Sitting of 26 October 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Cardiff Corporation Bill,—Lords Amendments, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 2nd August, considered, and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Indian Native Police (United Provinces).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces had recently expressed his satisfaction with the excellent work done by the police of that province in detecting and bringing to justice gang robbers; whether the villagers of the Bara Banki district had expressed their gratitude to the Lieutenant-Governor at being delivered by the police from the terrorism exercised by such gang robbers; whether the local Government expressed its grateful acknowledgment to the retiring inspector-general of police for raising the standard of police work in accordance with the demands of public opinion; whether the rank and file of the police of the United Provinces and all but a few supervising officers are Natives of India; and, if so, whether, in view of the attacks made upon the Indian police, he would consider the propriety of giving wide publicity to the review of police work in the United Provinces in 1908 by the Lieutenant-Governor?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): A Resolution dealing with the points raised in the first three questions has been published in the "United Provinces Gazette," and the hon. Member has no doubt seen it. Wide publicity has been given to it by notices in the press, both in this country and in India, and the Secretary of State does not consider that any further action on his part is called for.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he had any official knowledge that the Executive Government of the Punjab had pub-
  824
  lished an opinion totally disagreeing with the judgments of Mr. Justice Robertson and Mr. Justice Rattigan with regard to the conduct of the police in the Gulam Bano case; if so, whether he would state what inquiry, if any, was held by the Government, who conducted it, and who was examined; whether the opinion of the Government was submitted at any time before publication to the judges for their comments; and whether the judges had made any observations on it?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Government of the Punjab have published a Resolution stating at length their reasons for holding the police free from blame in respect of the points on which the Chief Court suggested that an inquiry was desirable. The local Government arrived at this conclusion as the result of a consideration of the woman's own statements, and of all the other evidence available. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, the observations of the judges on the Resolution have neither been asked for nor offered.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: May I ask if the judges will not be communicated with, and their feelings taken into consideration?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: We have no reason to suppose that the judges are dissatisfied with the course which has been taken by the Indian Government.
  Mr. REES: Were the police under trial?
  Sir HENRY COTTON: May I ask if the Government had exactly the same evidence before it as the Court, or had it any additional evidence?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: Precisely the same.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Who conducted the inquiry, and were the witnesses cross-examined?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Executive Government conducted the inquiry.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Were the police witnesses cross-examined?
  Mr. REES: Did not the Executive Government agree with the judge who had the witnesses before him, and so was able to observe their conduct under examination?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: That is quite correct.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of the Punjab, in disagreeing with the judgment of the Chief Court of that pro-

  825
  vince regarding the conduct of the police in the Ghulam Bano case, did not agree with the Sessions Judge and the two native assessors, who had the advantage, which was denied to the Chief Court, of seeing the witnesses and observing their demeanour under examination; and, if the answer be in the affirmative, whether there was any reason why the opinion of the Punjab Government should be referred to the judges of the Chief Court for comment or observation?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: As I have stated before, the Chief Court in their judgment did not find that the allegations of torture against the police were proved, but that, on the evidence before them, there was a case for inquiry. The local Government accepted this view, and, after holding an inquiry, arrived at the same conclusion as to the facts as did the Sessions Judge and the Assessors. As I stated just now, there is no question, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, of asking for the comments of the judges on the opinion of the local Government.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Have the judges of the Appeal Court expressed any opinion on the action of the Executive Government since the publication of this report?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: No, Sir; I did not expect that they would.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: Did the Government overrule the decision of the judges?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: No, Sir.
  Mr. REES: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether there is any reason to suppose that the native Indian assessors had any prejudice against the native Indian police?
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Is not this action of the Executive a dangerous innovation, and destructive to the independence of the law courts?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: No, Sir; it is quite the custom in India for the Executive Government to hold an inquiry of the sort if they consider it desirable.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any answer to the question I have put to him twice—whether the police witnessess were cross-examined at this secret inquiry?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I am not able to answer that. The Punjab Government has held an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances, and my hon. Friend can be perfectly assured that they acted with justice and fairness.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, at the inquiry held by Mr. Commissioner Macpherson into the conduct of the police in consequence of the strictures passed upon their conduct by the High Court of Calcutta in the Midnapur conspiracy case, the public have been admitted and the witnesses have all been offered for cross-examination; and whether he was yet in a position to inform the House as to the conclusions come to by Mr. Macpherson?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has not yet received either Mr. Macpherson's report of the results of his inquiry, or the detailed information as to the conduct of the inquiry which he would require in order to answer the first question.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is it a fact that the superintendent, deputy-superintendent and chief constable have been most seriously implicated by this inquiry, and have been given long leave of absence?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I think that does not arise on the question.

  Opium Consumption (Eastern Bengal and Assam).
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the quantity of opium consumed in the Assam districts of the province of Eastern Bengal and Assam rose from 1,299 maunds in 1904–5 to 1,417 maunds in 1906–7, or an increase of about 9 per cent. in three years; whether the revenue derived by the Government from the sale of opium in these districts in 1906–7 represented 62 per cent. of the total Excise revenue; whether he can give the corresponding figures (consumption and revenue) for the years 1907–8 and 1908–9; and whether he can state what steps the Government intended taking for the protection of the people of these districts from the spread of the opium habit?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State is aware that the consumption of opium in the Assam Valley districts has increased of recent years. The figures in maunds are: 1,825 in 1904–5, 1,330 in 1905–6, 1,431 in 1906–7, 1,560 in 1907–8. Later figures are not available. In 1906–7 71 per cent. of the gross Excise revenue in these districts was derived from opium, and in 1907–8 70 per cent. With a view to restrict consumption the number of shops has been reduced from 690 in 1904–5 to 445 in 1908–9, and the price of opium has been raised from 1st April, 1909.
  Sir H. COTTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the preceding six years, when I had the honour of administering the Province, there was practically no increase in consumption at all?

  Seditious Practices (India).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether His Highness the Maharaja of Jeipur and His Highness the Rajah of Dewas have recently published a proclamation against the possession of seditious newspapers, and against any seditious practices directed against the Government of India, within their States?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has seen newspaper reports of pronouncements on the subject of sedition which are said to have been made by the two Chiefs whom my hon. Friend mentions. He expects to receive in due course official copies. When they come, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  Deportations in India.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked whether, in view of the intention of the Government of India to deport agitators from their homes without charge or trial, he will say if advocates of the policy of Tariff Reform in India, known as Swadeshi, are considered by the Government to be agitators; and whether he will recommend the Government to issue some authoritative definition of the offence of agitation so that British subjects in India might protect themselves against the risk of deportation and imprisonment for an unlimited period?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I am not aware what the hon. Member means by intention, nor what knowledge he has of the frame of mind of the Government of India. As was stated in reply to a question on the 25th March, no British subject in India runs any risk of the nature indicated unless his conduct is such to satisfy the Governor-General in Council that it is necessary to detain him in order to secure the British Dominions from internal commotion. The Secretary of State is not prepared either himself to make, or to order the Government of India to make, any further statement by way of definition.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he adheres to the declaration made by himself on the 5th of August in this House that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to remove from their sphere of operations all agitators?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I did not say that I said it was the intention of this country to maintain order and if it was necessary that agitators would have to be dealt with according to law.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether the pundits of the India Office or of any other place endorse the translation of Swadeshi as Tariff Reform?
  Mr. A. LUPTON: Is it not a fact that the chief charge against these men deported was that they were in favour of what is called Tariff Reform?
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary whether he was aware that in the libel case of Rai v. the Daily Express, Ltd., tried in the Law Courts on 21st October, the fact that the Secretary of State for India had deported Mr. Lajpat Rai was used by the judge in summing up to the jury as a ground for mitigating the damages for the charges of sedition made against the plaintiff and not justified by the defendants; and whether, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State and the Government of India had declined to inform Mr. Lajpat Rai of the reasons for his deportation, so that it was impossible for him to meet the implication of guilt brought against him, the Secretary of State would make some amends to Mr. Lajpat Rai for the injustice done him by deportation without charge or trial?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has seen in the newspapers a report of the proceedings in the libel case referred to. He finds no reason for taking any such action as is suggested in the question.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: May I ask if there is to be any reparation on the part of the Government to those who have been so evily treated by the Government?
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the judge in summing up the case to the jury said that this gentleman was deported by the orders of Lord Morley, and that Lord Morley could be trusted, and does not that fact show that Lajpat Rai should have an opportunity of knowing why he was deported?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have repeatedly called attention to the policy of the Government in this matter, namely, that, rightly or wrongly, it has been decided not to inform him of the grounds of the deportation.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is it the intention of the Government of India, when the fact of a man's deportation comes to be used against him in the Law Courts, not to make the cause of the deportation known to him?

  Legislative Councils (India).
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked when the rules and regulations regarding the conduct of the legislative councils under the India Councils Act, 1909, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State hopes that the regulations will be made and published in India at an early date. As soon as may be after such publication they will, as provided by Section 7 of the Act, be laid before Parliament for information.

