towards payment of any money due upon the mortgage to the vendor:

(d) Any such further advance, together with all sums unpaid in respect of the original advance shall be repaid by the purchaser and charged upon the holding in like priority on the like terms and in like manner and by a like annuity as the original advance.' "—(Lord Castletown.)

THE EARL OF CREWE: My noble friend Lord Castletown has explained clearly the intended effect of this Amendment, but I am not sure that he has stated all the possibilities that might arise under the suggestion made. His paragraph (a) provides that when a sale takes place, the difference between the amount advanced and the agreed upon price might be secured to the vendor by a mortgage—
LORD CASTLETOWN: That already exists in Section 6 of the Act of 1885.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That is quite true, but I think the noble Lord will see that there must be a great number of cases in which that transaction is not possible, because when an encumberance exists on an estate, it is necessary for a further mortgage to take the form of cash in order to clear off the existing encumberance. Therefore this paragraph could only apply in the case of an absolutely unencumbered estate, unless it was possible to find the money elsewhere, in which case the transaction would not be worth doing. It seems to me a remarkable paragraph, and the Amendment goes considerably further than I gathered from the speech of the noble Lord. The result would be that where the purchase money was partly advanced and partly secured by a mortgage, the part secured by the mortgage would be provided ultimately by the Land Commission as if it were the entire purchase money.

835
That would take place, as I gather, under the noble Lord's Amendment. Take a case of this kind. Suppose that the largest sum which could be paid within the zones was £300, the vendor might sell the holding for £1,000, of which £500 would be advanced by the Land Commission, and £500 would remain upon mortgage. Well, the Land Commission would apparently advance the full amount, although the purchase price was double the limit. Would not the result be in effect to abolish all limits on the amounts which the Land Commission could advance to a purchaser? Take, for instance, a case of this kind. Supposing it was a case of an advance of £10,000. The Land Commission would advance £5,000, which is the maximum they are able to advance, and the remaining £5,000 takes the form of a mortgage. If you look at paragraph (c)of the Amendment, you will see that as soon as the sinking fund had accumulated to £500, the effect would be that a fresh advance of £500 would be made by the Land Commission, and so on until the whole £5,000 of the mortgage had been advanced by the Land Commission. The noble Lord has not provided for the two debts being paid off at the same time. If the Amendment is passed, there is nothing in it to secure an annuity being paid off at the end of the sixty-eight and a-half years; it might be extended to the remote date of 2046. But I am afraid in any case it would not he possible, even though the amounts had to be paid off concurrently, because it would clearly involve increased advances from the Land Commission in respect of the mortgages, supposing a number of these transactions take place. The Government cannot, therefore, see their way to accept the Amendment.
LORD CASTLETOWN*LORD CASTLETOWN thought the noble Earl would find that the two annuities would practically die out together, because the sinking fund worked out on practically the same lines. As regarded the effect, there was no doubt the noble Earl was correct. An advance of the full sum would eventually be made by the Estates Commissioners, but his point was that they were not asked to make these advances on a mortgage until such time as the sinking fund had reached the sum which they were asked to advance, and every year the security of the Land Commission was increasing in value. He agreed that it was possibly a complicated
836
scheme, and one that the Estates Commissioners might not like to carry out owing to its complexity. He would not press his Amendment, but he would ask whether paragraph (a) might not be agreed to, because that was merely carrying out Section 6 of the Act of 1885. Under this Bill, supposing men chose to come to such an agreement, could they take advantage of that section?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Speaking off-hand, I think they can. But I will look into the matter.
LORD CASTLETOWN: I will withdraw the Amendment now, and ask the noble Earl to allow me to bring it up on Report if I find we are able to agree on some provision of this nature.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
16.—(1) No advance shall be made under the Land Purchase Acts in respect of the purchase of a holding if the tenancy was created after the first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and eight.
(2) This section shall not apply to tenancies created by the Land Commission or by the Congested Districts Board.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved to substitute September 15, 1909, for the date mentioned in the clause. He recalled that the proposal which he now submitted was made in the other House by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that, on opposition being offered to it, the right hon gentleman hurriedly abandoned his own Amendment and voted against it, at the same time saying that he was convinced by the arguments brought against it and making several allusions to his conscience. Unless the Amendment were accepted great injustice and inconvenience would be caused. If it were possible that, while legislation was pending, fictitious tenancies could be manufactured there would be great objection; but the law provided that a tenant must be a real and bona fide tenant, and the Court of Appeal in Ireland had held that a tenancy created merely for the purpose of sale was not a bona fide tenancy. He could not see the reason or the justice of the provision. Possibly the noble Earl would give them those reasons which had had the result of

837
routing so precipitately the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons; but if the noble Earl could not give them those reasons he would press his Amendment, as he thought it was only just and fair that men who agreed with their tenants during this interval should have the opportunity of the sales afforded under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 11, to leave out from the word 'after' to the end of subsection (1) and to insert the words 'the fifteenth day of September in the year nineteen hundred and nine.'" — (Lord Atkinson.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble and learned Lord alluded to what happened in another place with reference to this Amendment as to which there was undoubtedly no little confusion and misunderstanding on both sides.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said there was none on their side.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think there was a degree of misunderstanding. What happened was that Mr. Long asked the Chief Secretary to place this Amendment and another Amendment on the Paper on the ground that they were accepted by both landlord and tenant and were of a non-controversial character, and he asked the Chief Secretary to put them down accordingly. The Chief Secretary accepted that statement and moved to re-commit the Bill which was necessary for the purpose with a view of bringing them forward, but to his no little surprise the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill was bitterly opposed by the friends of noble Lords opposite in another place, and a great deal of time was spent in discussing that Motion. The Chief Secretary cleared explained his position. He said he had not looked at the proposed Amendments so closely as he might have done had he been less pressed, and that he had considered that they were of a non-controversial character. It was then stated that the very thing that had happened was that which, as the noble and learned Lord had just said, clearly ought not to have happened—namely, that there had been a certain number of cases where tenancies had been created in anticipation of this particular legislation. My right hon. friend was therefore unable to vote for the Amendment, although he had himself put it down.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY pointed out that the Chief Secretary voted against his own Amendment.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, just as the friends of noble Lords opposite voted against their own re-committal, so that both sides may be regarded as quits so far as that is concerned. If the Amendment on the Paper were carried the effect would be that there would be some substantial reduction in the amount of untenanted land available. The noble and learned Lord said—as, of course, we should naturally expect him to say, and we quite agree with him—that where it was a question of creating what could be described as bogus tenancies in anticipation of the passing of the Act that was a practice which ought to be checked, if possible by legislation. As a matter of fact, in Section 53 of the Act of 1903 a parallel provision, I do not say an identical one, was included. That section provided a very distinct limitation, and it was also decidedly of an ex post facto character. I do not say that the point is of the first importance, but at the same time we do feel bound to adhere to the date as it appears now in the Bill, and I fear therefore we must resist the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD did not wish to say very much on the clause, but he thought the noble Earl who had just spoken had mentioned the real reason for the Bill—that more untenanted land was wanted for the landless man.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I did not say that more untenanted land was wanted for the landless man. What I said was that there would be a reduction in the amount of untenanted land. Of course the noble Lord can draw his own conclusions as to what the land was wanted for.
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD could not help thinking that this was another of the many phases of the Bill at the bottom of all of which was the fact that it had been determined to secure all untenanted land at somebody's expense in order to fulfil the obligations which the Government had laid themselves under to the landless men in Ireland.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said that the noble Earl the Leader of the House had told them that the Chief Secretary was given to understand that the Amendments which Mr. Long desired to see proposed would be acceptable to both landlords and tenants. He could not speak for their representatives in the House of Commons, but in their Lordships' House they had no doubt from correspondence, with which they were almost deluged, that the clause was extremely unpopular with a large number of tenants in Ireland. The clause, if it remained as drafted, was going to be of a much more far-reaching character than His Majesty's Government realised. What was the clause going to cut out of land purchase? First of all it was going to cut out all tenancies which had been created since the 1st of January, 1908. He did not think that would be disputed. He was entirely with the Government in saying that where bogus tenancies had been created they certainly should be cut out, but the clause was going to cut out all tenancies whether bogus or not. There was absolutely, as he read the Bill, no relief whatever for the genuine tenancy that had been created since, and that tenant was inevitably going to be cut out of the Bill without any reason being given to him. Secondly, the clause was going to cut out every tenancy in Ireland which had been altered by the landlord since the 1st January, 1908. If a landlord altered a boundary, or slightly increased or decreased a holding with the tenant's consent, that action amounted to the creation of a new tenancy and that tenancy would be cut out of the hope of purchase by the operation of the clause. Thirdly, there was a far-reaching condition of affairs underlying the clause as it then was in the Bill. Supposing a landlord had to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent—which involved a very complicated procedure nowadays, althought it did happen sometimes but was a thing a landlord was very loth to do for reasons which it was unnecessary to go into—the land from which that tenant was evicted was by the clause for ever cut out of the Purchase Acts. It seemed to him that the clause, therefore, should be amended, or, better still, struck out of the Bill altogether.
THE EARL OF CREWE*THE EARL OF CREWE: I might point out to the noble Earl that the date September 15 offers no safeguard what-
840
ever against the creation of bogus tenancies. Both noble Lords have, just as I should have expected from them, reprobated any such thing; but, on the other hand, if they are created they will get the benefit under the Amendment.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK, in moving to omit Clause 16, said it appeared to him that the arguments of his noble and learned friend in favour of his Amendment were conclusive against the clause in any shape. It was most unjust that there should be any limit imposed. He could not see any reason why, as long as a man's property remained to him, he should not dispose of it as he thought right, provided it was not done with any corrupt motive. It appeared to him to be a gross injustice that a man who had become a tenant in the belief that he would be in the same position as his neighbour, who, perhaps, might only have held his tenancy six months before him, should be deprived of the power of purchasing by the retrospective effect of the clause. One might easily conceive cases where a landlord who was about to sell his property and, as he feared many would, leave the country altogether, might let a vacant farm to his former steward or other dependent, or divide it among existing tenants, but those new tenancies would be invalid. The old tenant would have power to obtain an advance in respect of his old holding, but not in respect of the new holding he had joined on to it. That seemed to him a gross injustice, and he thought the only course was to reject the clause.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 16."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
LORD CASTLETOWN*LORD CASTLETOWN, who had a similar Amendment on the Paper, supported the noble Lord, and said he had not heard anything from his noble friend the Leade of the House which made him change his mind as to the remarkable oddity of the clause. They bad heard that it was the object of His Majesty's Government to encourage as many sales as possible, and yet by that clause they were ear-marking a certain number of tenancies which could never be sold.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK said he had forgotten to mention bogus tenancies. He could not see any danger with regard to that, because the new tenancies would not be under the zones and the Land Com-

841
mission would be able to inquire into the whole of the circumstances of the case and see whether or not there was adequate security for the advance.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON asked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to give them some guidance on the matter, because the position was a most difficult one. The point his noble friend had raised did touch a very important effect of the administration of the Act.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not know that we have anything very special to say as between these two Amendments. Our view was that there was a danger, which we were given to understand undoubtedly existed, of the creation of bogus tenancies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, says there is really no risk of such a thing, and Lord Clonbrock thinks the Estates Commissioners can keep an eye on them and prevent such a thing being done. Our information is to the contrary effect, and we believe that the risk does exist. The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord which does impose some kind of time limit is preferable in our view to that of the noble Lord opposite which imposes none at all, but we do not like either.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
17.—(1) In the case of the sale of an estate to the Land Commission advances under the Land Purchase Acts may be made for the purchase of parcels thereof by the following persons:—

(a) A person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value;

(b) A person being the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding on or in the neighbourhood of the estate not exceeding thirty pounds in rateable value;

(c) A person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion;

(d) A person who within twenty-five years before the passing of the Act of 1903 was the tenant of a holding to which the Land Law Acts apply, and who is not at the date of the purchase the tenant or proprietor of that holding, or, in case such person is dead, a person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal representative; and

(e) Any person to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission, after considering the requirements of persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this subsection, an advance ought to be made.