  Mauritius and Federated Malay States (Indentured Labourers).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Under-Secretary whether his attention had been called to the high death rate amongst the indentured labourers of Mauritius and the Federated Malay States; and whether it is intended to lay the whole subject before the Royal Commission now sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Sanderson?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. Lord Sanderson's Committee is considering the subject in all its bearings.
  Sir HENRY COTTONasked the Under-Secretary if he could state the rate per thousand of mortality among Indian indentured labourers in Ceylon, Mauritius, the Straits Settlements, the Federated Malay States, British Guiana, Jamaica, the Fiji Islands, and Natal during the year 1908; and whether the attention of the Commission inquiring into the conditions of Indian indentured labour in the Colonies has been drawn to this question, with special reference to the death rate in the Federated Malay States and other places?
  Colonel SEELY: There are no indentured labourers in Ceylon. As to Mauritius, where the death rate on estates (presumably including indentured immigrants) is said to be 37.6 per 1,000, and the Straits Settlements special inquiry will be made, as I promised in my reply to a question relating to the Federated Malay States on the 4th of October. The rate of mortality of indentured labourers in the
  830
  other colonies mentioned appears to be as follows:—

  British Guiana

  19.5 per 1,000.

  Jamaica

  16.4 per 1,000.

  Fiji

  20.5 per 1,000.

  Natal

  16.82 per 1,000.

  The question of the death rate amongst the indentured population in each colony forms an essential element in the deliberations of the Committee which is at present inquiring into Coolie immigration, and it is receiving the careful attention of the Committee in each case.
  Sir H. COTTON: Am I to understand that this inquiry will include the condition of affairs in the Federated Malay States?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes. The fact that the Federated Malay States cannot be described as a Colony would make no difference. Very careful consideration is being given to the whole matter by Lord Sanderson.
  Lord BALCARRES: Is the Committee going to make any inquiry upon the spot, or are they making all their inquiries in London?
  Colonel SEELY: So far it is not the intention to make inquiries on the spot. There will be inquiries from various parts of the world. I think it would not be advisable to send them abroad, because it would so delay their report.

  Senor Ferrer's Execution.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received any report from the British Ambassador at Madrid in relation to the trial by court-martial and subsequent execution of Señor Ferrer?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I have received a report of the public trial from the Consul-General at Barcelona.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity to see that report?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir; it is quite unusual to publish a report about the internal affairs of other countries.

  Steamship "Barotse" (Lascar Coal Trimmer's Disappearance).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the supposed suicide at sea on 27th July, 1909, of an Asiatic coal trimmer named Nanoo Ebraim, whilst serving on the steamer

  831
  "Barotse," of North Shields; whether any inquiry has been held into the matter; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had had any previous sea service; what was the temperature of the engine room; whether he was on duty at the time; how many tons of coal the engine room hands were required to work each 24 hours; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): The Lascar coal trimmer referred to in the question disappeared from the "Barotse" four days after leaving Port Said on the voyage from Bombay to Algiers. Inquiry was held into the occurrence by the Consul-General at Antwerp and the Acting Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Poplar. It is usual for native crews to be medically examined before joining at Bombay, but no specific information has been received in this case. The man had been on board the "Barotse" twenty-four days, and had had previous sea service. He was on duty at the time of the occurrence. The temperature of the engine room was 113 degrees, of the stokehold 116, and of the bunkers 90. The coal consumption was 36 tons per day, and the number of firemen and trimmers was 16. No other case of suicide, supposed suicide or disappearance has occurred in this vessel during the last three years.
  Sir H. COTTON: May I ask whether the Government, in view of the excessive number of suicides amongst Lascar seamen, especially firemen, will institute an inquiry by officials or others as to the cause?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is another question on the Paper which, I think, touches that point.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that 113 degrees in the engine room and 116 in the stoke hole are really too high?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot say. My opinion on the subject is not of very great value, but if the question is put down I will give the House and the hon. Member the best information I can get.
  Mr. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that actually a higher temperature than that mentioned is experienced on deck in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea?

  Failure to Join British Foreign-Going Ships.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could state the number of seamen who failed to join British foreign-going ships in the United Kingdom, and the number of continuous discharge books suspended during the quarters ended 30th September, 1908, and 30th September, 1909, respectively, distinguishing the port of failure to join?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of seamen who failed to join British foreign-going ships in the United Kingdom during the quarter ended 30th September last was 2,426, as compared with 2,969 in the corresponding quarter of 1908. The number of continuous discharge books suspended under Section 65, Sub-section 2, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, was 244 in the quarter ended 30th September last, and 59 in the corresponding quarter of 1908. The hon. Member will observe that the failures to join show the satisfactory decrease of 543 in the quarter since a year ago, a decrease of 18 per cent.

  Railway Coupling Accidents.
  Mr. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that the number of accidents that occurred during 1908 in connection with the coupling and uncoupling of vehicles, considered as a percentage of the number of vehicles in use, is nearly twelve times more numerous in the case of carriages with tight couplings that in the case of wagons with slack couplings; and that, considering the comparatively few coupling operations which take place with carriages as compared with wagons, the actual number of accidents per coupling operation occurring with tight couplings on carriages is very much in excess of those taking place with the slack coupling on wagons; and whether, in view of the risk involved in the present method of tight-coupling carriages, he will take steps to have a suitable automatic coupler investigated, with a view to its being adopted on British coaching stock?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that coupling accidents are comparatively more numerous in the case of screw coupled stock than in that of stock fitted with loose couplings, but the total number is not great, and not one of the four fatal accidents in 1908 would have occurred if the men engaged in coupling had refrained from going between the vehicles before they had come to rest. The 249

  833
  non-fatal accidents in connection with screw-coupled vehicles were mostly of a trivial nature. Apart from the question of the expense of fitting all passenger carriages and other vehicles running with passenger trains with automatic couplings there are other difficulties attendant on their introduction, and I am informed that it is hardly likely that the number of accidents of a serious character would be materially reduced by their adoption. In these circumstances, I do not think an investigation such as my hon. Friend suggests would lead to any practical result.

  Automatic Couplings.
  Mr. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been drawn to an apparatus for the automatic coupling of railway vehicles known as the Jepson A.B.C. coupler, an English invention, manufactured in this country; whether he was aware that this coupler had been successfully tried for some years on the Eastern Bengal and other Indian railways and on the Sudan Government railways, and that it has been adopted as the standard coupler on the Cyprus Railway, the British Honduras Railway, and the Great Northern Central Railway of Colombia; and whether he would take steps to have the suitability of this coupler investigated, with a view to its adoption on English railways?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade are fully acquainted with this coupling, and I am aware that it has been tried on more than one railway outside the United Kingdom. As regards the investigation of automatic couplings, I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer to his previous question.

  Asiatic Seamen (Mercantile Marine).
  Mr. REESasked the right hon. Gentleman if his professional advisers find difficulty in deciding whether Asiatic seamen can better bear the heat of the stoke-hole in tropical waters than European sailors can; and whether he has any official information showing that if Asiatics were not available for this purpose the trade of our Eastern mercantile marine would suffer?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not possible to lay down any general rule as to the relative capacity of Asiatics and Europeans to withstand the heat of the stoke-hole in the tropics; but there is no doubt that very serious inconvenience would be caused to vessels in the Eastern trade if no Asiatic
  834
  firemen were available. The whole subject to which my hon. Friend refers is engaging the attention of the Board of Trade and statistics are being prepared with a view to publication at an early date.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all European sailors and firemen are anxious to do work in tropical or other waters in the Red Sea or in the Persian Gulf, and is my hon. Friend aware that there are places in England where if he put his nose in, it would melt like butter before the sun?

  Steamship "Trowbridge" (Report).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet in a position to report as to the steamship "Trowbridge," which left Port Said on 19th September for Barrow with seven sick men on board, the medical officer of Bombay permitting her to do so after examination?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The "Trowbridge" was allowed to leave Bombay after the health officer at the Port had certified that she was in a satisfactory sanitary condition and that no case of infectious disease existed amongst her crew. The master and a fireman had previously gone into hospital, but it does not appear that any of the men who fell sick on the voyage to Aden had reported themselves ill or unfit for duty before leaving Bombay. The health officer has, however, been asked to report on the case. I cannot say whether the illness on board the "Trowbridge" was caused by the water taken in at Karachi. The tanks were filled up at that port with water supplied by Dinshaw, and they were again filled up by the Bombay Port Trust. It is not stated in the report of the Medical Officer at Aden that the illness was caused by the water or that the water was tested. The tanks were favourably reported upon. The vessel had been trading on the coasts of South America, East and West Africa, and other malarious regions, and it may be that many of the crew were weakened by previous attacks, or had the germs of the disease within them. Six of the crew had previously been sent into hospital at Calcutta. The Board of Trade are, however, in communication with the Shipping Master at Karachi as to the arrangements for procuring water at that port.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply the information in regard to further inquiries if he gets it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down another question at some future date.