(2) Advances under this section shall not, together with the amount (if any) of any advance
842
under the Land Purchase Acts, which has been made and is then unrepaid by the purchaser, or for which an application by the purchaser is pending, exceed one thousand pounds: Provided that the limitation in this subsection may, subject to the other limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, be exceeded, where the Land Commission consider that a larger advance may be sanctioned, to any purchaser without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.
(3) The Land Purchase Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to the sale of a parcel of land in pursuance of this section in like manner as if the same was a holding and the purchaser was the tenant thereof at the time of his making the purchase; and the expression "holding" in those Acts shall include a parcel of land in respect of the purchase of which an advance has been made in pursuance of this section.
(4) Section two of the Act of 1903 shall cease to have effect save as regards the sale of any parcels of land in respect of which purchase agreements have been entered into before the passing of this Act, and save as aforesaid any reference in any enactment to that section shall be construed as a reference to this section.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON, in moving to leave out paragraph (b), said his Amendment opened up a very serious question. Without desiring to make any imputation against His Majesty's Government, but merely judging from the letter of the Bill, he said, with confidence, that if the Government had desired to divide the unoccupied lands of Ireland among the landless men and thereby to perpetuate the miseries of congestion among those unfortunates who lived in the West of Ireland upon the bog lands and wind-swept mountain sides of the Atlantic seaboard, they could not have chosen a form of words more calculated to effect that object. To divide the grass lands of Ireland among the landless men, who, unfortunately, had been lawless as well as landless, and perpetuate and stereotype congestion was, in his judgment, a sin against the progress and prosperity of Ireland as well as against common humanity. There were far too many holdings in Ireland already. There were only 29,000 more holdings in England, Scotland, and Wales than in Ireland, the figures for Ireland being 490,000 and for England, Scotland, and Wales 519,000. To raise the uneconomic holdings up to the economic value of £10 each, as suggested by the Bill, would require land valued at £1,490,000 per annum, whereas there was not available in the whole of Ireland, excluding mountains and bogs, land valued at more than £620,000, which left a deficit, excluding landlords' domains, of £870,000 per annum, and including landlords' domains there was a deficit of land valued at half a million.
In the different counties which would form the new congested districts the land required to raise the economic holdings to £10 value was land valued at £718,000 per annum, and all that was available was £184,000. In Roscommon there was not half enough; in Donegal and in Leitrim there was not a fourteenth part. The Dudley Commission came to the conclusion that if congestion was to be relieved in the present districts 50,000 families would require to be relieved and the amount necessary to relieve them would be land valued at £350,000 a year, while in the larger districts they calculated that there were at least 80,000 persons to be relieved who would require land valued at £450,000 a year. So that really they wanted land valued at half a million per annum in order to raise the holdings to the economic value of £10. There was not one half available, and without relief the congests must either emigrate, migrate, or stagnate. He was entirely in accord with the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, that the local man should be relieved in preference to the foreign congest. Under the clause a landless man's son or any number of his sons were eligible to each have an advance made for the purpose of buying land instead of their resorting to some other industry. It was perfectly impossible because the land was not there, and as Lord MacDonnell had very properly said they would be driven to make a selection between the landless men and the congests. The Government preferred the landless men. The plain operation of the lause was that the landless men were to be favoured at the expense of the congests, and he would support any clause which enacted that not one acre of land should be sold to any landless man until the wants of the local small holders had been met.
Another consideration left out of sight was the conduct of the landless men and the methods they had resorted to, and so sure as they rewarded turbulence and crime in the way suggested so sure they could never have permanent settlement and peace in Ireland. The Bill appeared to him to be an attempt to pacify those who had put forward claims in a way which was but too well known. He did not exclude them altogether, because after all the legitimate claims had been satisfied the landless men might possibly be let in, with the essential proviso that no advance should be made to more than one son of the same farmer to enable him to purchase land.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out paragraph (b)."—(Lord Atkinson.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: Your Lordships will see that our paragraph (b) proposes that in the case of estates outside the congested districts—Clause 17 only applies outside the congested districts—a parcel of land may be given to a person being the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding on or in the neighbourhood of the estate not exceeding £30 in rateable value. It is important to notice, in the first place, that as regards one class of person we impose a limitation which is not imposed by the Act of 1903. Under that Act the son of any tenant on the estate could obtain land, no matter how large his holding. Under this Bill we propose to limit that to those who have a holding of not exceeding £30 of rateable value, and so far we are carrying out the policy of the noble and learned Lord, because we are diminishing—perhaps considerably diminishing—the number of landless men who might apply for these farms. On the other hand we admit that the inclusion of the words "or in the neighbourhood" undoubtedly has the effect of increasing the possible number of those who may be included, and I suppose it is the insertion of those words which has led the noble and learned Lord to desire the deletion of the paragraph. But once an estate is sold it is not quite easy to draw any logical distinction between the son of a proprietor of a farm on the estate and the son of a proprietor of a farm in the immediate neighbourhood. So long as the estate remains in one hand and all the circumstances which surround an estate under one landlord are present, it is natural enough to limit the distribution of holdings to the sons of tenants on the estate, just as on so many of your Lordships' estates preference is given to the promising son of a good tenant. But the moment the estate is to be sold and the tenants themselves are to become the proprietors, that distinction seems to me, in logic at any rate, to disappear a very great extent.
The noble and learned Lord entered, as indeed he was bound to do, on the whole question of landless men, and he said that the policy of the Bill as he read it was to divide up all the available untenanted land in Ireland among the landless men. This is a problem of extreme difficulty, and if for once the Government could be favoured with a little assistance from noble Lords opposite

845
instead of mere denunciation—which is what we always get—it would be of more practical advantage in this particular instance. I have stated the problem before, and it seems to be necessary to state it again. We are accused of desiring to cut the whole of this land up among landless men—that is to say, the sons of farmers; but even our total lack of capacity and foresight—which I suppose noble Lords credit us with—hardly runs as far as that. It is obvious, of course, that such a remedy would not only ultimately be futile but would prove to be futile almost immediately. There are a certain number of farmers' sons, landless men, who are asking for land at this moment, and there are others growing up who will become men in a very few years time and who will also demand land; and, if you look a little further, the landless man will not remain a wifeless man or a childless man and in turn his children will grow up, and if every landless man is to be provided with land the problem will be an endless one until you have brought down the whole of the land of Ireland to plots no bigger than this Table in front of us. Therefore, my Lords, to say that our policy is to divide up the available untenanted land of Ireland among persons of this kind is really not a fair charge. But what is the position? We are told, on the other hand, that this land is required for those who live in the congested districts and in some cases may have to be migrated from them. My noble friend behind me goes so far as to say that they, and they only, should have a slice of this land under any circumstances. The noble and learned Lord did not go quite so far as that. He admits a certain number of landless men.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON pointed out that what he said was that the needs of local persons who were small holders should first be provided for.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I quite understood that. If the clause is amended as desired by the noble and learned Lord, a certain number of those who are described as landless men would get holdings after the immediate requirements of the neighbourhood had been satisfied. The problem is this. This land hunger on the part of the landless men does exist. We need not inquire again how it has arisen. We have been accused of not having dealt sternly enough with what, after all, was only its manifestation and cannot be considered its
846
Cause—namely, cattle-driving. But even assuming that we could have put down cattle-driving by means of the Crimes Act or by more severe measures still
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: By the ordinary law.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Or by ordinary law, as the noble Marquess suggests; you cannot prevent these people from desiring to possess their own farms; you cannot put them in prison for having that desire, and even supposing noble Lords opposite were administering Ireland and were to imprison the cattle-drivers and reduce them to a full degree of physical terror, you would still have them keenly desiring land. Whatever may have been the methods adopted to express that desire and the possible provocation given by the breaking of the law, you cannot cure them of their land hunger, and once you have dumped your congests down by the dozen in these districts what is the life of those congests likely to be? An argument which has been continually pressed upon us during the course of this debate is that you dare not move the congests. We have pointed out before that in our view the only hope of reaching a solution of this difficult question is, while bearing in mind that the first and foremost use to which this untenanted land must and ought to be put is the relief of congestion, at the same time to bear in mind that there may be some cases—the noble and learned Lord himself admits it—where in order to secure the general acceptance of this system of migration from the congested districts you must let some of these landless men into possession of farms.
I quite admit it would be infinitely more convenient if the desire of the landless man had never come into being at all. If he were content to go off to America it might in some respects be more convenient, but I am sure we do not want the people to leave Ireland so long as they can find any useful employment there. But the fact remaining as it does, is it possible, merely by saying that you will not admit any landless man or only the most limited class of these landless men into the possession of farms, to establish a state of things by which you will be able to place people from the congested districts on the land? That is the point on which we ask your Lordships' assistance. No speaker has

847
yet, so far as I am aware, when we have been discussing this matter on previous occasions ever faced that problem. What are you going to do? If you want to put congests on a particular piece of land and you know that public opinion in the neighbourhood is hostile to their arrival, are you going to leave that unprovided for, or are you in some degree going to placate public opinion by dividing up the land, say, in the proportion of three-fourths for congests and one-fourth for the sons of tenants in the neighbourhood? We do not say that the problem is soluble on those lines, but we think they go some way towards a solution. We therefore oppose the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord in this particular case because we think it limits too closely the class of men to whom in certain circumstances it may be desirable to give a farm.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said he had listened with the greatest interest to the noble Earl opposite, but he really could not make out from his speech whether he held a brief for the congests or for the landless men, because he had told them that in order to deal with the congests they must provide a certain amount of land for landless men. They all knew that land hunger existed amongst landless men, but land hunger existed everywhere. He himself liked good land like everybody else; it was a good thing to have, but he did not go and drive his neighbour's cattle in order to force the authorities to consider his case. Therefore he thought that what the noble Earl had said amounted to a sort of bribe to the landless men to keep quiet in order to enable the congests to be "planted" in other parts of Ireland. He did not agree with that policy. Under the clause the Land Commission could sell a parcel of land to any tenant or proprietor of a holding not exceeding £10 in rateable value not necessarily on the same estate at all, and to the sons of tenants in the neighbourhood of the estate, to persons who had surrendered their holdings for the purpose of relieving congestion, to evicted tenants, and to any person to whom the Land Commission thought that an advance ought to be made.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD said the question before the Committee seemed to him on that clause to have nothing to do with the relief of congestion. The clause dealt with cases of the sale of
848
an estate to the Land Commission and advances under the Land Purchases Acts. He was glad to find with regard to the views he had already ventured to express to their Lordships, that he had such a powerful advocate as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson; and he trusted when the matter was more fully discussed under Clause 55, as it would be, he would have his support in placing before the Committee the views which he in common with all the members of the Dudley Commission held in regard to the necessity of ear-marking untenanted land in the province of Connaught for the relief of congestion. As the noble and learned Lord had said, it was absolutely a part of their programme that congestion in the neighbourhood of the land to be bought should be relieved first of all, and that the land which remained over after the relief of local congestion should be applied to the relief of congestion within the scheduled areas. In the relief of local congestion by enlarging the holdings of uneconomic tenancies in the neighbourhood of the grass lands to be bought they would be largely relieving the landless men they would be relieving the fathers of these men who at all events during the last year had in a manner and by a method which he for one could not too strongly condemn asserted their desire to get possession of the land which they had been longing for for ages. The question raised on that particular clause had nothing to do with the relief of congestion, nor indeed with the land in the neighbourhood of the congested districts, though the words, of course, were very wide.
It was understood that in the Bill there was a distinction drawn between the area in which the Congested Districts Board were to operate and the rest of Ireland which was to be under the jurisdiction of the Estates Commissioners, and he ventured to think that the noble and learned Lord had somewhat failed to bring to notice the distinction which existed between the Act of 1903 and the Bill before the Committee. Under the Act of 1903 land could be given to the son of a tenant irrespective of the extent of land the father possessed, whereas in the Bill land was to be given to the son of a tenant whose holding did not exceed £30 in rateable value. That was much more restricted than the existing law, but there was an extension under the Bill beyond the existing law—namely, that land might

849
be given to the son of a tenant in the neighbourhood. That, no doubt, did enlarge the sphere from which tenants' sons might be brought in, but the restriction of £30 would be a very powerful and effective limit on the class of people whose sons were eligible. It was within the knowledge of noble Lords that in the West of Ireland on many occasions threatenings of agrarian trouble had been removed by the mediation of the Estates Commissioners. In one case which he called to mind at the moment, the Dunsandle case, an agreement was come to through the intervention of the Estates Commissioners which was a pattern and example to the West of Ireland, but that agreement could not possibly have been arrived at unless the sons of the more important farmers in the neighbourhood were allowed to obtain certain portions of the grass lands, which the landlord gave up for the purpose. The matter was carried through, farms were blocked out and the young men set to work on them with a degree of industry and intelligence which was perfectly astonishing to any one who observed the condition of their neighbours; and if their Lordships set their faces against such agreements being come to between landlords and tenants and their sons—they had been called landless men, but he called them the sons of respectable tenants and yeoman farmers—they would be doing a great deal to prevent that peaceful settlement of the question which they all so much desired.
He was disposed to hope, after the explanation which had been given, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, would see some reason to mitigate his hostility to paragraph (b). With regard to the Amendment standing in his name to insert a provision giving the Estates Commissioners liberty to sell mansions, demesne lands, pleasure grounds, and other non-agricultural lands, he ventured to think that without some such provision they would not stop or quench the lust for land by asking applicants to be satisfied with all outside the demesne wall. As long as they held out to them any possibility of their breaking down the wall and having the gardens and the lawns and the pleasure grounds divided among them, they would not be satisfied until that was done. A definite prohibition was necessary. In all this legislation it was one of their objects to preserve as far as possible the gentry in their own homes,
850
and where they desired to leave their homes to substitute for them a resident gentry who were anxious to buy the homes which the former had left. It would be a great pity if they were to expose those demesnes to partition amongst the sons of farmers in the neighbourhood who would not be able to turn them to the good use which they might be turned to if sold by the Estates Commissioners in their present condition. He would, therefore, ask the adherence of their Lordships to the subsequent Amendment in his name rather than to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said he had placed an Amendment down to delete Clause 17 because he desired to see the ground cleared for the primary object of their Land Acts, the relief of congestion. If congestion was to be relieved, the congest must have the prior claim, and therefore the claims of the landless men must be put into the background. It had been often said that Section 2 of the Act of 1903 was the origin of the claim of the landless men, but that section was only introduced to deal with a case that might occur—namely, where a congested estate was bought which contained a grass farm. To assume, for argument's sake, that the grass farm amounted to 400 acres, 200 acres of that grass farm might be sufficient to deal with all the congested tenants on the estate; another 100 acres might be used up in dealing with evicted tenants from the estate, and then they had a surplus of 100 acres in the hands of the State. Were they to hold that 100 acres as landlords for ever, or were they to put it up to auction? Neither of these courses seemed advisable to the Government of the day, and they said "We will use what is over for the sons of the tenants on the estate." That was the only way in which the landless man came into the deal at all. The noble Earl who led the House stated that the situation had become very acute owing to the fact that the claims of the landless men as against the congests had become the burning question of the hour. He admitted it was a very critical situation but it was one, if he might say so, which had been fostered by His Majesty's Government instead of the agitation being checked by them. When they started the Congested Districts Board and migration things worked quietly and smoothly, but for want of firmness in dealing with the situation the