  Bankers' Business (Disclosures in the Law Courts).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of recent disclosures in the Law Courts, he will consider the desirableness of introducing legislation requiring all persons and corporations carrying on the business of bankers to first make a substantial deposit with the Board of Trade, as in the case of insurance companies?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The considerations affecting banks, and those affecting insurance companies appear to me to be different in important respects, and I do not propose as at present advised to introduce legislation as suggested by my hon. Friend requiring all persons and corporations carrying on the business of bankers to first make a deposit with the Board of Trade.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time in the winding up department of the Board of Trade over which he presides there are two so-called banks which are being wound up one of which never had a penny piece in its coffers against the cheque books which it issued wholesale, and the other advertised itself upon its overdraft.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of those cases.

  Tariff on Imported Chocolates.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the protective character of the present tariff on imported chocolates; and whether, having regard to the evils of low wages and long hours which are said to be the result of a protective policy, he will institute an inquiry into the condition of labour of the British chocolate industry, with the object of obtaining official evidence as to the effect of Protection on industry?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The fact that the Cocoa Duties were protective in character was admitted by the present Prime Minister in his Budget statement on 18th April, 1907. I have not seen it maintained that the evils to which the Noble Lord alludes are necessarily found in every industry which can be shown to benefit by a protective scale of duties, and I do not propose to institute the inquiry he suggests.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what revenue is derived from this source of taxation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I can, with the greatest accuracy, if the usual notice is given.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Is it not a fact that the cocoa manufacturers themselves say that this is not a protective duty, and only places them on an equality with their foreign competitors?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have answered the question on the Paper, and I have given very frankly the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Cadbury have boasted for years that their workpeople work under the very best conditions of labour?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have heard that frequently asserted, and I believe it is perfectly true.

  Alderman Wells (Manchester).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the case of Alderman Wells, of Manchester, who, being largely indebted to his trade creditors, has been found to be a lunatic; whether the whole of Wells' assets, amounting to £1,800, are now in the possession of the Masters in Lunacy, who have informed his creditors that the assets will be used for the support of Wells until exhausted, and that the creditors will get nothing unless he dies before they are so exhausted; and whether Mrs. Wells, who is reported to possess considerable private means, is being called on to contribute towards her husband's support?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): In the case referred to in this question the Master in Lunacy has followed the long-established practice, founded on legal decisions, of devoting the property of the lunatic, which is not so large as the sum mentioned in the question, in the first instance to the lunatic's maintenance, no doubt to the disadvantage of the creditors. I have inquired as to the suggestion that Mrs. Wells has property, but I find that to be a mistake. She has no means whatever.

  Educational Endowment Schemes.
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view

  837
  of the fact that in connection with the formulation of new educational endowment schemes Sir Robert Finlay is retained by the National Society, he will say if Sir Robert Finlay is consulted by the Board of Education before any draft scheme is issued to the public; and, if so, whether this course was adopted in the case of the proposed new schemes for Gisburn and Giggleswick, situated in the West Riding?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The Board have no means of knowing whether Sir Robert Finlay is or is not retained by the National Society in the connection suggested or in any other connection. The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any suggestions from the West Riding education authority and others with regard to the proposed new scheme for the Halstead and Stanley Foundations, at Gisburn, to the effect that the present vicar and owner of Gisburn Park be trustees for life, but that the future vicars of Gisburn and the owners of Gisburn Park shall not be ex officio trustees of the foundation, and that upon the death or prior resignation of the present vicar an additional representative trustee be appointed by the West Riding County Council and upon the death or prior resignation of the present owner of Gisburn Park an additional representative trustee be appointed by the Gisburn parish council; if so, whether he can see his way to embody these suggestions in the new scheme; and, if not, will he say why he cannot do so?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. It is impossible to compress within the limits of an oral reply to a question the considerations, legal and historical, upon which the Board's decision is based. These considerations have been communicated at length by letter to the local education authority and to my hon. Friend himself. I have nothing to add to the information thus conveyed.
  Mr. CLOUGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether for the future, in drafting new schemes for educational endowments he will adopt the principle of committing these trusts to some
  838
  public body like the parish, district or county council, instead of perpetuating as ex officio trustees the State clerics and their confederates the largest local landowners?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give an answer to a general question of that nature in respect of every trust which comes within the province of the Board of Education.

  St. George's School, Shrewsbury.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education how many years' service were rendered as a certificated head teacher by Mr. John Bill; at what age his retirement from St. George's School, Shrewsbury, took place; and what is the total amount of the superannuation allowance and annuity which he receives?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Teachers superannuation allowances and annuities are awarded under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, and the rules and tables made thereunder. Complete information as to the Act, the Rules, and the Tables can be obtained from an official publication of the Board, copies of which are to be found in the library of the House. Copies can also, of course, be purchased in the usual way. As full information is given therein, and as many examples of the effect of the Act in practice have been given by way of answer to questions, it does not appear to be desirable to occupy the time of the House with statements of the details of the superannuation allowances and annuities of every individual teacher.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it not a fact that teachers who joined the service on the understanding that pensions, as drawn up in the code of 1846, would be adhered to, have suffered very much in consequence of the altered and revised code of 1862, and can nothing be done to remedy that injustice?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would like to have notice of that question.

  Medical Inspection of Children (Hertfordshire).
  Mr. LUPTONasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that, acting under the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, Dr. Mark Sharman, school medical officer of the Hertfordshire County Council, examined a boy named William Bradley at the Rickmansworth School, and then sent a note, dated 29th September, 1909, to Mrs. Bradley,

  839
  stating that the boy was unvaccinated, and adding that it was most important that it should be done; if it is in accordance with the rules of the Board of Education that the medical examination of children is to be used for the advocacy of cow-poxing; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My information on this case is confined to that which my hon. Friend has supplied to me privately. The Board have made no rules to the effect suggested. From the first annual report of the school medical officer on the medical inspection of elementary school children in Hertfordshire the Board learned that, on the cards recording the findings of medical inspection, notes as to the date and extent of vaccination were made. They, therefore, advised the local education authority that "care must be exercised…so that the work of medical inspection may not be prejudiced in the minds of parents who have a conscientious objection to vaccination," and that "the inquiry should not be used as the basis of action under the Vaccination Acts." On 28th September the Board received a letter from the local education authority containing the following statement: "The county council have never contemplated nor do they contemplate that particulars obtained at the medical inspection should be used as the basis of action under the Vaccination Acts." Dr. Sharman, who is not the school medical officer of the county, but one of 16 assistants, appears to have written his note on the following day. I think it may safely be assumed that instructions in accordance with the authority's letter will have been issued subsequently.
  Mr. LUPTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly pursue the matter and see those instructions are acted upon?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that, having received this letter from the local education committee, they will act on them.

  Admiralty Contractors, Ipswich (Fair Wages Clause)
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the firm of Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier, Ipswich, are contractors to the Admiralty; if so, whether he is aware that the rivetters and platers in their employ are paid 22s. per week, the district rate being 32s. per week; and whether be will take action to have the Fair Wage Clause complied with?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. McKenna): I am in correspondence with this firm upon the subject, and would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would kindly renew his question.

  Soldiers' and Sailors' Subsistence Money.
  Mr. A. C. MORTONasked whether a sailor when on leave gets 8½d. per day subsistence money; whether a soldier gets 1s. 0½d. per day subsistence money; and, if so, why does the British sailor get less than the soldier?
  Mr. McKENNA: Seamen and marines receive a leave allowance of 8½d. a day. I understand that it is not the case that a soldier receives a subsistence allowance of 1s. 0½d. a day; he receives messing allowance of 3d. a day, and an allowance in lieu of rations, 6d. a day.

  Flogging at Ashton-under-Lyne Workhouse.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed at a meeting of the Ashton-under-Lyne Trades and Labour Council, on 15th September last, protesting against excessive flogging at the Ashton-under-Lyne workhouse; whether he is aware that it is alleged that one boy was flogged on the bare back, in the presence of two doctors, with the result that the boy's back was badly cut and bruised; whether he has yet caused inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this or other recent cases of alleged flogging at Ashton-under-Lyne workhouse; and, if so, whether he can state the result of such inquiry?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): I received a copy of the resolution referred to, and I communicated with the guardians on the subject. I found that complaint had been made to the workhouse committee as to the punishment inflicted on two boys, one of whom received six and the other four strokes from a birch rod for absconding from the workhouse. The committee were unable to see the boy referred to in the question, as he had left the union; but they examined the other boy, and failed to find any evidence of severe punishment. It had been given in the presence of the master and of the medical officer. The matter was not brought to my notice until 14th September last, although it occurred on 24th July. In all the circumstances, it did not appear to me that advantage was likely to arise from

  841
  any attempt further to investigate the matter.
  Mr. J. WARD: Are we to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that guardians can indiscriminately flog boys under their control?
  Mr. BURNS: Guardians cannot indiscriminately punish boys under their control, but they stand in almost parental relationship to some of these children. There are some children who, in the judgment of the guardians, want correcting. I know I did when I was a boy.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to see such things do not take place in the future?
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think the same remark applies now as when he was a young boy?
  Mr. BURNS: I certainly think it applies to the hon. Member.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: May I ask whether the Local Government Board is going to encourage or discourage the cutting and bruising of boys as stated in the printed question, simply because they leave the workhouse?
  Mr. BURNS: The general statement made by the hon. Member does not in any sense apply to the statement in the question or to my reply to it.

  Old Age Pensions (Case of Edwin Roberts, Manchester).
  Mr. JAMES PARKERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Edwin Roberts, aged 75 years, of Newton Heath, Manchester, whose claim for an old age pension has been disallowed on the ground that he had received Poor Law relief in February 1908; whether he is aware that the applicant, learning that a son who had been partly maintaining him intended to go to Canada, went, on the instruction of his friends, to the relieving officer for advice as to what he should do; that the officer took down particulars of the case, told Roberts to call again, and gave him 2s.; and that, when Roberts went again, the officer told him that he would be unable to do anything until the son had landed in Canada, and gave him another 2s.; and whether, in view of the fact that this is the only relief that Roberts has had, and that he simply went to the relieving officer for advice, he will have the application reconsidered?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of this case. As the claimant, in fact, received poor relief since 1st January, 1908, he was disqualified under the Act, and, in the circumstances, I have no power to award him an old age pension.

  Unemployed Workmen Act.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what applications he has received this year for sanction to set up distress committees, and which applications were granted?
  Mr. BURNS: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the number of applications received since last season for the establishment of a distress committee. The answer is, One. This was a renewal last July of a previous application from Leigh in Lancashire. The statistics supplied in this case did not, in my opinion, warrant the establishment of a distress committee at that time.
  Mr. HENDERSONalso asked how many distress committees under the Unemployed Workmen Act have submitted schemes for providing work during the coming winter, and how many have been sanctioned, and the estimated cost.
  Mr. BURNS: Eight distress committees are in communication with the Local Government Board in reference to schemes of work to be carried out in the coming winter. In one case (West Ham) I have authorised the appropriation of an unexpended balance of £1,173 from last year's grant towards the work. Estimates of the cost have not yet been supplied in all cases, but, so far as they have been received, they amount to about £21,000. The Central (Unemployed) Body have submitted estimates for works amounting to £12,775, and grants to the extent of £7,670 have already been made. This is exclusive of expenditure upon the Hollesley Bay colony and on women's workrooms.
  Mr. RICHARDS: May I ask whether Wolverhampton has made application? Is it one of the eight?
  Mr. BURNS: Not to my knowledge.
  Mr. A. HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Order issued last autumn relaxing certain of the regulations for administering the Unemployed Workmen Act will continue in operation during the coming winter?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Yes, Sir; the answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. A. HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister, in view of the amount of unemployment, and especially having regard to the prolonged period during which many people have suffered in consequence, whether he will state what steps the Government propose to take for meeting the difficulty during the coming winter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have passed through Parliament the Bill for the Labour Exchanges Act and are engaged in bringing it into operation. Further, the Unemployed Workmen Act has been included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill with a view to its being continued in force for another year, and the Government have obtained from Parliament a Vote of £200,000 towards the expenses incurred by the local bodies under it in providing useful work. The Local Government Board are ready to consider any suitable schemes of work proposed by these bodies where there is, or is likely to be, exceptional distress. They have been in communication with some of them, and in particular with the Central (Unemployed) Body for London, to whom some payments have already been made. The Government will carefully watch the course of events in regard to all these matters.
  Mr. J. WARD: Are we to understand therefore that the whole of the grant this year and the operations under this Act will be reduced by £100,000 from £300,000 last year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; the present proposal is £200,000; but, as the hon. Member will remember, I said the Government will carefully watch the course of events.
  Mr. W. THORNE: In the event of the £200,000 being used up, will there be a chance of making a supplementary grant?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I have said so. We shall carefully watch the course of events.

  Small Holdings, Yorkshire (North Riding).
  Earl of RONALDSHAYasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what percentage of the holdings in the North Riding of Yorkshire are under 50 acres?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): The proportion of agricultural holdings over one acre and not exceeding 50 acres in the North Riding as returned to the Board this year was 60.9 per cent.
  Earl of RONALDSHAYasked how long the special Commissioner, appointed under the Small Holdings Act, 1907, has been in the North Riding of Yorkshire; whether the county council has been entirely superseded by him as far as its functions under the said Act are concerned; and how many small holdings have been created by him since his appointment?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Special Commissioner commenced his inquiries on 6th August last, his duty being to ascertain, in conformity with Section 3 (1) of the Act, the extent to which there is a demand for small holdings in the county and the extent to which it is reasonably practical to satisfy the demand. The council have not been in any way superseded by him. He is not empowered to create small holdings.

  Offensive Telegrams (Post Office Regulations).
  Earl of RONALDSHAYasked the Postmaster-General if he has power to prohibit the acceptance for transference of telegrams, such as those made public in Trafalgar-square on the 17th instant, containing offensive reference to the Sovereign of a friendly Power; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take to prevent the transference of such telegrams in future?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I have not seen a report of the contents of the telegrams to which reference is made. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that the question of the acceptance or refusal of a particular telegram is a very difficult and delicate one, and one which has to be decided by a subordinate officer on the spur of the moment. By regulation under the Telegraph Acts it is provided that "No telegram shall be transmitted or tendered for transmission which contains anything obscene or libellous or of a grossly offensive character." This regulation is usually interpreted to apply in the main to telegrams sent by one individual to another individual as such, and even then discrimination is not easy.

  Mail Cart Drivers of Belfast (Hours of Work).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that since he informed the House on 20th July that the mail cart drivers of Belfast worked about 60 hours per week for 21s. 6d., no alteration has taken place in the wages or hours of labour as then com-

  845
  plained of, and that men are still working 73, 80, and 93 hours; whether he is also aware that the men affected were requested on Saturday last to sign a form agreeing to the hours appointed for the carrying out of the various works, and expressing satisfaction with the hours allotted to each duty; and will he say whether this request had his sanction, or was it made under the cognisance of the Belfast postal authorities or on the personal responsibility of the contractors; and, if not, can he say by whom; and what action does he intend to take in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: I made inquiries into this matter. It appears that there is a difference of opinion as to the method of computing the hours of work; and I am not yet in a position, without further inquiry, to decide what alterations are necessary. I am informing the contractor, however, that I am not satisfied with the hours of work of certain of his men; and I will expedite the conclusion as far as possible. As regards the latter part of the question, the arrangement to which my hon. Friend refers was not adopted at the request or with the cognisance, of any officer of my Department. I need hardly say that any statement of the kind submitted by a mail cart contractor, and obtained in the way described would not influence my decision in regard to the proper hours of employment of mail cart drivers.

  Board of Agriculture (Parliamentary Secretaryship).
  Mr. G. COURTHOPEasked the Prime Minister when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will be appointed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot make any statement at present. There will be no unnecessary delay.

  Outer Hebrides (Congestion).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Lord Advocate what amount of money has been spent by the Congested Districts Board and the Crofter Commission in the Outer Hebrides and Skye during the last four or five years; and whether the people selected to be settled on the land have succeeded in making a living and paying their rent, and how much money has been lost in the experiments?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The Crofter Commission have no funds at their disposal for expenditure, as sug-
  846
  gested by the hon. Member. The annual Report of the Congested Districts Board shows the total expenditure of that Board on land schemes and otherwise up to 31st March, 1908, with accounts of receipts and payments of the Board since its foundation, to which I beg to refer the hon. Member, and from which he can draw his own conclusions.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask if the Lord Advocate can tell us how much has been lost by the experiment?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir.

  Vatersay Island (Tenant's Grievances).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that Mr Donald Macdonald, after having occupied a farm in Vatersay Island for more than 20 years, has been deprived of his only water supply and of the best pasturage for his cattle by outside raiders from Barra and Mingulay, although he paid a full rent, he can have a definite assurance from the Government that if he takes a farm offered to him in South Uist he will be protected by the Government from similar treatment in the future?
  Mr. URE: I would venture to refer the hon. Gentleman to the papers already laid before Parliament for a full statement of the facts which he has endeavoured to summarise here. The answer to the question which he puts is in the negative.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: Can the Lord Advocate vouch for the figures?
  Mr. HUNT: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
  Mr. URE: I have answered that in the negative.
  Mr. HUNT: Will you give a guarantee?

  Game Licence Penalties.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are usually taken by the Treasury to recover the cost of game and other licences from persons who admit their liability, but have neglected to take them out at the proper time; if a fine is, in certain circumstances, charged in addition; and for how many years past can the duty be recovered?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The Treasury does not intervene in this matter. The authorities charged with the administration and collection of these licence

  847
  duties are in England and Wales the county councils, and in Scotland and Ireland the Board of Customs and Excise. Persons who neglect to take out licences at the proper time incur penalties, and may be proceeded against for recovery of the same, where sufficient evidence is available. It is, however, open to the authorities at their discretion to give to a person who has omitted to discharge his liability at the proper time the option of paying any arrears that may be due with or without the addition of a fine as an alternative to proceedings in court for recovery of the prescribed penalty. The time within which legal proceedings in a Court of Summary jurisdiction can be taken is six months from the date of offence.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the authorities to the case quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer affecting himself?

FINANCE BILL.