851
difficulties of their work in the relief of congestion became greater and greater. The noble Earl advocated a policy of placating local feeling by giving way to agitation. He believed that the Irishman was one of the wisest and shrewdest of His Majesty's subjects, and that was why he wanted to eliminate once for all the idea of the landless man as against the congest. The Irishman being a shrewd man would quickly realise if firmness was used that the congest was intended to have the prior claim, and the agitation would cease. That was the only alternative he could suggest—to tell the landless man that the congest was to have the prior claim, and that he was only to come in as a last resource if there was land available. They on the Congested Districts Board had definitely proved that if they were going to thoroughly relieve congestion there would be no surplus land for the landless man, and if they let the landless man know that he believed they would be able to proceed with their work of migration undisturbed. He did not believe in placating agitation in Ireland.
LORD INCHIQUIN LORD INCHIQUIN said he had a sketch map of County Clare, in which county there was no congestion at all, showing the districts where cattle-driving had taken place, and also showing twenty-one mansions with regard to every one of which agitation in some form or another had taken place to have those mansions and demesnes sold to landless men only. There had been boycotting, shooting, burning, and every conceivable form of intimidation used by these landless men who were trying to turn owners out of the country and seize their land. Another reason why landless men were very keen to get land was that their fathers did not have to pay anything towards it, and naturally they would go on agitating if His Majesty's Government allowed them, to think they were going to get it. He would like to see a provision in the Bill that the landless men were not to get a penny until the claims of the congests had been satisfied, and even then only the crumbs that fell from the congests' table.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): The last two speeches we have listened to were very instructive and very suggestive. Let me just say this, first of all, with regard to cattle-driving. I think the offence is an abominable one,
852
and I should be very glad indeed to see the offenders properly punished. The noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, is pleased to think that it is the fault of His Majesty's Government that these men have not been punished. I do not share that opinion, but if I were to embark on that controversy, which has been the subject of so much debate in this House, I am afraid, if your Lordships were good enough to listen to me, that you would forget all about the problem we are now discussing, which is a very serious and very real one. My noble friend the Leader of the House asked your Lordships for some assistance in the solution of it. Let me take the case put by the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury. He is a member of the Congested Districts Board. He wants to relieve congestion and proposes to migrate, I do not care how many, but say 100, congests to a particular district which is not their own, and the noble Earl proposes to say that the landless men in that locality are to have nothing until the congests are all satisfied, and as the noble Lord, Lord Inchiquin, said, even then they were only to have the crumbs that fell from the congests' table. Let us understand definitely whether I have correctly stated it. [The EARL OF SHAFTESBURY and LORD INCHIQUIN intimated their assent.] Then there is no doubt about it; that is the policy they want to adopt throughout Ireland. I ask your Lordships to take the districts in England and Scotland with which you are familiar and to suppose that a number of people were migrated into those districts from the East-end of London, for example, and that the people in the locality—Yorkshire, Berkshire, Hampshire, or wherever it may be—were told, "You are to get nothing until all these people from the East-end of London are satisfied in regard to their wish for land, and even then only the crumbs that fall from their table." There would be, I venture to think, a good deal of feeling even in quiet England. How do noble Lords propose to deal with that in Ireland? We were told yesterday that it was impracticable to migrate strangers without taking into consideration the feelings of the locality.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said that that had become so now, but he did not think it was the case originally.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Do not let us be diverted to the past by the suggestion

853
of the noble Earl, or into considering whether it would or would not have become a problem at all but for the fault of the Government. I am trying to deal with the problem at the present moment, to reason it out and to ask your Lordships to consider it frankly and fully and not to enter into recrimination, as I see no need for mixing up with this discussion the consideration of other irrelevant topics. We have heard the policies suggested by the noble Lords. I am not sure whether it is the policy of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said that he should be very glad to support that policy, but it was not quite his Amendment. His Amendment left room for the landless men after securing due priority to the claims of the others.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The policy of the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, is the Rhadamanthine one, "I will summon the police, I will send the necessary number of military, but I will not give anything to the people of the locality, and I will cram into their midst as many congests from other districts as I think fit." That my Lords, is one of the alternative policies which has been suggested. I ask, not for the purpose of Parliamentary dialectics, is that the policy that noble Lords opposite, who may become responsible for the government of Ireland, intend to pursue? The only other policy, and the one we propose, is to try if it can be done to effect an accommodation between those people who are brought into a locality and the people of the locality themselves. That is our policy, and it has been denounced as being timid and as giving way to looting, lawlessness, intimidation, and so forth, call it whatever you please. I think I am right in saying there are only two policies; there is no third. The first seems to me to be a very grim and formidable one, and I do think myself that noble Lords are not entitled to assume, as has been done by some throughout this discussion, that all landless men are criminals and in sympathy with crime. Some of them, no doubt, are, but you assume they are all so, and you would treat them in this rigorous manner and thrust in among them congests from other districts and give them only the crumbs that are left. The noble Earl himself told us that there would not be land enough in Ireland for
854
more than the congests—I think he said there would not be enough even for them. My Lords, such a solution coming from those who may become responsible for the good administration of government in Ireland does not commend itself at least to me.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he had not heard the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down do other than repeat the arguments used in previous stages of the Bill, and he had not seen any desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to meet any of the objections which were felt so strongly on his side of the House. He admitted that the topic of the landless men was one which could not now be put aside, but it was more than human nature to expect them to forget that landless men came into existence under the government of Mr. Birrell, and that what could have been checked when it first arose must now be yielded to by an absolute surrender and collapse of government. He was afraid that the noble and learned Lord's argument amounted to this, that the landless men had to be kept quiet by a process which he regarded as concession, but which other people might regard as surrender and bribery. If that policy was to he adopted it should be done in the most meagre and prudent way.
The Dudley Commission, called into existence to deal with the problem of congestion which was the great topic before the House, said that the only way to deal adequately with that question was to keep their eyes steadily fixed on the congests and put the landless men sternly and firmly on one side, until the congests had been dealt with. The Bill entirely put that aside, and it was very strange that the Government should have ignored the carefully reasoned and thought out recommendations of that Commission. They had been left entirely in the dark as to what the Government intended to do with the various Amendments put down to the Bill, everyone of which in his view was entitled to full and favourable consideration, and he thought when the first Amendment on the subject was moved they ought to have had some intimation from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill of what his general view of the Amendments put down was, and how far His Majesty's Government were Prepared to make concessions in reference to

855
them, but that had not been the line taken by the noble Earl. He agreed with every syllable the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, had said. He also held a strong view with reference to paragraph (e). He thought as it stood it was unarguable, it was so bad. He agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, who was entitled to speak with authority on the question from having been on the Congested Districts Board and from his own high character. It would have been wiser, in his opinion, to have let Section 2 of the Act of 1903 stand. That section was intended to meet a difficulty cognate to that which now pressed on the Government. Although he did not say it would have solved it, he thought it would have been a more reasonable way of approaching the question than by obliterating the section and putting one in its place so wide that he regarded it as extravagant and unacceptable. Reciprocity was essential in all these matters; the Government had heard the objections and abundant arguments on the point and they knew they must be met not only by argument but by some concession. But that had not been suggested. That was not a fair way to meet a Bill like the one before them, bristling with so many provocative topics; he thought there might have been a little more frankness shown as to what was in the mind of the Government.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, had asked him what policy he would pursue. He did not shrink from answering that question. He would first raise the farms of what he called local congests to £10 in value; he would then reserve land to deal with the foreign congests; he would tell the landless men that those congests must have priority and that the struggles of the landless men were as hopeless as they were selfish, and he would endeavour to make the landless man behave himself by a vigorous administration of the law and not by a promise of reward. In his first Amendment he did not at all make it impossible to give land to landless men provided the priority of local persons with small holdings was preserved. After their claims had been adequately met, then, the others could come in. Then, again, only one son of the same farmer should get land. He really thought it monstrous, considering the small quantity of land available to meet the large demand, to give three farms to three sons of the same tenant. That
856
seemed to him to be a wild and reckless sacrifice of the interests of a great many others. He did not attach so much importance to the other part of his proviso that no advance should be made to the son of a tenant of a holding of more than £10 rateable value, but he did adhere to confining it to only one son of the same tenant.
VISCOUNT MILNER*VISCOUNT MILNER said he was impressed by the arguments of Lord MacDonnell and by what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. He understood they were now dealing with purchases outside the congested districts. His whole argument rested on that, and he would support any Amendment making it clear that the provisions of the clause did not apply within the congested districts. Within congested districts it seemed to him clear that the claim of the congests should come first, and a stern resistance ought to be presented to anybody who tried to stand in their way. Outside the congested districts also he agreed that the first consideration should be shown for local congests; but he could not go the length of maintaining that, when the local congests had been dealt with, congests from other parts of Ireland should have a prior claim within areas outside the congested districts to the claims of local men. He thought any attempt to force congests indiscriminately upon other parts of the country was bound to lead to trouble, and he really did not see that the arguments which had been addressed to the Committee on that point by the Government had met with any answer at all. It seemed to him that their position was unanswerable, and that any attempt to deal with congests in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord would lead to the greatest confusion and was essentially unjust. He would most cordially support any proposal which would make it perfectly clear to the landless men that their lawless agitation was a hopeless one, but he did not think that their Lordships' natural and rightful abhorrence of cattle-driving and other forms of illegal violence should lead them entirely to ignore the claims of local men to be considered, when estates were bought outside the congested districts by the Estates Commissioners.
LORD ATKENTSON LORD ATKENTSON desired to say one word of explanation in the hope of capturing the noble Viscount. If the policy

857
of the noble Viscount were followed they would never relieve congestion. That was the answer, because all the land available in the congested districts would not go half the way or quarter the way to relieving the congestion, and therefore they must migrate these men. It was a choice between migration or leaving them in their misery, and he preferred migration.
VISCOUNT MILNER*VISCOUNT MILNER said he understood that; but even if the policy of the noble and learned Lord was adopted there would still be a number of people unprovided for, because there was not land enough in any case; and important as it was to relieve congestion he could not for a moment admit that every other consideration with regard to Irish land ought to give way to the relief of congestion. He could not consistently vote against the proposal of the Government when he had just voted against limiting the amount to be advanced to tenants. He had voted against that, because he had been convinced by the argument that it was desirable to keep large tenants on the land and not to have Ireland entirely occupied by small men; and then he heard immediately afterwards from the same quarter that everything ought to be sacrificed to the relief of congestion. He could not reconcile the two positions. His hope for the future of Ireland was based on there being a great variety of holdings there—large, medium, and small; and he thought there was considerable danger of injuring land settlement as a whole if they were going to try to import congests into every part of Ireland in preference to the sons of local farmers who might be men of a superior class and really more capable of developing the land than the congests.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Surely the proper way of dealing with this
question is to leave Section 2 of the Act of 1903 as part of the law, and if there are any words in that section which require amendment to consider whether it might not be amended to meet, for example, such a point as has been raised by my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Viscount Milner). The mistake His Majesty's Government seem to me to make is that they sweep away Section 2 of the Act of 1903 and confront us with this extremely elaborate proposal, which I think is interpreted in various ways in different parts of the House.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I should like to say on that that I hope noble Lords will consider that there is an Amendment on the Paper to that effect, and when that comes to be put I shall have to point out that to leave Section 2 of the Act of 1903 standing with the modifications and provisoes suggested by the noble and learned Lord would cause a vast deal of confusion. We think we have taken an infinitely more simple and convenient course by repealing the section in the Act of 1903 and putting, in the form of a new clause, exactly the provisions which we think ought to exist. The objection to legislation by reference which is so often taken in this House is met by our setting out in clear form exactly what our proposals are. It may be desirable to modify those proposals in some respects, but I hope it will not be necessary to undo the proposed repeal of Section 2 of the Act of 1903.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-contents, 116.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Colville of Culross, V.

Forester, L.

Devonshire, D.

Cross, V.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston)

Somerset, D.

Falkland, V.

Wellington, D.

Hampden, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Hill, V.

Harlech, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Ailesbury, M.

Hindlip, L.

Bath, M.

Iveagh, V.

Inchiquin, L.

Camden, M.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Lansdowne, M.

Abinger, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Abingdon, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Albemarle, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Langford, L.

Bandon, E.

Ashtown, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cadogan, E.

Atkinson, L.

Leconfield, L.

Camperdown, E.

Barrymore, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Cathcart, E.

Blythswood, L.

Massy, L.

Cawdor, E.

Borthwick, L.

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

Clarendon, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Dartrey, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Derby, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

North, L.

Devon, E.

Carew, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene)

Eldon, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Lindsey, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Londesborough, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Lucan, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Rathmore, L.

Mayo, E.

Colchester, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Onslow, E.

Collins, L.

Sandys, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Curzon of Kedleston, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Powis, E.

Deramore, L.

Sinclair, L.

Roberts, E.

Digby, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanriearde.)

Shaftesbury, E.

Dunalley, L.

Stanmore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dunleath, L.

Verulam, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Templemore, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Faber, L.

Trevor, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Wicklow, E.

Farnham, L.