  DUTY ON IMPORTED TOBACCO.
  Mr. E. H. CARLILE (for Viscount Castlereagh)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Customs authorities, while collecting the duty on imported tobacco at the higher rate contained in the Budget proposals, refuse to allow the extra tax of 8d. per pound of drawback on stalks and unworkable materials on the ground that it is not due until the Finance Bill has become law?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The facts are as stated.
  Mr. CARLILE: Was the new charge for the duty and the drawback too?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Both the drawback and the payment are governed by the resolution of the House of Commons.
  Mr. CARLILE: Why is not the drawback mentioned?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Because we preferred to follow precedent.

  LEGACY DUTY.
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue is charging Legacy Duty at the increased scale imposed by the Finance Bill to persons other than a widow or lineal descendant, while the Legacy Duty imposed by the Finance Bill on certain
  848
  legacies to a widow or lineal descendant is not being charged; and, if so, why the new duty is being claimed in the one case and not in the other?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Inland Revenue is charging Legacy Duty at the increased rates, in accordance with the House of Commons Resolution, on legacies to persons other than a widow or lineal descendant, and is also charging Legacy Duty in accordance with the Resolution on legacies to widows and lineal descendants in all cases in which, when an account is tendered, it has been ascertained that a legacy, outside the exceptions in the Finance Bill, has been satisfied.

Drumsna (Roscommon) Evicted Tenant.
Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the application for reinstatement in his holding of Mr. John Cooney, Kilmore, Drumsna, county Roscommon, an evicted tenant on the estate of R. A. Shackleton, has been refused by the Land Commissioners; and whether Mr. Cooney will be given an equivalent holding under the Evicted Tenants Acts?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that Cooney was a publican and sub-tenant of three acres, from which he appears to have been ejected on title. The reply to the concluding portion of the question is in the negative.

Vacant Lord Justiceship (Ireland).
Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if any appointment to the vacant Lord Justiceship of Appeal in Ireland has yet been made, and, if not, if he is aware that the promotion of a puisne judge of the King's Bench Division would automatically provide an annual amount of £3,500 for the purposes of the Irish Labourers Acts; and, if in view of this, the Government will advise that this course be followed?
Mr. BIRRELL: No appointment has yet been made to the vacant Lord Justiceship. I am aware that the promotion of a puisne judge of the King's Bench Division would have the effect stated. The Government will keep in view all the considerations which may properly be taken into account in the appointment of a Lord Justice.
Mr. J. B. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Court of Appeal is undermanned?
Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; the Lord Chancellor presides over the Court of Appeal, and I presume there is no reason to anticipate any loss to the public service.
Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that public considerations will not be ignored in order to avoid a doubtful bye-election?
Mr. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that public considerations will not be ignored for a moment.

Territorial Force (Sunderland).
Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that on the formation of the Sunderland Territorials two and a-half years ago each man joining was promised two suits of uniform free; that such men have only been supplied up to the present time with one pair of puttees, pair of trousers, one jacket, and one cap, and that to enable them to go to camp this year they were supplied with great coats, but on account of the dirty and worn condition of the latter the men declined to wear them, preferring to get wet through rather than do so; and, if so, can he state whether measures will be taken to have the said Territorials served with uniforms of a more efficient and satisfactory character?
The HON. MEMBER The HON. MEMBER further asked: (1) Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the men of the Sunderland Territorials who had signed for one year, and who wished to sign on again at the end of that time, were informed that if they wished to have a blue walking-out uniform they must engage to serve for two years; that in spite of their having agreed to do so, and have now served 18 months, they have up to the present moment only been supplied with one suit; and, if so, can he state whether it is the intention of his Department to see that the promise made to the men is carried out? (2) Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a few weeks ago a detachment of the Sunderland Territorials was at Shoeburyness for special instruction; that they were the only men who had not a blue dress uniform; and that when they paraded for divine service on the Sunday they were informed that, as they were in working dress, they could not be allowed to accompany the others to church; and, if so, can he state what action is being taken to place the Sunderland Territorials on an efficient footing as to such uniform? (3) Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that out of a possible 200 Sunderland Territorials only
850
some 60 turned out a Sunday or two ago, and that such small turn-out was due to inadequate uniforms; and, if so, can he state what action is being taken in regard to the matter?
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): This is a matter which concerns the county association, who report that a promise of two suits of uniform free was made last February by means of a recruiting poster, and that the Durham Garrison Artillery, which it is believed is the unit referred to, and the county association now hold between them walking-out and service dress sufficient to complete the unit with two suits per man. The association have been in recent correspondence with the unit relative to completing the latter with tunics, and expect further indents from the Officer Commanding with a view to supplying any existing deficiencies from the association store. The unit appears to have had in its possession in July over 600 great-coats and service dress jackets, trousers, and pantaloons, pairs of puttees and caps, and about 450 walking-out dress tunics and trousers, the strength of the unit being 567. The great-coats were taken over by the Officer Commanding in August, 1908, from the Ordnance Department with two years' wear in them. As regards the first part of Question 57, no such instructions appear to have been issued by the association, but a new walking-out dress is not issued to men whose engagements terminate prior to the 31st October following, as thereby no upkeep grant would be earned. As regards the church parades, no information is available in the War Office.

War Office Contracts (Fair Wages Clause).
Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that tender forms are being issued from his Department which contain Clause 9 in its original form, and directing contractors' attention to a Fair Wage Resolution passed in 1901 as governing their contracts as to wages, hours, and conditions of employment; whether he is aware that a Resolution was adopted by this House on 10th March, 1909, amending the above Resolution; and whether he will take the necessary steps to bring both letter and spirit of the above Resolution to the notice of all contractors concerned, or what action does he intend to take in the matter?
Mr. HALDANE: Steps are being taken as rapidly as possible to insert in Army contracts an amended Fair Wages Clause in accordance with the Resolution of

851
10th March, 1909. There was, however, a certain unavoidable delay in order to secure uniformity of action between the various Government Departments, and with regard to the many different classes of contracts.

Staffordshire Yeomanry Colonel and the Budget.
Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to a speech made by Lieut.-Colonel C. T. Mander, D Squadron, Staffordshire Yeomanry, in which he complained of the Budget, and said that no drill hall or riding school would be provided until there was a new Government; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
Mr. HALDANE: A report on this matter has been received, and is under the consideration of the Adjutant-General.

Old Age Pensions and Lord Advocate's Speeches.
Mr. J. F. REMNANT: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have not been able to give him private notice, but which I think he can answer without notice, namely, whether his attention has been called to the fact that in some constituencies posters and placards are being used to reproduce the dishonourable statement of the Lord Advocate——
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must know he cannot put a question in language of that sort. He had better place it on the Paper.
Mr. REMNANT: In view of the great amount of distress, Sir——I apologise, if you say I ought not to use the word, but I would ask to be allowed to continue my question. It will not take a minute.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member proposes to use epithets of a doubtful character I should like to see them on paper.

FINANCE BILL.
As amended in Committee of the Whole House, further considered.
FINANCE BILL.
  PART II.
    DUTIES ON LIQUOR LICENCES.

      CLAUSE 43.—(Duties on Excise Liquor Licences.)
      There shall be charged, levied, and paid on the licences for the manufacture or sale
      852
      of intoxicating liquor specified in the First Schedule to this Act, the duties of excise specified in that Schedule, and the provisions expressed in that Schedule to be applicable to any such licences shall have effect with respect to those licences. The said duties shall be charged on any licences which shall have been granted after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, or may hereafter be granted, but in the case of any such licences granted before the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and nine, the amount of the duty shall be adjusted so as to make the sum payable in respect of the period up to that date such sum only as would have been payable if this Act had not passed.
      Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER moved to leave out the Clause.
      I do this in order to discuss shortly the general position of the Clause with reference to the Schedule. The discussion on the Schedule in Committee was no doubt pretty exhaustive, but it suffered very seriously from the fact that it came at the very end of our work and that there was a considerable interval of time between the discussion of Clause 29 and the dealing with the Schedule. Clause 43 embodies serious changes in the conditions of taxation on the liquor trade generally—changes which are of a very important and far-reaching character. I think it is for the House to take into consideration the position of the trade before seeking to impose these enormously enhanced burdens. We have a trade which in the past has been the mainstay of the taxation of this country. Last year it produced over 37 millions of taxation in one way and another and 29.6 per cent. of the total tax revenue of the country. It has also had placed upon it in recent years by Parliament burdens to the tune of £1,100,000 a year in England to provide compensation for redundant licences. It has had a very serious burden placed upon it by the general increase in assessments and the enormous additions to local rates, and taking the State and the municipal taxation together—this is an estimate which has never been contradicted or challenged—no less than one-third of the total proceeds of the trade are taken by the State and the municipalities. That is surely in all conscience a sufficiently heavy burden, but for that very reason I suppose, and because it has been admitted and acknowledged by competent authorities for a very long time that the trade can bear no more taxation, it is singled