Ventry, L.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Waleran, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Walsingham, L.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes past eight o'clock and resumed at half-past nine.]
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON had two Amendments on the Paper to paragraph (e)—
(e) Any person to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission after considering the requirements of persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this subsection an advance ought to he made,
the first Amendment being to substitute for the word "considering," the words "adequate provision has been made to satisfy," and the second to insert at the end the words "Provided that no advance shall be made to the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding of an annual rateable value of more than ten pounds nor shall any advance he made to more than one son of the same tenant." The noble and learned Lord said he had thing to
860
say beyond what he had already said in reference to these Amendments, save that in the proviso he would be quite willing to change the £10 to £30, and he would move the Amendment accordingly.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 33, to leave out 'considering' and to insert 'adequate provision has been made to satisfy.' "—(Lord Atkinson.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not disposed in the general circumstances to oppose the Amendment with any great determination, because I think its general effect would be to carry out what I take it would be in the mind of the Estates Commissioners. with regard to the relative order of merit. Of course it is only fair to say I think so because it leaves a discretion to the Estates Commissioners, as I take it, with regard to the question whether "adequate provision has been made to satisfy." Consequently it does not lay down an

861
absolutely hard and fast line that a certain class of person has to stand out, but it operates as a general discretion to the Estates Commissioners. Under those circumstances I do not desire to resist the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES then put the second Amendment of Lord Atkinson as it appeared on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 33, after 'made' to insert 'Provided that no advance shall be made to the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding of an annual rateable value of more than ten pounds nor shall any advance be made to more than one son of the same tenant.' "—(Lord Atkinson.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not propose to offer any serious response to this Amendment, and I think it certainly would be an improvement if the noble and learned Lord would carry out the intention he has been good enough to express of altering the amount from £10 to £30. As regards the one son, there, again, I think it is an indication that the noble and learned Lord wants to limit the practice as far as possible. I do not know whether it would operate fairly. It seems a little hard that where a man has one son that that son should have the chance of a farm, whereas his neighbour who has nine or ten sons can only have one of them similarly favoured. Therefore, I do think it creates something of au inequality, particularly in a land of large families like Ireland. But I will say no more if the noble and learned Lord likes to move the amount in the revised form he indicated.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said he would move the Amendment in the altered form. He stuck to what he had said that it was quite enough for any man to have one son provided for at the expense of the State.
On Question, Amendment, with the alteration of £10 to —30, agreed to.
[The next Amendment on the Paper was in the name of Lord MacDonnell, who was not present when called upon. His Amendment was to insert at the end of paragraph (e) the words "for the purchase of mansions, demesne lands, pleasure grounds, plantations and such other non-
862
agricultural lands as in the opinion of the Land Commission are not suitable for distribution to persons of the preceding classes."]
THE EARL OF CREWE: My noble friend Lord MacDonnell has not arrived. As the Bill now stands we have, I think, exhausted the Amendments so far as paragraph (e) is concerned. I prefer to leave it as it is with the restrictions put upon it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, rather than in the form proposed by my noble friend Lord MacDonnell.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON, who had an Amendment on the Paper to subsection (4)—
(4) Section two of the Act of 1903 shall cease to have effect save as regards the sale of any parcels of land in respect of which purchase agreements have been entered into before the passing of this Act, and save as aforesaid any reference in any enactment to that section shall be construed as a reference to this section, to insert, after "1903," the words "so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act," said he thought it would be very judicious not to move this Amendment. It might be that it would be entirely unnecessary, but should it be found to be necessary it could be added on Report. He did not move it now.
On Question, that Clause 17 stand part of the Bill,
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON asked the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether, if they left out Lord MacDonnell's Amendment, there was any provision which would enable the Land Commission to get rid of a demesne.
THE EARL OF CREWE: It is not proposed to omit paragraph (e).
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said that was true on the Paper, but he thought that was largely because of what was sought to be grafted on to it by Lord MacDonnell's Amendment. The noble Lord was not present to move his Amendment, which was intended to make a large and substantial change. He himself was prepared to move the entire omission of paragraph (e), but he thought Lord MacDonnell's Amendment made an important qualification in its favour.
[At this moment Lord MacDonnell entered the Chamber.]
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he did not know whether it was now too late for the noble Lord to move his Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It is too late. The question before the Committee is that Clause 17 stand part of the Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I may, perhaps, point out to the noble and learned Lord that paragraph (e) as amended by Lord Atkinson does not let in the landless men except under these restrictions, and I do not know that noble Lords opposite want to keep out anybody else. Therefore, it seems to me that by the inclusion of Lord Atkinson's Amendments the whole ground is covered. It lets in all the cases which the noble Viscount wants to meet, and it does not let in the landless men.
LORD ASHBOURNE: It is an important qualification.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON said he, too, thought it an important qualification. Of course, if the Lord Chairman said they had passed that point they could not go back, but he had risen to call attention to the fact that Lord MacDonnell's Amendment would be the complement of what was done by Lord Atkinson and their Lordships, and if in order he should think it would be as well to add the words proposed by Lord MacDonnell as a qualification.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Of course any of these Amendments can be made on the Report stage, but I do not think they can be made at this stage. The question is that Clause 17 stand part of the Bill.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said his sole object in giving notice to delete the clause was to make the issue quite clear for the congest as against the landless man. His sympathies, of course, were naturally with the congests, being a member of the Congested Districts Board, whose object was to relieve congestion, and he found it very hard to arouse any sympathies with the landless men; but still he did not deny that the interests of the congests might be safeguarded by other methods
864
than the one he proposed, and he thought that by the Amendment made in the clause at the instance of Lord Atkinson they mere to a certain extent safeguarded. Therefore he did not intend to press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON said he must point out that the clause did not carry out the intentions of the Government or of their Lordships, because, although important qualifications had been put into the clause, neither Section 2 of the original Act had been re-affirmed, as we intended by Amendments of Lord Atkinson which had not been inserted, nor had Lord MacDonnell's Amendments been inserted. Therefore, the destination of the residuum was left entirely in the hands of the Estates Commissioners without the qualification which, so far as he understood, either his noble friend behind him or Lord MacDonnell intended to move. Of course, if the Lord Chairman ruled that they had passed that point it was impossible to reconsider it at that stage; but he thought their Lordships ought on Report to consider whether both these Amendments, which were equally germane, as he understood, to the decision they arrived at before dinner, ought not to be incorporated in the Bill.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD asked if he might explain the meaning of his Amendments. The first was an Amendment to paragraph (d). As that paragraph now stood it would be quite possible that the question of the evicted tenant would go on indefinitely. Under the Act of 1903 the intention was that after the date of that Act no person evicted should have the right to reinstatement; but the legal interpretation was that persons evicted after the date of the passing of the Act of 1903 should be entitled to reinstatement in like manner as those evicted before the date of that Act. That was a legal interpretation which, in his mind, completely neutralised the object of the Act of 1903 so far as that point was concerned. Their Lordships' House when adopting the Evicted Tenants Bill rectified that error so far as that Act was concerned. His first Amendment was directed to rectifying the error in this Bill also, so that from the date of the passing of the Bill into an Act no tenant evicted afterwards should have the right to claim the privileges which their Lordships had been pleased to confer upon evicted tenants.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord. Of course, he is entitled to make any remarks on the clause, but I do not think he quite understands that the time is past when he can move this Amendment. I understand he is describing what his Amendment is. Of course, if that is on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill it is in order.
LORD MAC DONNELL of SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL of SWINFORD said he merely intended to show what his object was, because the course of the debate had prevented him from developing his argument on this particular point. He thought he had now explained to the House the meaning of the Amendment which he had not had an opportunity of moving.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO pointed out that the noble Lord could move the Amendment on Report.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD begged their Lordships' pardon. He was very familiar with the procedure of the House and he hoped he might be excused. On the second point, he had had an opportunity of explaining why he thought it was desirable that his Amendment should have been preferred to that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson. In the interests of Irish social life it was most desirable that the mansions, demesne lands, gardens and other appurtenances thereto should be preserved from partition in accordance with the wishes of the local population.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
18.—(1) It shall be lawful for the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, or the council of any county or any rural district, to purchase any parcel of an estate under section four of the Act of 1903 for any Of the purposes mentioned in, that section, and the said Department or any such council, or any other body corporate having power to acquire land, may act as trustees for those purposes, and may obtain advances for the purchase.
(2) Where any land is purchased by the said Department or a county council or rural district council under this section, the scheme for the user of the land mentioned in section twenty of the Act of 1903 shall be framed or approved of by Department and the requirements of that
866
section with regard to the framing or approval of the scheme by the Lord Lieutenant shall not apply.
(3) Where land is purchased by a county council or rural district council under this section, the amount required for payment of the instalments of the purchase annuity shall be raised in the case of the county council as a county at large charge, and in the ease of the rural district council as a district charge.
(4) It is hereby declared that the provisions of section four and of section twenty of the Act of 1903, as amended by this section, apply as well in the case of the sale of an estate to the Congested Districts Board as in the case of the sale of an estate to persons other than the Congested Districts Board.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD had an Amendment on the Paper to subsection (4) to add after the words "sale of an estate to," the words "the Land Commission for." He explained that the Amendment was consequential.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE asked whether the words were not consequential—to put it in an Irish way—on what was to come in later on. They had to debate the Amendment of the noble Lord later on, and he could put these words in on Report, as was usually done.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES said he understood that the noble Lord did not move the Amendment now.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
19.—(1) Where a parcel of an estate is purchased or proposed to be purchased by trustees under section four of the Act of 1903 for the purpose of the planting of trees or the preservation of woods or plantations, and the parcel is subject to any grazing rights or easements appurtenant to holdings on the estate, the Land Commission may, if they think fit, on the application of the trustees, make an order releasing that parcel from all or any of those rights and easements upon such terms as to compensation and otherwise as may be agreed upon by the parties interested or, in default of agreement, may be determined by the Land Commission; and any such order shall be effectual to release the parcel from those rights and easements in the manner and to the extent therein specified.
(2) Where any land is resold to the owner of an estate in pursuance of section three or seventy-Six of the Act of 1903, and the Land is subject to any such rights or easements as aforesaid, the Land Commission may on the application of the owner exercise the powers conferred on them by the last preceding subsection as regards those rights and easements, if and so far as, they are satisfied that the land, or Portion thereof, is required the owner for and pf the Said purposes.
EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN moved to insert a new subsection—
(3) Where any land is sold to the occupying tenant under the Act of 1903, and the vendor desires to exclude from the sale a portion of such land for the purpose of planting trees thereon, or preserving ornamental timber already growing thereon, and it appears to the Land Commission., that, having regard to the extent and character of such portion, the value of the holding would not be substantially affected if it were resumed by the owner, the Land Commission may make an order vesting such portion in the vendor of the estate upon such terms ac to compensation and otherwise as may be agreed upon.
He said that after the interesting discussions which had taken place in their Lordships' House during the past two days he could hardly expect to obtain the interest of any of their Lordships in the subject of giving facilities for the planting and preservation of trees which was dealt with in this clause—not because it was not in itself interesting, because the question of afforestation and the maintenance of trees in Ireland was one to which the attention of all statesmen should be directed; but in this case his Amendment could hardly be called an Amendment in the first place because it was not hostile, and it was really an Amendment explaining and enlarging the boundaries of the Bill.
Perhaps he might be allowed to state very briefly what he imagined to be the policy of the Government under this clause; and he would like to be permitted, although he could speak only for himself, to express his appreciation of the policy of the Government in this matter, and satisfaction that in a Bill bristling with so many important matters they had not omitted to deal with a question which he believed would largely affect the welfare of Ireland. Ireland had a great many assets but they were neglected assets, and one which could be most easily remedied, only it would take time, was afforestation. The Department of Agriculture two years ago appointed a Departmental Committee to examine into this question. Their Lordships need not be alarmed, for he was not going to read long extracts from a Blue-book; but there were two or three paragraphs at the end of the Report which demonstrated the urgency and necessity of dealing with this question. One paragraph said—
"Afforestry has in the past been deplorably neglected by the Government of Ireland, and in consequence, while the country is particularly well
868
suited for tree growing, the percentage of land under woods in Ireland is now the lowest of any country save one in Europe; this percentage is too low for the welfare of the country; nevertheless, it is being wastefully diminished at the present time, chiefly under the indirect influence of the Land Purchase Acts, with great loss to the country and imminent, danger to existing Irish wood-working industries."
In these circumstances he thought they owed acknowledgments to the Government for having taken action in the matter. The new subsection which he had ventured to place upon the Paper was in no way in opposition to the policy of the Government. He simply added one further category which he thought might be of advantage. The subsection followed in spirit and almost in letter the two subsections which the Government had placed in the Bill. Here, again, they had a procedure which appeared to be somewhat unnecessarily slow, because they would imagine that anywhere else but in Ireland if an owner wished to sell a particular estate and wished to reserve a certain portion of it for the planting of trees he would sell the whole with the exception of the part he wished to preserve. It was not so in Ireland. In Ireland, under the accumulation of Land Acts, he had to sell the whole of the estate and then under an order of the Land Commission, the landlord might resume that part which in all other countries he would simply have reserved on the sale. He hoped noble Lords on both sides of the House, especially those from Ireland, would agree with him that they owed a debt of gratitude to the Government for undertaking to deal with this question. They had not, of course, undertaken to deal with the whole of the Report to which he had alluded, because that Report recommended, amongst other things, that a large scheme of afforestation should be entered upon in Ireland. In his opinion large schemes of afforestation were somewhat doubtful in their results. They were very costly. Probably the operations with regard to them would be very prolonged, and, on the whole, he thought the Government had been wise in not entering upon the large scheme which the Departmental Committee recommended. He believed he was totally out of order, but perhaps the Lord Chairman would excuse his saying that there was another clause which the Government had inserted in this Bill—Clause 34—in which they had gone still further in the direction of preventing the

869
cutting down of trees. Would he be in order in reading it?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I am afraid I have no power to say what is in order any more than any other noble Lord. In this House a great deal of latitude is always allowed.
EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN said he could be stopped at any moment, Clause 34, subsection (b), ran—
"The proprietor shall not, without the, consent in writing in the prescribed form of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, cut down or uproot or permit to be cut down or uprooted, any tree (other than a fruit tree or osier) upon the holding which is necessary for the ornament or shelter of the holding; and if any such tree is cut down or uprooted in violation of this condition, the proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for each tree so cut down or uprooted, unless he satisfies the Court that he received the prescribed consent."
He thought noble Lords from Ireland would view that subsection with considerable satisfaction, and he thought it added to the burden of gratitude which he had already said they owed to His Majesty's Government. He could only say that he trusted they would accept the Amendment, and that it would be supported especially by noble Lords from Ireland. He also expressed an ardent hope that these operations would be entered into with as little delay as possible, and that the further recommendations of the Departmental Committee would in due time receive the consideration of the Government.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 18, after 'purposes' to insert the following new subsection—
'(3) Where any land is sold to the occupying tenant under the Act of 1903, and the vendor desires to exclude from the sale a portion of such land for the purpose of planting trees thereon, or preserving ornamental timber already growing thereon, and it appears to the Land Commission that, having regard to the extent and character of such portion, the value of the holding would not be substantially affected if it were resumed by the owner, the Land Commission may Make an order vesting such portion in the vendor of the estate upon such terms as to compensation and otherwise as may be agreed upon.'"—(Earl Cadogan.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very glad to know that my noble friend on Cross
870
Benches approves of Clause 19, and I was also glad to hear him read paragraph (b) of Clause 34, which is a clause we value, and one of the very few which noble Lords have not proposed to omit. As regards the proposed extension by my noble friend, I should like to ask him whether he considers, that this particular Amendment is required, in view of the rather singular procedure needed to carry it out. What my noble friend proposes is that the landlord who sells should acquire part of the holding of the purchasing tenant for the purpose either of planting trees or of preserving them. That, of course, is the reverse operation to everything else that takes place under the Land Acts. In all other oases the tenant acquires from the landlord, but here the landlord has to acquire from the tenant. Well, it is quite possible for him to do that if the tenant agrees. If the tenant agrees after the whole process has taken place, the landlord can buy, with the leave of the Land Commission, a particular portion of the estate. Of course, to us in England it seems a singular thing that a plantation should form part of an agricultural holding, but as we know in Ireland it is the rule. The only case in which the Amendment of the noble Earl would operate is where a tenant was umwilling—where he refused to enter into an agreement—and, in view of the very complicated procedure that would be necessary, I would like to ask the noble Earl whether he really thinks it worth while to insert a provision of this kind for, the purpose of coercing an unwilling tenant. I think it would be very difficult to purchase back land from a tenant who was unwilling. I do not know what would happen to the plantation in such cases. Where the tenant agrees the matter is quite simple, because after the purchase has taken place the, landlord only has to buy back. In those circumstances we should prefer not to accept the Amendment, because we believe that in the very large number of cases where it could be done it would be covered by subsections (1) and (2), In all other cases where it can usefully be done it can be done by agreement, as I have stated.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK quite saw the difficulty which the noble Earl had pointed out, but, at the same time, he thought it would, be extremely desirable that some provision should be adopted to meet the great want of trees for shelter in Ireland.
It was not a question of the value of the property but the shelter given by small isolated plantations. Unfortunately, the idea of the purchasing tenant was to cut down every tree, and it was really in his own interests and the interests of the whole country that timber, where possible, should be preserved.
THE EARL of MAYO*THE EARL of MAYO wished to say a word about this subject from the artistic point of view; because in some parts of the county in which he lived estates had been sold and avenues which were picturesque and afforded shelter to travellers and to cattle had been cut down.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Is not that prevented by Clause 34?
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said he could not read the whole of that clause in the position in which he then was, but if the noble Earl said so he would take his word for it. With regard to small plantations which his noble friend Lord Clonbrock referred to, he thought there should be some provision in the Bill. He quite saw the difficulties which the noble Earl pointed out. They all knew what Ireland was; the tenant might make objections to these plantations being reserved; but this cutting down of trees had become an absolute scandal in Ireland. Not only they, but all the members of the Nationalist Party who really wished to see the country not denuded of beautiful trees were at one in the matter. They wished to stop it by some means or other, and if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill did not think this subsection effective he hoped the noble Earl would introduce words that would stop the cutting down of trees. He did not think that friction would arise with the tenant as to the reservation of trees. He must be a very disagreeable man who would cause trouble over that. But the fact was, the trees had been cut down and the cattle turned into the plantation, it became a free pasturage for every loose blackguard and scoundrel in the country and his cattle, and their Lordships wished to preserve it from that.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think I may say; without fear of contradiction, that there is no difference between the two sides of the House as to the general policy which should be pursued
872
with regard to this question of the preservation of trees, and I gladly join with my noble friend on the Cross Benches in expressing my obligations to His Majesty's Government for having inserted in this Bill several provisions intended to protect timber of all kinds in Ireland. It is really, to my mind, a tragical thing to see the way in which growing timber, not only in plantations but outside as well, has been ruthlessly cut down and exterminated by tenant purchasers under the Act, and I gladly acknowledge that this Bill already contains provisions to meet that to some extent, but the Amendment moved by my noble friend Earl Cadogan seems to me to touch a point which is not covered by the Bill as it now stands. The particular case which I think he has in view, and which I have also in view, is the case in which comparatively valueless land—rough mountain land—either with growing timber upon it or capable of being used for the purpose of planting trees, is sold with the rest of the holding to a purchasing tenant. The case that would be met by my noble friend's Amendment would only be where the portion of land in question was quite insignificant in value compared with the value of the whole farm, and what we would like to see would be an arrangement by which, in the case of a sale, the Land Commissioners might at the outset permit the landlord to reserve a portion of the holding, not so great that it would substantially affect the value of the whole farm, in order that the timber upon it might be preserved. I think the wording of the Amendment would require slight alteration, because as it now stands it would be necessary to obtain the agreement of landlord and tenant. In my view it should be left to the Land Commission to decide in a case of that kind whether the reservation was a reasonable one or not. The noble Earl will remember that under the existing Acts there is a power of resumption reserved to the landlord for the good of the estate, or something of that kind—I forget what the exact words are. The policy of this Amendment is the same—namely, that where a holding of 100 acres, say, is sold, and some little corner of it has got a few trees or is capable of growing a few trees, the landlord should be able to go before the Land Commission and say, "Let me reserve that upon terms which you consider to be absolutely fair and equitable."

873
I do not think that is a very extreme provision, and unless there are stronger reasons against it than the noble Earl the Leader of the House has mentioned, I rather hope my noble friend will press his Amendment.
EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN said he was obliged to his noble friend, who had stated exactly what the objects of the Amendment were. There was one point to which allusion had not been made. He carefully added at the end of the subsection, "upon such terms as to compensation and otherwise as may be agreed upon." He would like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether it would not be possible, under terms embracing compensation, to obtain the consent of the tenant. He thought in many cases that consent could be obtained, but he would be quite willing to add what he gathered the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, desired—namely, that the Land Commission should come in instead of the matter being decided by consent between the parties.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps I ought to explain that the difficulty as the law stands, and will stand if the noble Earl's Amendment is accepted, is that the entire holding will have been sold to the tenant and the landlord has to buy it back. The noble Marquess seemed to contemplate that the process would be that this piece of land would be withdrawn from the holding before the holding was sold, but there is no provision for that in the Amendment, and it would be entirely foreign to the usual transactions under the Purchase Acts.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY asked if he might say a word on this subject as he had had some experience of the action of those who had bought holdings with regard to the timber on those holdings. He agreed entirely with Earl Cadogan that it was deplorable that timber should be cut down in Ireland. He had had a somewhat painful experience himself. He delivered an annual address in the North of Ireland, and generally took a subject with which he hoped his hearers would sympathise. One year he devoted himself to dealing at considerable length with the great advantage to tenant purchasers of maintaining timber for the reason Lord Clonbrock had given. He pointed out instances where there was no timber and the country was very poor, and he also pointed out some districts
874
where timber Was of great advantage. He flattered himself he had made a great impression upon his hearers. The following year he asked some of his friends what the subject of his address should be, and they said, "On no account touch the question of timber, because the tenant purchasers took advantage of your address to cut down all the timber they had and sell it to the nearest shipyard." That was the experience he had had.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps I may close the discussion of this very interesting aspect of the matter by saying that if the noble Earl will consult with me as to some redrafting of this Amendment I think we shall be in a position to come to terms.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
20.—(1) The Land Commission in determining under subsection (2) of section one or under section five of the Act of 1903 whether the agreed price of a holding is equitable shall have regard to the respective interests of the landlord and tenant in the holding and in the improvements thereon, and the price shall not be deemed to be equitable if it appears to the Land Commission that any substantial part thereof represents the value of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title for which he or they have not been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title.
(2) Any question which may arise under this section as to—

(a) whether an improvement was or was not made by the tenant or his predecessors in, title; or

(b) whether the tenant or his predecessors in, title have or have not been paid or compensated for any improvement;

may (subject and without prejudice to any previous determination under the Land Law Acts) be determined by the Land Commission, who may, in their discretion, refer the question to a Legal Assistant Commissioner, and the determination of the Land Commission or such Commissioner, as the case may be, shall be final.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD moved to omit from the second line of subsection (1) the words "under subsection (2) of section one or." He asked their Lordships, in order to understand the proposal, to recall what happened in connection with Clause 14. In connection with that clause he made proposals which were devised to amend it. Clause 14 proposed that inquiry should be made as to the security of the advance

875
and as to the equity of the price. The first of those points—security of the advance—had already been disposed of. The question of the equity of the price was raised in the present Amendment. He reminded their Lordships that when the Act of 1903 was under discussion in another place the question of the fixing of rents of judicial tenants was included, in the first draft of the Act, amongst the tenancies that were affected by the zones; but in accordance with an agreement come to the non-judicial tenants were excluded from the zones and were dealt with in a special section—namely, Section 5. That section ran—
"In the case of the sale of an estate when an application for an advance to which the provisions of subsection (1) of section one of this Act do not apply is made, the Land Commissioners may, subject to the limitations of the Land Purchase Acts, advance the whole or part of the purchase money if they are satisfied with the security and are of opinion that having regard to all the circumstances of the case the agreed price is equitable."
A controversy took place with regard to the words "the agreed price is equitable." One party to the controversy maintained that the Land Commissioners, in dealing with cases of non judicial rents, were entitled to look behind the contract into the equity of the bargain between the landlord and the tenant. The other party to the controversy held that that sort of an inquiry was precluded by the terms of the Act.
His present proposal was devised with the view of saying that the inquiry of the Estates Commissioners into the contract between the vendor and the tenant should be restricted to the points indicated in the Amendment—namely, to determining and ascertaining whether or not the improvements effected in the holding had formed part of the subject-matter of the bargain between the landlord and the tenant. If the improvements were effected by the tenant naturally they were the property of the tenant and ought not to be included in a contract of sale with the landlord. On the other hand, if the improvements were effected by the landlord the landlord was entitled to receive in the price compensation for them. That was the compromise which he had ventured to suggest upon this part of the Bill, namely, that the restrictions in Clause 14 as to the equity of the price—that the inquiry into that point should be limited to an inquiry into
876
whether or not the improvements effected in the estate were effected by the landlord or by the tenant. Obviously if they were effected by the tenant they should not form part of the subject-matter of the contract; while, on the other hand, if they were effected by the landlord, equally obviously they ought to form part of the contract.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words 'under subsection (2) of section one or.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I confess it is not quite clear to me, from what my noble friend has said, why he considers it desirable that in all cases where a transaction takes place within the zones the clause should not apply. As I understand, my noble friend thinks that where the transaction has taken place outside the zone the inquiry provided by Clause 20 should be made; that is to say, that the Land Commission should consider whether the agreed price of a holding is equitable having regard to the respective interests of the landlord and tenant in the improvements thereon. But why, in regard to public policy, should there not also be cases within the zone where such an inquiry is necessary? Noble Lords opposite know very well why this clause was inserted. As an instance of what might occur if it was not inserted, a case which was alluded to yesterday—the King-Harman case—was a case in point. It being understood that the object of these Acts is to sell the landlord's interest to the tenant, it does not seem to be in any way in accordance with public policy that the tenant should be allowed to buy his own improvements under the Act. That is what it really comes to, and as regards the distinction drawn by my noble friend behind me, surely it is possible that where a judicial rent is fixed and a purchase has taken place within the zones, improvements may be made subsequently to the fixing of the judicial rent, and which ought to have the same care on the part of the Land Commissioners as though the instance came under Section 5 of the Act of 1903. In those circumstances, and feeling as we do that the necessity, if not absolutely equal in the two cases, is quite liable to arise where the case is within the zones, we cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON, in. moving to leave out Clause 20, said he did not interpose in the discussion on the Amendment to the clause because he was very much of the same opinion as an Irish tenant whom he once heard giving evidence about his holding and who said, "The more you improve it the worse it gets." Of all the grotesque provisions ever introduced into any Bill this was the most grotesque. Subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Act of 1903 provided for a case where the rent was fixed but the terms were not brought within the zones, but Section 5 referred to cases where the rent was fixed and the whole advance was not asked for or where no rent was fixed at all, and inasmuch as a limited owner could sell it was necessary that they should put in some provision which would protect the interest of those in remaindership. Consequently the words as to equity were introduced. He did not know who were the people to whom the noble Earl referred as having regarded "equitable" as "equitable as between vendor and purchaser." A glimmering sense of law would prevent any person falling into that mistake. Accordingly when it was brought up in the King-Harman case before the present Master of the Rolls in Ireland, then Chief Commissioner, he decided, as any sensible human being could only decide, that equitable meant equitable as regarded the persons in remainder. This attempt to get round it was most peculiar, because he did not know whether the clause was intended to say that the equity was to be confined to the cases where the tenant was not paid or compensated for improvements, or whether it was a specific equity that entitled it to be set aside irrespective of other equities. If the authors of the Bill had selected a particular equity on which the contract to purchase could be set aside they had selected a most peculiar one, for of all the knotty questions ever involved in the complicated Irish Land Code the question of improvements was probably the most complicated.
As the Bill of 1881 was passing through the House of Commons Mr. Timothy Healy moved what was now a sub-clause that rents should not be fixed upon the improvements of a tenant for which he was paid or otherwise compensated. Then began the question of what was "otherwise compensated." Was permission to enjoy the improvement "compensation"—where the tenant held under a tenure that could not be disturbed?
878
Was enjoyment under a tenure that could be disturbed "compensation"? Was the grant of a new lease "compensation"? In 1896 the then Government brought in a Bill which was designed, at all events, to set at rest this question of compensation. They drew up a long and uninviting section to try and lay down what was compensation and what was not. He was sorry to say they were not quite successful, and questions had since arisen. When a landlord and tenant agreed to purchase the land although the tenant was about to go in, if he was defrauded, coerced, cheated, or oppressed in any way, he could immediately ask that his contract should be broken up. But this proposal was meant to apply to cases where the tenant did not ask; cases where, as in the King-Harman case, he did not want to ask. The peculiarity of that case was that the Commissioners said, "We want to know whether we can set aside this contract because the tenant pays too much"; but the tenant, coming into Court, said, "I have not paid too much"; and the argument on behalf of the Estates Commissioners was, "You foolish woman, you have paid too much." Therefore, whether they agreed or not the Estates Commissioners were to interpose and say, "You are paying too much." They would never have the pluck to say to a landlord, "You are asking too little."
Then they raised, this knotty question, and said the price should not be deemed to be equitable if it appeared to the Land Commission that any substantial part thereon represented the value of improvements made by the tenant or purchaser in the title for which he had not been compensated. Take the case of a tenant who had built a house forty years ago. Probably he had got a new lease or been allowed to hold on his tenancy from year to year. Then the question had to be determined whether all that enjoyment was compensation and that therefore the improvement had been compensated for, and whether that improvement, compensated for or not, had materially increased the purchase price. That was a knotty point. But the provision as to whom it was to be referred to was really the reductio ad absurdum. The clause said that any question which might arise as to whether an improvement was or was not made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, or whether the tenant or his predecessors in title had or had not been paid or compensated for any improvement, was

879
to be referred to a legal Assistant Commissioner whose decision was to be final. It was very well that the decision was to be final, because if it were not final it would certainly be reversed.
A still further peculiarity was that this was to be without prejudice to any previous determination under the Land Acts. Then the first thing that the person who fixed the fair rent was to do was to determine whether the man was compensated, by enjoyment or otherwise, for the improvements he had made. If compensated a rent might be fixed upon, if not, it should not be fixed upon. This Commissioner was left to his own devices to plough his way through all these difficulties. Protect the remainder-ship by all means; protect the State by all means; see that the security was adequate; but to say that landlord and tenant were to be treated as infants and lunatics not able to make their own contract and to protect their own interests, was ridiculous legislation. It would be most mischievous if passed and if there were a Division on this Amendment to reject the clause he sincerely hoped he would be supported.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 20."—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question; Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21:
21.—(1) In subsection (5) of section six of the Act of 1903 (which defines a congested estate) "ten pounds" shall be substituted for "five pounds"; and the consent of the owner required by subsection (4) of that section shall cease to be required.
(2) Where an estate not being a congested estate within the meaning of the said section as so amended, comprises within its area one or more congested townlands, the Land Commission, or in the case of townlands situated in a congested district county, the Congested Districts Board, may declare all or any one or more of such townlands to be a separate estate for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts, and such townland or townlands shall thereupon be deemed for those purposes to be a separate congested estate.
(3) An estate which consists exclusively of one or more congested townlands shall be deemed to be a congested estate.
(4) The expression "congested townland" means a townland in which more than one-half of the holdings are—

(a) congested holdings; or

(b) holdings whose aggregate rateable value when divided by their number gives a sum of less than ten pounds for each holding:

The expression "congested holding" means—
880

(a) a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value; and

(b) a holding held in rundale or intermixed plots.