      853
      out to be penalised by this Budget just as other interests have been. I, of course, realise that if it were possible fairly to tax this trade without seriously interfering with the revenue it would be a perfectly fair thing to do it under just conditions, and I by no means suggest that this trade, or any other similar trade, should at the present moment escape from the new burdens imposed upon the country. The evidence which has come before us during the last four or five months of the effect of some of these burdens goes to show that instead of producing increased revenue they are more likely to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs. There is also apart from that a considerable fall in the consumption of these articles in this country. There is also a gradual change in the channels of distribution.
      The competition of clubs, for example, is very much more extreme than it was, and you are changing the channel of distribution gradually from that which produces the largest revenue to the country to that which produces the smallest, and to that which is not under your control in the same way as the other, and which will be able to make itself felt in Parliament in a way which the licensed trade cannot do, and which will make it in future less likely that the revenue from this particular source will be an increasing revenue. Three and a half million barrels of beer and nine million gallons of spirits are being sold less than 10 years ago, and that proves that the position of the trade, owing to the greater sobriety, which everyone is pleased to know exists, and this particular kind of competition, is being decreased as a source of revenue upon which we have depended largely in the past, but which I do not think in the future will be so dependable as it has been. The scale which this Clause will enact is really a Licensing Bill itself, and if ever there was an example of tacking in a Budget Bill you will find it in the Licensing Clauses. In the numerous charges which are proposed to be enacted in the Schedules of this Bill we have an entirely new principle introduced in the manufacturers' scale which has hitherto been, and which ought to be properly, a Registration Duty, but which is to be a duty charged proportionately to output. It is not possible to justify a progressive tax of this kind upon a perfectly free industry, which receives no sort of monopoly in return, and the Prime Minister, to give
      854
      him his due, has never attempted to defend it on that ground. The Prime Minister has had a very uncomfortable past in this matter, and the only manner in which he has been able to deal with it is by entirely ignoring it, and by endeavouring to show by other arguments that the necessities of his present financial position warrant him in proposing something which he cannot defend, and which he knows, and has said before, is totally unwarrantable. I do not intend to go into the question again. We thrashed it out very thoroughly on the last occasion. There are no fresh arguments which I have to bring forward, and I fancy the arguments which the Prime Minister sought to bring forward on that occasion will not be brought forward again, because they were met and answered on this side most conclusively. We have an entirely new scale, a very punitive new scale being applied. The licensees at the present moment who have to pay from £4 10s. to £60, under the new scale will have to pay 50 per cent. of their rateable value for the first year, or if they have fully licensed beerhouses 33⅓ per cent. of their rental. If they are beerhouses there is a minimum of £50 in some cases.
      Then there is to be a different form of rating which no man in this House can understand and which I hope, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Prime Minister will try to explain. How it is to apply I cannot tell, although I have tried very hard to find out, but we shall discuss that on Clause 44, and I hope we shall have an interesting time. This scale is a very, very severe one and it is, I think, unjustifiable, in this respect, that it seeks to apply, with the exception that I have given, a 50 per cent. rate from the very lowest up to the, at all events, £500 house. It is a scheme which in many cases will be infinitely more onerous than the monopoly value which the Prime Minister proposed to take from the trade under the Licensing Bill of last year at the end of 21 years, and it will be taken now without any warning and without any time limit, and if the right hon. Gentleman is to be consistent with his past—a very difficult thing, I agree—he will say that he will modify the scale as proposed to be passed into law. I am sorry when we dealt with this scale in Committee the Prime Minister was not in his place, although we were all looking forward with interest to his justification of the change. The right hon. Gentleman came in at the end of the discussion to

      855
      deal with an Irish question, but he did not favour us with his views on the matter and he did not come here to justify or explain his new proposals, and perhaps he will to-day do us the kindness to explain them now. The scale which is applied to houses of over £500 in value appears to me to be a most illusory one, and those who know something about these matters say it will not be any advantage to them at all, and I am perfectly bewildered to discover how the new figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to them, can be justified. He says in the White Paper which we got this morning with our Parliamentary Papers, that the concession—I do not think that is the proper word, and I have never used it, although it is used by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—involves a loss of £300,000. I cannot understand how he gets that figure, and the House will see that it must be an erroneous one. For what are the facts of the case? Here they are: There are, of course, very few beerhouses above £500 in value. There are very very few, a negligible quantity, and you could count them on the fingers of one hand, I should think.
      There are 680 fully licensed houses in the United Kingdom, of a rental of between £500 and £600. There are 413 of a rental between £600 and £700. The aggregate value of the whole of these houses cannot possibly be more than £650,000 a year, and the 50 per cent. tax on that, if you gave them no option at all, would be £325,000. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to say that the option will only leave them with £25,000 a year out of these houses when he is getting £54,000 out of them now under the present Licence Duty? The figures are perfectly absurd and ridiculous, and they must be wrong. Even if you take the minimum of £250 which each has to pay, they will pay £275,000 a year—only £50,000 less than the 50 per cent. I cannot understand how the mistake has teen made. The actual 50 per cent. of £650,000 is £325,000 a year. You have about 1,100 houses, and the minimum by your new scale will be £250. If you multiply 1,110 by £250 it is something like £275,000, or only about £50,000 less than the figure which he would get if he charged 50 per cent. How can you therefore lose £300,000? This is the first occasion on which we have had anything like a detailed estimate, and the moment we examine it we find it quite wrong. I am not surprised that in the past we have
      856
      always been refused details. If this is the kind of thing we are going to get it was a very wise proceeding always to refuse the information asked for. That, I think, disposes pretty effectually of the statement that the concessions on this scale amount to £500,000. They cannot amount to anything like that figure. The right hon. Gentleman, if he revises his estimate, will find that he has a good deal to give away to the on-licence holders if he concedes the fairness and justice of doing so. One of the main contentions of the chancellor of the Exchequer in his opening speech was that while he admitted that this was a very heavy duty to place on these people the advance of the price of a glass of spirits would yield to the publican over and above the 3s. 9d. duty a pretty considerable sum, which would go far to pay the increased cost of the licence. That calculation, of course, has been wholly falsified by the same mistake in the speech as there was in the estimate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not allow for the fact that there would be such an enormous reduction in the consumption as there has been. That has affected the unfortunate publican in exactly the same way as, with perfect justice, it has affected the Treasury. Here are two cases showing the effect up to now of the increased price, and the decreased profit owing to the loss of business. In one case—I can give the detailed figures afterwards—with the increased price of spirits, and the reduced consumption, there is an actual loss of profit, calculated to the end of the year, of £128 16s., while the increased Licence Duty will be £176, so that the unfortunate person, instead of having any money to pay that will be £304 16s. to the bad. In the other case the loss of profit, owing to this 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. reduction, is £191, and the new Licence Duty is £180, so that there will be a loss of £371. This can only be got by increasing the price of beer or reducing the measure, and, if that were done, exactly the same result would happen as in the case of spirits. It will please the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones), but it would not satisfy the Treasury. There would be a very much smaller consumption, and the wretched publicans case in the end would be even worse than it is now.
      Much too little attention has been paid in dealing with this question to the position of the 1869 beerhouses. They, at all events, had what very little property in this country has, they had an absolute Parliamentary title to their licence. There

      857
      was good ground for compensating these people out of the national revenue in 1904 if the party then in power had thought fit to do so. But that was not done. They came into the general arrangement which was then made. They agreed to pay their compensation levy and to take their compensation. The raising of their tax from £3 10s. in every case to a rateable licence of one-third of the annual value with a high minimum is very certain, I am told, to crush out a great many of the smaller houses which had that Parliamentary title and which have been most grossly and unfairly treated in this new scale. The treatment of these houses, and especially of the on-licensed houses, contrasts very peculiarly with the treatment of the off-licences. I find no fault with the concessions made to them—I am very glad they have got them—but the kow-towing to the off-licence holder has only accentuated the injustice to the on-licence holder by the scale now sought to be enacted. No concession whatever has been offered to him except one, which is purely and wholly illusory. It behoves the Government, before they come to the Schedule, to consider well whether they will allow it to stand as it remains. We have also penalised the free house as compared with the tied house, and, so far as I can see, the only way in which the man with a free house can live at all is to tie himself as rapidly as possible—to borrow from someone who, by Clause 46, will have to pay a share of the increased tax.
      4.0 P.M.
      It seems very clear to me that something more than revenue is desired in enacting this scale. We have had endless Ministerial statements as to what would happen if the Licensing Bill were rejected. We have had all sorts of threats from the First Lord of the Admiralty, from that astounding politician the Lord Advocate, who has even excelled his record since that time, and from other Ministers, that swingeing duties, and I do not know what else, would be placed on the trade if the House of Lords did not pass the Licensing Bill. In the first place that is pretty hard on the Scotch and the Irish trade, who had nothing to do with it, and, in the second place, no such scale as this, which has been ruthlessly condemned by the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell), can properly be applied right up to the top. It must break down. Will the right hon. Gentleman take a house rated at £500 and take his new proposals with regard to it? He is
      858
      going to take the difference between the Schedule A rental when it is a licensed house and the rent if it was an unlicensed house. He is going to take the annual profit of the business and these two factors together, as far as I understand, are to give the annual licence value. Does he mean to tell me that a third of that is going to be an improvement on his present scale? A third of that, in the case of a £500 house doing a trade yielding £900 profit, will be £400 a year, instead of £250. It will behalf of £800, and not half of £500. If he does not know it, I can tell him that the difference between the two rentals will be about £350. If the right hon. Gentleman adds these two together, he will find that they come to £1,200. If he is only going to take the difference between the rentals, and leave profits alone, I can understand that the proposal in the Clause may have something reasonable in it, but certainly not otherwise. It seems only perfectly fair to say that as regards this scale as proposed, at all events so far as the on-licence holder is concerned, and so far as the brewer is concerned, there are motives for proposing it other than those which a Chancellor of the Exchequer ought only to have in view in coming forward to this House with a Finance Bill. I can only say that, so far from being fair or just, and so far from taking into consideration such questions, for example, as licence compensation, towards the fund for which they have been paying all these years, he wholly ignore every element of fairness and every element of Parliamentary honour, and places on these people an impost which, I venture to say, is most unfair and most unjust.
      Mr. G. D. FABER: I desire to second the Amendment, and in doing so I need hardly say that I entirely associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend in regard to the omission of this Clause from the Bill. Although, no doubt, the penultimate stage of the measure has now been reached, when I suppose the time for concessions may be considered to have passed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Let us hope so."] Whatever concessions may have been made to Ireland on this Clause, the on-licence trade of this country is left practically in the condition as regards the hardship inflicted upon it by this Bill it was in when the Bill was first laid on the Table of the House of Commons. The trade may be regarded by some as anathema maranatha and undeserving of consideration. Chastise it with whips or scorpions! No treat-