LORD BARRYMORE LORD BARRYMORE moved to delete from subsection (1) the words "and the consent of the owner required by subsection (4) of that section shall cease to be required." He said he had two or three other Amendments on the Paper, and also, if necessary, an Amendment to leave out the whole clause. But he would say at once for the satisfaction of their Lordships, that what was wanted was that the consent of the landlord should be retained as at the present moment. The Clause extended considerably the definition of congested districts; it altered £5 rateable value to £10; and it made sundry other alterations to which they might take legitimate objection and which they might argue at very considerable length. But they were perfectly satisfied, if the consent of the landlord was retained, that the alterations of the definitions should be made.
Under Section 6, subsection (5), of the Land Act of 1903 a congested district was defined as being an estate of which at least half consisted of holdings not exceeding £5 in rateable value, or of mountain or bog land, or not less than one-fourth of which was held in rundale or intermixed plots. By subsection (4) of the same section it was provided that the owner's consent should be necessary before the Lord Lieutenant should determine that the estate should be certified as a congested district. The alterations would, for instance, prevent the application of the zone system in the case of a congested estate. The changes would be advantageous for the small holders upon an estate, but there would probably also be a certain number of substantial larger farmers and they would be placed under a considerable disability if the zone system ceased to be operative in their case. It was very important in the landlord's interest, and in their interest, that they should not summarily be put in the position that they could be considered as part of a congested estate without any consideration or any remedy. This was a matter which was considered at great length during the discussions of the Bill in the year 1903, and the consent of the landlord was at that time required and inserted in the Act. The section had worked well so far, and there was no reason whatever why the consent of the landlord

881
should be removed. He must press his Amendment if the Government declined to accept it. He sincerely hoped, however, that they would accept it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12,line 3, to leave out from 'pounds' to the end of subsection (1)."—(Lord Barrymore.)
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD said the noble Lord the mover of the Amendment had stated that the Act as it stood had worked exceedingly well. On page 8 of the last Report of the Estates Commissioners were the following words—
"In the years during the period from November 1, 1903. to March 31, 1908, the Commissioners certified to the Lord Lieutenant that twenty congested districts were bought."
That was the measure of the successful working of the provision to which the noble Lord alluded. In those six years, owing to the words which the noble Lord desired to retain, the efforts of the Estates Commissioners to relieve congestion had been absolutely frustrated. If their Lordships desired that congestion outside the congested districts ought to be relieved they were bound to remove the words in question from the Act. The noble Lord had also stated that these words were introduced into the Act with the consent of both Houses of Parliament. That was quite true, but when the Bill came up to their Lordships' House in 1903 the words were not contained in it. They were introduced in their Lordships' House; and in the Lower House, the Members of which were wearied with the conflict, they were passed. The result was that from that time to the present outside the congested districts there had been absolutely no relief of congestion. Their Lordships' action on this Amendment would be a good test of their desire to relieve congestion in Ireland.
LORD ASHTOWN*LORD ASHTOWN said the noble Lord who had just sat down seemed to have immense confidence in the Estates Commissioners. He (Lord Ashtown) confessed he had not, and he did not think many other noble Lords had either. It was necessary that they should have some protection against these Commissioners. They had had the power of refusing their consent to make their estates congested with a valuation of £5. Now the valuation had been raised to £10, and that made congestion far
882
more serious. Personally, he thought the valuation of different holdings was not in the least a test. Congestion meant poverty and misery, or was supposed to mean it. A £10 valuation was supposed to represent poverty and misery. He denied that; altogether, and he could prove it on his own estate. He had very few congested holdings, very few indeed before this increase came on; but when they increased the £5 to £10 they would enormously add to the number of congested holdings. He would cite a few items on his estate to show the "misery" there. One tenant with a valuation of £3 earned, with his family, £1 2s. 0d. a week in wages. Another tenant had a valuation of £7; he and his family earned £1 4s. 0d. a week in wages. Another had a valuation of £2 12 s. 0d.,. he and his family earned £2 3s. 0d. a week in wages Another, with a valuation of £8 5s. 0d., earned £1 a week in wages, and £1 5s. 0d. a week might be coming in if one of the men had behaved himself. Another with a £9 valuation earned £4s. 0d. a week, and a tenant with a valuation of £4 9s. 0d. earned twenty-four shillings week. Was he to admit that his estate was a case of poverty and destitution?
THE EARL OF LEITRIM THE EARL OF LEITRIM said he noble Lord opposite had mentioned in the first part of his speech that there were only twenty estates which the Estates Commissioners had bought, but he did not mention till the end of his speech that that was outside the-area of the congested districts. Twenty estates did not include all the estates. He (Lord Leitrim) did not think that point, need therefore be taken into account. Further, to give some idea of the valuation placed on a farm of less than £10 he might say that the average value of the tenant-right in the union of County Donegal, which was said to be a congested estate, was fifty-two years purchase of the rent.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My noble friend behind me stated the objections to the noble Lord's Amendment so clearly that I really have very little to add to what he said. But I confess it does seem to me that the acceptance of this Amendment offers a very singular commentary on what was so freely said before we adjourned for dinner as to the necessity of acquiring land for the relief of those within the congested districts outside these districts. We were overwhelmed by arguments. When it was a question of a single landless man outside getting a farm,

883
the whole of it was required for migrants from congested districts, and yet when there is a question of making it possible to migrate—the noble Lord behind me pointed out what obstacles had hitherto been placed in the way of acquiring land for any such purpose—noble Lords desire to amend our Bill in a way which obviously must tend to make it infinitely more difficult. Lord Ashtown spoke of certain cases within his own knowledge where those who had land on a small valuation earned money in other ways. Of course there is a certain number of such cases everywhere. In no country but Ireland would these people be spoken of as farmers at all. They are labourers who have a little bit of land, hardly coming within the meaning of what we call a small holding in some cases. I quite agree that for a community entirely composed of such people to be spoken of as a congested district or even a congested 'estate would give a wrong impression of what was meant by congestion. There I agree entirely, but that, although I admit its force, it not really the point. What happens Under these transactions? The Government for their own purpose, through the

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Liverpool, E.

Haversham, L.

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Hemphill, L.

Allendale, L.

Lucas, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Blyth, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Boston, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carrington, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Pentland, L.

Chichester, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Craven, E.

Eversley, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Kimberley, E.

Glantawe, L.

Weardale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Lindsey, E.

Hill, V.

Devonshire, D.

Londesborough, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

somerset, D.

Lucan, E.

Wellington, D.

Malmesbury, E.

Iveagh, V.

Mayo, E. [Teller.]

Milner, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Morley, E.

Camden, M.

Onslow, E.

Abinger, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Abingdon, E.

Powis, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Bandon, E.

Roberts, E.

Ashtown, L.

Cadogan, E.

Rosslyn, E.

Atkinson, L.

Camperdown, E.

Stanhope, E.

Barrymore, L. [Teller.]

Clarendon, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Blythswood, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Verulam, E.

Boyle, L. (B. Cork and Orrery.)

Dartrey, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Denbigh, E.

Wharncliffe, E.

Broderick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Derby, E.

Wicklow, E.

Carew, L.

Devon, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Eldon, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Castletown, L.

Huntingdon, E.

De Vesci, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Kilmorey, E.

Halifax, V.

Lichfield, E.

Hampden, V.

Clements, L. (L. Leitrim.)

Estates Commissioners, buy an estate from the landlord at more than its valuation, at more than he can get for it. Is it or is it not reasonable in these circumstances, when they are giving the landlord more than the estate could be said to be worth in the open market, to demand his assent to the transaction? We feel very strongly that everything said by my noble friend behind me in this matter is of the greatest importance, and we are bound to resist the Amendment.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE asked what exactly was meant by striking out "consent." Did that mean that the Estates Commissioners were to be absolute arbiters and could fix the price over a man's head?
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD said the words had had the effect of preventing anything like dealing with congestion outside congested districts.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-contents, 116.

Clonbrock, L.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Cloncurry, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Chichester, L.

Forester, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Collins, L.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Curzon of Kedleston, L.

Harlech, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Hindlip, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

De Freyne, L.

Iuchiquin, L.

Rathmore, L.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Kenlis, L. (V. Headfort.)

St. Levan, L.

Digby, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Sandys, L.

Dunalley, L.

Kesteven, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Dunboyne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Dunboyne, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Stanmore, L.

Egerton, L.

Langford, L.

Templemore, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lawrence, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Estcourt, L.

Leconfield, L.

Ventry, L.

Faber, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Waleran, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Massy, L.

Walsingham, L.

Farnham, L.

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

Wenlock, L.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD had an Amendment on the Paper proposing to alter the meaning of the expression "congested townland." He had to confess to their Lordships that, in the Minute which he recorded on the Report of the Congestion Commission, he was betrayed into a mistake. The mistake consisted in suggesting a definition of congestion which depended more upon the numerical proportion of congested holdings in a townland than on the proportional area of the townland which such congested holdings covered. It was quite possible, as many of their Lordships acquainted with the West of Ireland would know, to have a townland consisting of 1,000 acres, of which 950 acre might be in one grass farm held by one tenant, while fifty acres might be five-acre plots held by ten tenants. Such a townland as that would, under the, definition suggested in the Bill, be declared to be a congested townland. Obviously such a townland ought not properly to be considered congested, because although the fifty acres held by the ten tenants holding five acres each might properly be regarded as congested, yet by the employment which would probably be afforded by the occupier of the large area certain means would be supplied to the tenants of the ten holdings which would enable them to eke out their subsistence otherwise than from their land. Therefore in order to adjust the deficiency of his definition he suggested that there should be not only a numerical test but also a test in regard to the area which was occupied by the congested holdings. His present proposal
886
was that no townland should be regarded as congested unless one half of the holdings were also congested and unless these holdings covered a quarter of the total area of the townland.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 17, after the word 'holding,' to insert the words 'in number and one quarter in area.' "—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: As the noble Lord has told us, he is really the author of this clause, and as he desires to amend it I feel it would hardly be reasonable to prevent him from doing so. As the clause now stands there certainly might come within it singular cases, cases even more singular than those which the noble Lord mentioned in his speech. A townland might consist of three holdings, one enormously large and two under the limit, and yet as the clause stands as it would be spoken of as congested. But I think it would be better if my noble friend would agree that the Amendment should be moved in this form, to leave out from the second "townland" to the end of line 17 and to insert "more than a quarter of the area of which consist of."
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD accepted the suggestion of the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: In the absence of Lord Barrymore, moved to omit Clause 21. His reason for doing so was that it made a complete change in the arrangement which was come to after

887
much consideration under the Act of 1903, when it was decided what exactly a congested estate was. It was provided that it was an estate at least half of which consisted of buildings not exceeding £5 in rateable value. He was not going into the other points, because that was the one to which he wished specially to draw attention. The present proposal raised the £5 to £10, which seemed to him a very great change and one which materially affected all the considerations they had before them as to the relief of congestion in Ireland. It seemed to him that they ought to devote themselves first of all to getting rid of congestion as defined in that Act. Afterwards, when they had done that successfully, it would be open to extend the meaning of the term. To his mind the idea of £10 as necessary for an economic holding was, he would not say novel, but it was an idea that had sprung up and had been much more generally accepted within the last two or three years than previously. He was doubtful altogether about the question of economic holdings, when he saw through the length and breadth of Ireland new uneconomic holdings, called labourers' cottages, being created. He had no doubt all these labourers would claim to have their holdings extended so as to make them economic within a short time. In the meantime it was a very serious change to make to double the amount which constituted a congested estate, and he begged to move the deletion of the clause. There were some other portions of the clause which might not be so objectionable, and if any suggestion was made to put the matter in an altered form on Report he would be very glad to consider it.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 21."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD said he had heard the noble Lord with amazement. It took him back to the time more than seventy years ago when a £5 holding was considered to be economic. If there was anything which was proved to satisfaction by the evidence taken by the Dudley Commission—which he ventured to think, from the statement of the noble Lord, he could not have seen—it was that £10 was a moderate estimate. The majority of the witnesses said £12
888
was the amount that ought to be taken. If their Lordships were to accept such a proposal as suggested by the noble Lord they would be completely stultifying themselves.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend behind me has moved the omission of this clause. We have been engaged for some time in inserting Amendments which I presume, in the view of those who were responsible for them, have considerably improved that clause. Therefore I confess I should rather hesitate, after what has happened, to advise the Committee to get rid of the clause altogether. I am rather strengthened in that view because I observed that my noble friend in the short speech which he delivered only referred to one particular point in the clause—I mean the substitution of £10 for £5. I think there is a great deal to be said about that, but I would rather like to put it to my noble friend, if that is really the only point to which he desires to invite the attention of the Committee, whether that is sufficient argument for taking the whole of the clause out of the Bill. I would venture to ask him whether he would not allow the clause to remain in the Bill for the present, and reserve to himself the right when we come to the Report stage to ask the House to substitute the lower for the higher figure.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE said that after what the noble Marquess had said he would not press his Amendment at this stage. Lord MacDonnell had referred to the Dudley Commission and said that if the Committee did not accept the conclusion of that Commission they would be stultifying themselves. He did not know what Lord MacDonnell would say to the Government, because they had not accepted the recommendations of the Dudley Commission in a great many respects.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27:
27. The Estates Commissioners may, by order, delegate all or any of their powers to any one or two of their number, and anything done by anyone

889
or two of the Estates Commissioners in pursuance of any such delegation shall be as valid and effectual as if it were done by all the Estates Commissioners.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "one or" in both places where they appeared. He submitted that it was too 'much to trust one Commissioner in the exercise of such powers.
THE EARL OF CREWE: There are three Amendments on this subject—one in the name of Lord Castletown, another in the name of Lord Ashbourne, and the third in the name of Lord Atkinson. I think it would probably save time if I were to state that of the three the one which appears to us least objectionable is that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, which is to leave out Clause—
"27. The powers of the Estates Commissioners may be exerciseable by any two of them sitting together, and anything so done shall be as valid and effectual as if it were done by all the Estates Commissioners.
Provided always, that all ministerial Acts relating to the details of the carrying out of any transactions under the provisions of this Act or any Act incorporated therewith may at any time be performed by any one of the said Commissioners."
But I would propose to alter his proviso to the following, which I could bring up if the House desire on Report—
"Provided always that the Estates Commissioners may delegate to any one of their number the performance of any ministerial duties in relation to the carrying out of any sale or other transaction, and anything so done shall be as valid and effectual as though it were done by all the Estates Commissioners."
That is altering the wording but keeping the sense of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment. I do not, of course, desire to prevent any of the noble Lords stating reasons why they prefer their own form.
LORD ATKINSON: Do, you say "anything ministerial"?
THE EARL OF CREWE: "May delegate to any one of their number the performance of any ministerial duties."
LORD ATKINSON: That enables them tip do anything. The whole of their duties are ministerial.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I do not gather that the noble Earl wishes to move his suggested Amendment now.
THE EARL OF CREWE: No, on Report.
LORD CASTLETOWN*LORD CASTLETOWN intimated that in the circumstances he would not move his Amendment, which provided that any person aggrieved by any order or decision of one Commissioner might require his case to be re-heard by all three Commissioners sitting together.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said the matter was not quite so simple as it looked. The proposal of the Government, after giving a tremendous addition to and intensifying the importance of the duties of the Commissioners, was to provide that they might delegate any of these great duties to one of their number. It was obvious that that was not a thing that could be assented to. He did not like the principle of delegation; but it might be possible and more acceptable to say that two should be clothed with full jurisdiction to carry out important duties, sitting together. He thought that might be a tribunal that was reasonable, at all events more reasonable than to have one Commissioner. Then there might be some routine functions more or less, not functions involving decisions on important matters in reference to sales but the carrying out of details of what had been decided by the two, and some provision might be made, as happened in many tribunals, that one should do these technical and more or less formal things. He did not say his Amendment was the best way of doing what he wanted, and he was willing to study very carefully the words of the Government. The best course, he thought, would be to withdraw the whole matter now and bring it up on Report.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think that would be the simplest course.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD said that even Lord Ashbourne's suggestion would seriously complicate the business of the Estates Commissioners. They did not transact their business always at meetings. Files were circulated from one Commissioner to another and they recorded

891
their opinions upon these files. If two Commissioners agreed to a particular course, that was taken to mean the opinion of the majority of the Commission, and action was taken accordingly. It would seriously complicate the transaction of public business to insist on the sittings which were mentioned in Lord Ashbourne's Amendment. No difficulty had occurred up to the present time, and if Lord Ashbourne's proposal was modified in the way he would suggest the situation would be met. He suggested that a proviso should be inserted to the effect that the powers of the Estates Commissioners might be "exercisable by a majority and anything so done should be as valid and effectual as though it were done by all the Estates Commissioners," and so on for the remainder of Lord Ashbourne's proviso.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said there was this danger that they were immensely increasing the jurisdiction of these gentlemen. They were all familiar in Ireland with the expression "files"—the bundles of papers dealing with the particular case fastened together, which were sent about. They went to one special Commissioner who had to do with the matter. He would write a minute on it, which would be taken by someone in the office to one of the other Commissioners, and there was always, he would not say the danger, but the great probability, that this Commissioner would look at it, would read the minute, and knowing that his colleague was familiar with the case forthwith initial it. That would be the work of two Commissioners, but it would not satisfy what he meant—that the two should give their minds to working out the solution. Unless some words were put in showing that there must be two Commissioners applying their minds independently to arrive at a solution after full consideration, it would not be satisfactory. He thought in all the circumstances it was better not to put in words just now, and he would see what could be done before the Report stage.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:
32.—(1) When the Land Commission deem it expedient to expend any money on the improvement of a holding sold or agreed to be sold
892
by a landlord to a tenant, they may, in. accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury, enter into an agreement with the tenant for the repayment of the money so expended in the same manner as if such money was advanced under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of the holding, and the said money shall be repaid by an additional annuity accordingly.
(2) So far as circumstances admit the additional annuity shall in accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury be consolidated and made payable with the purchase annuity.
(3) Regulations made by the Treasury may provide that where the repayment of any money expended by the Land Commission is secured by an additional annuity under this section, the National Debt Commissioners may advance to the Land Commission the said money for repayment to the reserve fund if that fund has not been exhausted, and if that fund has been exhausted, for repayment to the Exchequer.
LORD CASTLETOWN*LORD CASTLETOWN said he had put down an Amendment to leave out this clause with a view to getting some idea from the Government of their views on the subject. As he read the clause it appeared to him to put a very heavy and unnecessary expenditure on the Treasury. The principle of the clause was that the Land Commission must practically provide, money for the improvement of any farm which might come under their purview, and apparently they were referred to Section 12 of the Act of 1903 for that purpose. As far as he read that Section of the Act, however, the object was not to give the Commissioners the power it was now proposed they should have; it was not to assist them in making roads and fencing and in the erection of farm buildings, &c., before re-sale. On the other hand, the clause in the Bill appeared to give the Estates Commissioners very large spending powers in addition to their Powers for the purchase of farms, and those spending powers were to be exercised by means of drafts on the Land Purchase Fund for the purpose of improving holdings which might be agreed to be sold by landlords to tenants. He thought their Lordships would agree that it would be much better if any expenditure was to be undertaken for improvements in these cases it should be provided for under the system of loans from the Board of Public Works. He did not suppose for a moment that the Land Commission would expend a very large sum of money on such improvements, but they might spend on improvements which were practically unnecessary, and they would have to utilise money which was placed at their disposal for the purchase of holdings. It struck him that this

893
was a very unnecessary expenditure, and he should be glad to hear the views of the Government.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 32."—(Lord Castletown.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: We have no idea under this provision of adding to the powers which the Estates, Commissioners already possess under Section 12 of the Act of 1903. They are empowered in certain circumstances, as the noble Lord very well knows, to expend money, but when they do that money can only be secured by an ordinary mortgage. This clause in the Bill enables that sum to be secured in the form of an annuity as though it represented part of the purchase money. Therefore there is no difference, so far as the Estates Commissioners are concerned, but there is an advantage to the tenant who is able to obtain this money on somewhat easier terms.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD said the Committee had rejected the proposal which he made that congested estates should be sold direct to the Estates Commissioners in order that congestion might be removed and the condition of the people improved in the proper way. Failing that proper and efficient way of dealing with congestion, the Government proposed in this clause to do the next best thing—namely, to help the tenants to improve their own holdings. The noble Lord, Lord Castletown, proposed that the Government should be deprived of the opportunity of making advances to the tenants for the improvement of their own holdings and of securing the repayment of such advances on the easy terms which the Bill prescribed. He (Lord MacDonnell) thought, however, that it was only necessary to state the case to their Lordships in order to secure a verdict from them in favour of the clause.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON agreed with Lord MacDonnell in what he had just said. There was a difficulty under the Act of 1903 where money was advanced to improve a farm bought direct from the landlord by the tenant, because there was no means of securing the repayment of that advance by the purchase annuity. He therefore thought this clause was absolutely necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33:
33. For the purposes of subsection (4) of section forty-eight of the Act of 1903, an estate shall be deemed to be so circumstanced that it would, independently of the Act of 1896, be sold without the consent of the owner as to price if the consent of the person who is owner would not be required in his capacity as owner, notwithstanding that his consent might be required in the capacity of incumbrancer or some other capacity.
LORD FARNHAM LORD FARNHAM wished to move to leave out the clause, which, he said, proposed to extend in a most unfair way the restrictions contained in subsection (4) of Section 48 of the Act of 1903. If Clause 33 of the Bill were passed he could assure their Lordships that it would be a very severe blow to a certain class of landlords. Subsection (4) provided that the earlier part of the section relating to the bonus should not be extended to estates so circumstanced that they could be sold without the owner's consent. The general effect of that was that the owner of an estate which had become so encumbered as to be insolvent could not have a voice in the sale of his estate by the Land Judge, and that he therefore received no bonus. But it had been judicially held that if this same landlord himself held mortgages on the estate he was to be entitled to object to the price he might be offered, and that consequently he would obtain the bonus. That was a most fair and just decision, but it was completely done away with by Clause 33. In order to convince their Lordships of the unjust effect the clause would have, he would try to show how it was many landlords had come to be placed in such a position that they would be hurt by the clause.
He would first take the case of a landlord who had not only inherited his estate but had inherited it in a most encumbered state. That estate was encumbered by an ancestor and at the time he encumbered it the rental was at a figure very different from that it stood at to-day. Therefore although the estate must have been very severely crippled, there was a sufficient margin between, what he had to pay and the rent he received for him to have a comfortable income. The ancestor might from time to time have bought up some of those

895
charges either with money which he himself had earned or with money which he had saved by a careful nursing of the rental, or those charges might have been left to him by a member of his family who held a mortgage on the estate. Eventually the present day owner found that owing to the rental being severely cut down he had no margin left and the estate had become insolvent. He was, therefore, placed in this position. As actual owner of the estate, through no fault of his own but owing to a series of Acts of Parliament which had cut down the rental he was insolvent; but as an encumbrancer on his estate, he was receiving benefit from that estate, and, under the Act of 1903, he would be entitled to have a say in the sale of the estate and also to receive the bonus, and most justly so. Under Clause 33 of the Bill, however, he would not be allowed to have that benefit, and that would be most hard and unjust upon him.
Another instance was that of a landlord who had bought his estate either in the Encumbered Estates Court or in the Land Court. He might have bought that estate, which was put up for market in the Land Court, on the understanding that the rental was a low one. For the purposes of the illustration their Lordships might suppose that the rental was valued at £1,000. To purchase the estate the landlord borrowed a certain sum of money and found the remainder from his own pocket. They might suppose that the amount of money he borrowed necessitated his paying a charge of £750 a year, and that left him with a margin of £250 on which to live. As in the other case which had been taken as an illustration, this owner either bought rap charges, or perhaps was left charges, and became an encumbrancer on his own estate. Eventually, again through no fault of his own, but owing to a series of Acts of Parliament, the rental of £1,000, which he understood when he bought the estate was a low one and not likely to be reduced, was cut down to £750. The estate then became insolvent and the owner was placed in the same position as the landlord in the other case. As owner of the estate he was insolvent, but as an encumbrancer he was receiving benefit from the estate. This man also would, under Clause 33, be very severely hit.
He would cite yet another case, and this, perhaps, was the most unfair one of all. A
896
man whose estate was very heavily encumbered had just been able to keep his head above water and struggle on. He had been able to settle with his encumbrancers not to push the estate into court. If he had sold the estate, owing to the loss the sale would have caused, it would have meant absolute ruin to him. Then the Act of 1903 was passed, and under it the owner was able to sell his estate without loss, because he would be entitled to receive a bonus. The owner and his encumbrancers consented that the estate should be sold after the passing of the Act of 1903. It was sold, but the owner had not yet received the money for the estate, and under Clause 33 of the Bill he would, when he was paid for the estate, not be entitled to receive the bonus, although it was only on the understanding that he would get the bonus that he had consented to sell. He (Lord Farnham) thought their Lordships would agree that if that man was to be deprived of the bonus under the circumstances described it would be a very hard and unjust case. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would see their way to allow Clause 33 to be removed from the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 33."—(Lord Farnham.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: This is a legal point of some complexity, and I dare say before the question is put from the Chair we shall hear what noble and learned Lords have to say upon it. As the law stands at present under Section 48, subsection (1), of the Act of 1903, as the noble Lord opposite said, an estate which is so insolvent that it has to be sold by the Land Judge, receives no bonus on the ground that the owner has no interest in the estate. But it appears that as the law stands under that Act, if this insolvent owner possesses any share in a charge on the estate—and I gather it would be the case no matter how small that share is—he then is regarded as having an interest in the estate in the character of an encumbrancer, and can, I imagine, receive the whole of the bonus on the sale of the estate. If so, I must say that does not seem to me a reasonable state of things.
The noble Lord opposite mentioned various cases which he considered to be cases of hardship. The first class of case referred to was the case which I have