      859
      ment you can give to it can be too severe. Although the time is late, I would venture, as one who is entirely unconnected with the trade, to make one more appeal for justice in this matter. This is not a mere increase of taxation. The Prime Minister himself, in one of his speeches on this part of the Bill so asseverated. The expression he used was that this Clause for the first time enabled the State to reap a fair toll on the monopoly value. That phrase has a familiar ring in the ears of those who went through the discussions on the Licensing Bill. The fundamental vice of the Licensing Clauses of this Bill is that they are a hash-up of the Licensing Bill of last year. I agree with the Prime Minister that this is a new departure. I could give hundreds of illustrations to show what the effect of these new duties will be. I might mention the case of Whitbread and Buxton. They showed conclusively by figures drawn from their own concern that by the time the new Licence Duties were paid the ordinary shareholders would be left, not only with nothing, but that there would be a deficit. That is the case also with the Cannon Brewery, Meux's Brewery, and many of the other great breweries of the country. The ordinary shareholders will lose their dividends if this Clause goes through.
      My hon. Friend referred to the case of the free house—the pet child of the Government 18 months ago. Nothing was good enough for the free house. It was the tied house held by the wicked brewer which was to be chastised through the wicked brewer. Under this Bill the tied house will be in an infinitely better position than the free house. The free house licence-holder will not be able to have recourse to anybody, and will have to rely on his own exchequer. I have particulars of the case here showing how the duties are enormously increased under this Bill, and, of course, you can multiply cases in which the effects will be similar. In the case of a free house of £500 rental the duty will be £250 instead of £50. An enormous hardship, therefore, will be inflicted on the free house. You desire to chastise the brewer and the tied house, yet you will find yourself unable in the nature of the case to do anything to help the free house, whose last state will be much worse than the first. Let me illustrate generally the extraordinary severe impost which the duties under this Clause will be on the licensed trade of this country. At present the Licence Duties under
      860
      Mr. Gladstone's scale of 1880 come to £2,200,000. What do you propose to do? You are putting £2,600,000 on the top of the £2,200,000, and if what we fear results from the next Clause in regard to the valuation of licensed premises, there will be many hundreds of thousands of pounds added on the top of the £2,600,000.
      You do not stop there, because, indissolubly linked together with the increased Licence Duties is the Whisky Tax. Although it falls into a different compartment of the Bill, you cannot in the discussion of this matter dissociate the Whisky Tax from the increased licences. During the late war there was only 6d. per gallon added to the Whisky Duty. Now you are putting on 3s. 9d. per gallon. You are multiplying the 6d. 1½ times. The trade may well throw up its hands in despair, and say that Parliament, invoked by the Government, is putting on its back, in the shape of increased licences and Whisky Duty, burdens absolutely unprecedented in its history, whether in time of peace or war. Look at the moment you select for doing it. The Prime Minister, in each of his three Budget speeches, called attention—I think perfectly accurately—to the fact that the alcoholic group of taxes was stagnant. The right hon. Gentleman said that the revenue not only did not keep up for alcohol, but was actually receding. Ever since 1900 it is common knowledge that the revenue from that source has been more or less stagnant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer called particular notice to that fact in the Budget Memorandum this year. He said that, as regards the Beer Duty, it had been practically stationary in the three preceding years, and that it showed a considerable decline last year. In the same Memorandum he said that the Spirit Duty continued to decline, and that the falling off would have been much larger, except for the considerable clearances which took place in the March quarter. He said that on the whole matter it had also been necessary to take into account the diminishing consumption of alcoholic liquor, which, though to some extent attributable to the recent depression in trade, was the result of the continuous change in the habits of the people, which had been in progress for some time, and which seemed likely to be permanent. I ask the House—without distinction of party—what would any of the Chancellors of the Exchequer of the past have done in a matter of that kind when it was a question of imposing taxation upon a falling

      861
      revenue? I do not care whether it is alcohol or anything else. What would their financial conduct have been? It would have been what it has always been in such cases the moment the revenue is seen to be falling. It would have been to take off the hand of the tax imposer, and treat the particular article lightly. Many a Chancellor of the Exchequer has said rightly in the past that there comes a breaking point in taxation where the higher the taxation you impose the less revenue results. You could not possibly have a better illustration of that than the Whisky Tax, and yet you put 3s. 9d. per gallon on whisky! Taking the analogy of the sixpenny Whisky Tax, which produced £1,000,000 in 1900, this new duty ought to have produced £7,500,000. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to allow for a decrease in the consumption, owing to the punitive nature of the taxation. He only anticipated an increased revenue of £1,600,000. What did he tell us last Friday? He staled that he anticipated that he would only get £800,000. Therefore the 3s. 9d. tax, instead of producing £7,500,000, or £1,600,000, as originally estimated, is only going to produce £800,000, which is £200,000 less than the amount which was realised by the additional sixpence which was imposed on whisky by Sir Michael Hicks Beach when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1900. Could anything afford a more eloquent commentary on the financial madness of putting a tax of this kind upon the great whisky trade of this country Talk about robbing hen-roosts! You are cutting the throat of the best layer in the whole farmyard. The hen that has laid for years past a quarter of the national revenue is the hen whose head you are going to cut off. That hen has been laying nearly £40,000,000 per annum.
      Some great French financier, I believe, is responsible for the utterance that the hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be so delicately used that the bird hardly knew it was being plucked. Nobody can say that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to his treatment of the liquor trade. He is pulling the feathers out by the roots. And this same unfortunate result that has been produced already by the excessive tax on whisky may, for aught we know, follow the Licensing Duty itself, because we have not forgotten the words of the Prime Minister that he did not think it would be a bad thing if the
      862
      effect of the increased Licence Duties was to extinguish the worst class of houses. By the worst class of houses I imagine the right hon. Gentleman meant the smaller houses, and with regard to them the same calamitous result may follow. Now that you are putting this terrific licence tax upon the licensed houses it may well be that your revenue from that source will begin to fall. The Chancellor of the Duchy lately, when discussing this matter, lent rather eloquent testimony to that fact, because as regards the off-licences and the concessions that have been made to them, he said that the concessions made to them did not much maatter, as if they had not been made a great many of the off-licensees would no longer have taken out the off-licences. One is driven to ask, as my hon. Friend asked a few minutes ago, what is the reason for this drastic treatment? It cannot be revenue, because the figures show that as a revenue-raising expedient it is disastrous. Is it temperance? Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer can no longer pose as an apostle of temperance after his conjuring tricks over the "little bottle." I thought that last Friday the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he produced his revised estimate, was a little bit perhaps wanting in austerity in dealing with the drink question, and adopted a tone which would be hardly commended by some of the temperance reformers on the Back Benches. He really made a laugh of the reduction in the consumption of liquor, and as to whether it might not be merely temporary, and said they could only hope for the best, but that even if it was only temporary the effect on this Bill was disastrous, because even if people went back to the old habits they could not make up for lost time. Therefore I do not imagine, so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, that this can be called temperance. What is it? It is an open secret.
      Everybody in the House and out of it knows by this time that it is an attempt by the Government, and a successful attempt if this Budget goes through, to avenge themselves for the loss of the Licensing Bill. It has been preached from every house-top. Everybody has said so. The whole variegated vocabulary, as the Prime Minister has well expressed it, of the Radical party has been poured out upon us. "The Licensing Bill was thrown out by the House of Lords. We will heap the furnace seven times hotter. Rehashing the