897
described. That is to say, where a man may have inherited from a relation or acquired in some other way a small share of the mortgage on his own property he technically acquires an interest in the whole estate, although he is declared to be by Section 48 of the Act of 1903 an insolvent owner. I cannot believe that the authors of that Act intended that the bonus should be payable under those circumstances, but perhaps we shall hear what construction the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Ashbourne, places upon it. I did not quite follow the last case mentioned by the noble Lord. It was a case apparently of an estate sold by mortgagees in possession where, through an agreement with him, some share of the estate was allowed to remain technically in the possession of the owner, with the result that he received the bonus. I should have thought that also was an evasion of the intention of Section 48 of the Act of 1903. So far as I am able to understand it, the intention of that Act appears to be carried out in Clause 33 of the Bill which the noble Lord opposite proposes to omit. I am afraid, therefore, that we must stand by the retention of the clause.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said his noble friend, Lord Farnham, had stated his case with great clearness and fulness, showing that he had given the matter every consideration. He (Lord Ashbourne) assumed that this clause had been put in the Bill to inset a decision which had been given in the Irish Courts.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think it was the case of Holmes.
LORD ASHBOUNRE LORD ASHBOUNRE said that of course any decision given in the Irish Courts must have been given after full argument and consideration of all the facts. He had not himself read the case, but naturally he had a great respect for the way legal business was done in Ireland. He was sure that the case would be well argued by able counsel and that the Judge would give his best consideration to the matter. He assumed the case was considered somewhat from the point of view that Lord Farnham had presented. It might well be that the man who was technically the owner had a poor estate with a very slender margin. He might have had rich friends or relations, or have married a lady plentifully endowed with
898
this world's goods, and the result might have been that all the charges on the estate, though very large, were bought up and vested in the owner, making a man of him again. Very likely the position of the estate was not due to any act of his own, but the encumbrances were there when he came into the estate. That was to say, he might have come into an estate which was known in law as a damnosa hereditas. It might have been worth very little, but was really represented in value by the large encumbrances upon it.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Might I ask whether in that case a reasonable course would not be to extinguish the encumbrances rather than hand them over to the tenant for life or whoever might have the estate?
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he was dealing with the fact that a decision had been given by a tribunal which he supposed was endowed with authority to exercise jurisdiction. He assumed also that, as there was no appeal, whoever was interested in the question acquiesced in the decision. As he had said a technical owner might succeed to property which alone was worth very little indeed, but he might become possessed of charges which really made the whole value of the property. He supposed the Judge came to the conclusion that inasmuch as that owner must have a potential voice in the sale of the estate it would under the circumstances be reasonable that he should not be ignored. He had not himself read the decision in this particular case, but he presumed that it proceeded on some such basis as that, and therefore he could quite understand his noble friend Lord Farnham being struck with the great hardship of seeking to act after a decision by putting a short clause in a Bill to say that what was held by the Courts should no longer be the law.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN remarked that this was a very technical question. It seemed to him from what had been said by the noble Earl the Leader of the House and his noble friend Lord Farnham, that if this clause were not agreed to there would be a claim for a bonus which in other cases would not occur. It was his wish to protect the Treasury against unreasonable claims, and, so far as he could understand the matter, he did not think he would be justified in supporting

899
his noble friend in his proposal to omit the clause.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said the bonus was given as an inducement to a landlord to sell. What was decided in the case referred to was this. Where a landlord was insolvent and had no power of dissenting from the sale of his estate in his capacity as owner, by purchasing or securing possession of any charge on the estate he could object to the sale, not by virtue of his rights of ownership, but by virtue of being an encumbrancer. In that way he could get the bonus, which, had the encumbrance been in the hands of anybody else, he could not have obtained. With every desire that the landlord should get the bonus, he was bound to say he did not think that was a case coming within the spirit of the Act of 1903. Therefore he could not support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO did not think many eases of the kind referred to would arise in Ireland. He quite understood that the object of the Treasury in this Bill was to save every penny they possibly could. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, had stated that he did not wish the Treasury to be mulcted through the payment of bonuses in the cases referred to. But the clause really wiped out the decision of the Courts, and therefore with one stroke of the pen the Treasury were given a pull in the matter. He did not think that the question of the cost to the Treasury was so serious as was imagined, because the cases would not be numerous or frequent. Though the remarks of the noble Viscount were against the contention of the supporters of the Amendment, he thought they had a right to "fight their own corner," seeing that the Treasury were trying to get a pull by doing away with the decision of the Courts in order to escape the payment of the bonus in these cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are two cases we have to consider. A landlord has several mortgages on his estate and the mortgages are more than the value of the whole property. If a case like that arises no bonus is payable because the landlord's consent to the sale of the estate is not required. In the second case the landlord is an acute person in exactly the same position, but he is a wise man and buys up £100 of a mortgage, which may
900
be for £25,000. By acquiring an interest of £100 in the mortgage, for which I suppose he would have to pay pretty heavily, he gets the bonus on the whole value of the property. The noble Earl, Lord Mayo, said that was a thing which would not often happen. It would happen very frequently if once it were pointed out that the results are as I have described.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 31:
34.—(1) As between the Land Commission and the proprietor for the time being of any holding for the purchase of which the Land Commission have, after the passing of this Act, made any advance under the Land Purchase Acts, the following conditions shall be imposed in addition to the conditions mentioned in section fifty-four of the Act of 1903, namely:—

(a) The proprietor shall not without the consent of the Land Commission acquire by purchase any other holding for the purchase of which an advance has been made under the Land Purchase Acts if the amount of that advance then outstanding, when added to the amount of the advance or advances made in respect of the holding or holdings then held by the proprietor, would exceed the sum of five thousand pounds, and if any proprietor acquires any holding in violation of this condition the Land Commission may cause that holding to be sold:

(b) The proprietor shall not, without the consent in writing in the prescribed form of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, cut down or uproot, or permit to be cut down or uprooted, any tree (other than a fruit tree or osier) upon the holding which is necessary for the ornament or shelter of the holding; and if any such tree is cut down or uprooted in violation of this condition, the proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for each tree so cut down or uprooted, unless he satisfies the Court that he received the prescribed consent.

(2) Where, after the passing of this Act, a tenant enters into an agreement for the purchase of his holding under the said Acts, the foregoing condition with respect to the cutting and uprooting of trees shall, as from the date of the agreement, apply to the holding in like manner as if the advance had been made unless and until the application for an advance is refused or withdrawn.
(3) Subsection (2) and subsection (3) of section thirty of the Act of 1881, as amended by any enactment, shall apply to any sale by the Land Commission under this section.
(4) When the whole of the advance made for the purchase of a holding under the Land Purchase Acts has been repaid, the conditions imposed by this section, or by section fifty-four of the Act of 1903, shall cease to have effect as regards the holding or the proprietor thereof.
LORD INCHIQUIN LORD INCHIQUIN moved to leave out paragraph (a). The subsection meant that the proprietor of a holding who had bought his holding was not allowed to buy any other holding for which purchase money had been advanced, either with his own money or with any money he could get, where the value of the two holdings together came to more than £5,000, without the consent of the Land Commission. This paragraph appeared to him to be in many ways a little hard. To begin with, it would limit very largely free-trade in land in Ireland, and there seemed to him to be no earthly reason for doing that. This was a matter which affected the tenants only. At any rate it affected the landlords only in one possible case. The provision was most unfair to all the parties concerned. It was unfair to the vendor because it restricted the market in which he could sell. A great many holdings in Ireland were sold year by year, generally by public auction, but sometimes by private treaty, and they invariably fetched good prices. Those who had witnessed what took place when there was a public auction and holdings came under the hammer knew very well that by far the greater part of the bargaining was done by men who had already purchased their holdings. The result of the Government's proposal would be that when the whole of Ireland had been purchased and a holding had to be resold there would be no buyers left, because men who had already purchased would be debarred from acquiring more land. The provision was also unfair to the man who had already bought his holding, because it would not allow him to improve his holding by adding to it. He might require a piece of grass or meadow land to develop the success of his holding, and if an opportunity occurred for him to buy what he needed it would be very hard were he not allowed to do so. The hardship became all the more apparent when it was remembered that the man would be using his own money and not money that was found by the Government.
The provision would also put a bar on the successful man because it was only the man who had been successful and was in a sound financial position who would be able to buy another holding. The only possible reason he could see for introducing the provision was that it would cheapen and widen the market for the purchase of land by the Congested Districts
902
Board or the Land Commission, because in time they would be the only people who would have an opportunity of buying. It would appear at first sight that the provision might affect the landlord in one way, because it might be thought that if he had bought his demesne he would not be able to buy another holding. He was told that that was not the case, but the landlord might be affected in another way. He would give a case of his own. At the present time he was buying a holding running practically into his own demesne, and supposing he wished to buy another holding on the other side of his estate he would be debarred from doing so if the value of the two exceeded £5,000. There might appear to be one reason for not allowing a man to have two holdings of a total value exceeding £5,000. It might look at first sight as if the man was not security enough for the money. They must remember the simple fact, however, that it was not the man who was the security, but the land. If he held his own holding and bought another holding those two holdings were security each for their own annuity. He might point out further that the clause was useless as it stood, because it was so easy to evade it. Any man could buy land in the name of his wife or one of his sons and in that way evade the whole provision.
The final words of the paragraph were extraordinarily drastic. They said in effect that if a man did offend against this provision the Land Commissioners might cause the second holding he had bought to be sold, apparently even at a loss. He supposed the same old argument would come up again, that the Government were only giving the Commissioners power to interfere and that they would not exercise it. The argument had been used so often taht they mistrusted it and they also mistrusted the Commissioners, because if power were given to them they would always have the temptation to use it. He would much rather that a definite plan was laid down and that the Commissioners should not be given the option of interfering.
Amendment moved—
"In page 16, lines 17 to 27, to leave out paragraph (a)."—(Lord Inchiquin.)
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD said the speech of the noble Lord was an argument in favour a the consolidation

903
of holdings and the reintroduction of the system which this Bill was endeavouring to dissolve. It meant the reintroduction under infinitely worse auspices than those which now prevailed of the old system. If the Legislature thought it right that the landlords of Ireland should now be asked to sell their estates and distribute them amongst the tenants, was it likely that the public opinion of the country would allow the consolidation of those holdings in the hands of men who would use their power infinitely worse than the very worst landlord that any picture of Irish life had depicted? The object of this provision was to prevent the consolidation of holdings again and the reintroduction of a system which the present legislation was devised to put an end to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My noble friend behind me has stated with admirable lucidity the reasons which have actuated His Majesty's Government in inserting this clause in the Bill. It is rather a singular fact if one comes to think of it that although all Purchase Acts have contained some limit as to the amount of advances which may be made for the purchase of land there is nothing whatever to prevent the purchaser of a farm acquiring from other people holdings to an unlimited extent and therefore obtaining in his own person the advantage of this State advance to an amount to which no boundary is set. I entirely agree with my noble friend behind me that of all the mischievous results that could follow the passing of these various Land Purchase Acts that of the aggregation of a number of purchase holdings would be the worst that could possibly be conceived. As my noble friend says, whatever may have been the disadvantages of the system of landlord and tenant in Ireland in the past, they would be accentuated and multiplied by such a state of things. The sole object of this clause is to prevent such an occurrence happening. It must be remembered that as the progress of the Act of 1903 goes on and more land is sold the greater becomes the danger of such an aggregation occurring. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not support the noble Lord, Lord Inchiquin, in his desire to strike out this clause. The noble Lord spoke, as others have spoken, rather slightingly of the discretion given to the Estates Commissioners. I should have thought the kind of case he mentioned in which the landlord desired to buy a farm
904
forming a kind of peninsula into his demesne was one in which the Estates Commissioners would exercise the discretion given in the clause, but so far as general aggregation is concerned they would set their faces against it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I cannot help thinking that the clause causes a real hardship to the parties it will affect. As I understand the effect will be this. A tenant farmer who has bought his own holding is not to be allowed to buy a second holding if the purchase money of the two together exceeds a sum of £5,000. That is to say, a man who has bought a holding of reasonable size for £3,000 and who if another holding conies into the market adjoining his own desires to buy it will be forbidden to do so by this clause supposing the price of the second holding to be anything above £2,000. That seems to me to be a hardship to the man who desires to buy the second holding. Why is the limitation imposed? The Committee should remember that he will make this purchase out of his own private funds. It is his own money which he embarks in this legitimate investment in land.
THE EARL OF CREWE: He may embark his own money, but it must be another transaction.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: He would be prevented from acquiring the second farm even if it were his own money he was going to invest.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Supposing it was a farm bought under any of the Purchase Acts.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Of course, I assume that to be the case. That seems to be a very genuine hardship, and the clause can only be explained by that hostility to large holdings which runs through this and other clauses of the Bill. There is also a very considerable hardship to the seller of the second farm, because this man who has already bought a holding and who is presumably a solvent and thrifty person, is a good customer. But under this clause all buyers of that class are to be shut out, and the number of bidders will be diminished in proportion. The noble Earl tells us the object of the clause is to prevent a process of consolidation under which the old landlord

905
system would reappear in Ireland. I must say I think that is a rather far-fetched apprehension. I cannot believe, after all that has happened in Ireland to say nothing of what has happened elsewhere, that there is any risk whatever of latifundia appearing again in that country. That appears to be a very remote danger, and in order to guard against it it seems hardly necessary to place this disability on men who have bought their own holdings and have thriven so well that they have money available for adding to the land they occupy.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN could quite understand that His Majesty's Government were anxious to prevent the aggregation of land in large quantities occurring again in Ireland. That might be a very laudable ambition but it was absolutely impossible to carry it out. Men certainly in course of time would tend to accumulate more land than they had already bought, and this clause would not prevent that accumulation. There was nothing to prevent a man so long as he was not a farmer buying up any quantity of these holdings. The village usurer or anybody else could buy any quantity of land. All this clause did was to say that a man who had been successful in his business of agriculture was not to be able to increase his holding. That was very illogical.
LORD CASTLETOWN*LORD CASTLETOWN said the idea of the clause was very good. He agreed with what was said by the noble Earl the Leader of the House and by Lord MacDonnell as to the necessity of pre-
906
venting the aggregation of holdings. He had a good idea of his fellow countrymen, however, and he felt perfectly certain that whether their Lordships passed the clause or not they would make arrangements to buy up holdings whether those holdings were held from the Land Commission or not. Arrangements would be made through wives, sons, or cousins by means of which they would carry out a system of aggregation as they chose, quite independent of whether this clause was in existence or not.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE wished to put one question. In case a man purchased a second farm and the Commissioners intervened and sold that farm, what was to become of the purchase money? He did not see any provision in the clause dealing with that point. It seemed to him that the man should at least be given back the money he had paid in hard cash for the farm. He did not suppose that the Commissioners intended to pocket the money.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I will look into that point. Of course, it is intended that the man should be paid for the farm.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.