      863
      Licensing Bill, we will put the red pepper into it, so that the trade shall have something to cry for." The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade go about calling the brewers thieves and swindlers, and exhausting the fertility of their vocabulary. There need be no secret about it. You are out for blood. You have gone much further than the Licensing Bill, as my hon. Friend pointed out, because the Licensing Bill only comprehended England, and here you are roping in wretched Ireland and Scotland. They are to pay for the lost Licensing Bill. The Licensing Bill only dealt with on-licences. Here you have the manufacturer, the grocer, and the wholesale and retail trader. Everybody is to be comprehended under this Bill. Can the scheme be compared with Mr. Gladstone's treatment in 1880? Really, it would be worth the while of many hon. Gentlemen opposite to read one of the many speeches of Mr. Gladstone during the discussion of the Bill in 1880. There is one phrase which sticks in my memory yet. It was really the pivot of his measure. He said he was endeavouring to proceed not with too much severity. That was a Bill brought in by a fresh Government coming with a mandate from the country and with a large majority, and it was brought in by one of the most experienced financiers that the House of Commons had ever known. They were to proceed in respect of the trade "not with too much severity." Can anyone say that that has been done in this proposal? Mr. Gladstone's Licence Duty began at £4 10s. and ended with £60. You, when your minimum comes into play, begin with £35 and you soared up into the thousands—when the Bill was originally brought in, into many thousands as regards the big hotels. And you still in the upper category will soar into many hundreds.
      Mr. Gladstone, with regard to the beerhouses of the country, established a fixed duty of £3 10s. You are making them pay one-third of the gross annual value, which is a tremendous increase. Mr. Gladstone no doubt had in mind that the beerhouses of the country had a statutory title, and he treated them gently and kindly and tenderly in comparison with the on-licences. He did not treat them at all according to their annual value. The off-licences were not put into the annual value category at all. They had a fixed
      864
      duty. Look at Mr. Gladstone's scale, however, and compare it with this. The equity is all with Mr. Gladstone and all against the right hon. Gentleman. I am not here to deny that after 29 years some alteration might not well have been made in Mr. Gladstone's scale, so that certain inequalities should be lifted up and brought more up to date, but I do not care how you bring it up to date, Mr. Gladstone could never have sanctioned a scale of this kind. I was astonished to hear the Prime Minister say in the course of one of his speeches on this subject that Mr. Gladstone's scale was wholly irreconcileable with equity. I venture to say that if any judge of equity had the two scales before him, and was asked which approached nearer the rules of equity, there could be no doubt whatever as to which scale would be found to sin against the cardinal principles of equity. It is because it is wanting so in that respect and because it was never planned according to the criteria of all the Chancellors of the Exchequer of the past, and because it is merely an attempt to gratify spite and vengeance against the trade, that it deserves the condemnation of this House. In one phrase, it is not a Budget. This Clause is blackmailing.
      The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Herbert Samuel): This portion of the Finance Bill has been attacked ever since its introduction with the utmost vehemence by a trade powerfully organised, and seeking, very naturally, to defend its own financial interests against the tax-gatherer. It has been attacked with much force and some ability by hon. Members opposite who speak on behalf of that trade. Hon. Members who have spoken to-day have repeated arguments which are not unfamiliar to us, but perhaps it may be expedient, since this is the last occasion on which we shall be able to treat this matter as a whole, if I were to review some of the general considerations which have led the Government to propose these Licence Duties, and to reply to the general objections which have been raised against them. Hon. Members opposite, and specially perhaps those who have spoken to-day, urge that these proposals are not only excessive in themselves, and that these taxes are not only unduly onerous upon the trade, but that they are outside the scope of a Finance Bill. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said that these proposals are a Licensing Bill in themselves.
      Mr. YOUNGER: No I did not say so. What I said was that the conditions attached to them were quite beyond the scope of a Finance Bill.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: He said that there are elements in these proposals at all events that do not properly find a place in a Finance Bill, but which ought, if proposed to Parliament at all, legitimately be included in licensing legislation. Which provisions are they to which that objection can properly apply? What particular proposal is there in this Part II. of the Bill and the Schedule that attaches to it which is really beyond the strict border of finance, however narrowly you may define it? What proposal is there which has not had many precedents in the financial legislation of the country? I do not know whether hon. Members who turn to the Amendments which have been made, very small in themselves, with respect to quantities saleable under particular licences, may say that the quantity of liquor of various kinds which could be sold under a full licence or under a limited licence, should be dealt with in licensing legislation, and not in financial legislation. All these questions have hitherto been dealt with in Excise Bills, which are Financial Bills. Never, so far as I am aware, have they been dealt with in licensing legislation. Is it re-valuation of licensed houses on the basis of licence value instead of the basis of rateable value, or is it the minimum according to the population which is said to be in the nature of a licensing proposal, and not in the nature of a financial proposal? Surely it is not only the rate of the tax, but also the basis on which that rate shall be applied which is financial legislation. If the tax be charged on the rateable value of the premises, that is clearly a matter of finance. If, in place of that, we were to say that the tax is to be charged, as in the case of clubs, on the quantity sold on those premises, that again is clearly a matter of finance. If, further, as an alternative, we proposed that the tax should be levied upon the difference between the value of the premises licensed and unlicensed, that is equally financial legislation. With regard to the population minimum, and charging a Licence Duty varying with the population of the district in which the licensed premises are situated, a Committee of this House which sat in 1853 recommended that the whole of the Licence Duties should be charged on that basis alone, and should in no respect vary with
      866
      the character of the premises, but merely vary with the size of the towns in which the premises were situated. It is clearly within the scope of financial legislation to declare that basis as a proper basis for the imposition of the tax.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What was the proposal of the Committee?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Their recommendation was never carried out, but it was that the Licence Duties should no longer be charged at all on the basis of the value of the premises, but solely on the character of the towns in which the premises were situated. If that had been done, of course, it could only have been done in a Finance Bill. I invite the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to point to a single definite proposal in this Bill which in the strictest and narrowest interpretation of our constitutional principles could properly be held to be outside the scope of the Finance Bill. Hon. Members opposite may say—"Even if your methods in this Budget are unobjectionable, what of your purpose? That purpose is one which in the guise of finance really carries out your licence policy." The hon. Member who has just spoken, again and again in most indignant tones called up spirits from the vasty deep to testify to our iniquities in proposing, under the guise of finance, measures so oppressive as to be similar to those which the most drastic Licensing Bill would seek to effect. The conclusion is suggested to the House, that if the Licensing Bill of last year had never been introduced, had never been thought of, these proposals would not have been made for the purposes of finance. If we had never proposed the Licensing Bill, and the Licensing Bill had never been rejected in another place, these proposals or analagous proposals for raising revenue from the liquor trade would never, so it is suggested, have been put into this year's Finance Bill with a view to meeting the deficit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to deal with. If hon. Members had taken the trouble to read any statements of financial policy made any time during the last ten years by any responsible statesman of the party to which I have the honour to belong, they would have found in every case that a remodelling of the scale of Licence Duties was included in their proposals. Whenever in the Debates of recent years, the question was raised how a Liberal Government would raise fresh revenue, if not by taxation on sugar, and if not by taxation

      867
      on imported goods and so on, the answer was always given that among the proposals would be an increase in the Licence Duties. In the speech made by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1901, when he occupied the position of Leader of the Opposition—he was opposing at that time the imposition of the Sugar Duty—and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer asked him across the floor of the House how he would get revenue if not by such a tax as that, Sir Henry replied that if they wanted some five or six millions of money it could be obtained by reassessing the duties on licensed premises. It is not only Liberal opinion that has for many years past urged this financial reform, but neutral opinion also has supported it. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation pointed to the Licence Duties as being a source from which further revenue could be obtained, and as being at that time on too low a scale. Nor do I confine myself to Liberal opinion and neutral opinion alone—the right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their colleagues on many occasions have declared that the existing scale of Licence Duties was anomalous and indefensible, and should be increased on the larger houses. Lord Lansdowne, in another place last year, expressed an opinion to that effect. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, now Lord St. Aldwyn, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the present scale of duties was utterly unfair to the smaller houses as compared with the bigger houses, and that the bigger houses might very well bear additional taxation; the large hotels, he said, should be more highly taxed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine, when he was Home Secretary in the last Parliament, in introducing the Licensing Bill of 1904, expressed the opinion that many of the larger houses and hotels under the then scale of Licence Duties, and present scale of Licence Duties, escaped very cheaply indeed. Hon. Members, again, have admitted in the course of these Debates that this scale is anomalous, that it should be readjusted, and that the larger houses could afford to pay more. [Mr. YOUNGER: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member who moved this Amendment to-day by his cheering that statement fully agrees with me.
      Do they say that because the Licensing Bill was introduced last year and was not passed, therefore the present Government are absolutely precluded from imposing the increased Licence Duties which
      868
      have long been advocated as part of our policy. Do they say—"True, you, the Government, are in urgent need of revenue; true, you have advocated an increase of licensed duties; true, our own leaders have admitted that an increase of Licence Duties is justified, but you must not do it, because last year you proposed the Licensing Bill, which was rejected, and if you proceed now to carry out your own financial policy you can be actuated only by a sinister motive of revenge"? But these proposals will bring in for the present year a sum of £2,100,000, three times as much as the increase of the Stamp Duties, almost as much as the Super-tax, and not far short of the increase in the Death Duties. This revenue is essential to the equilibrium of the Budget, and it is ludicrous to say that it is not legitimate to levy this sum on the trade because the Licensing Bill was introduced last year and was rejected. It is no doubt true that this measure will have an indirect effect. All new taxes, of course, have social effects as well as financial effects. That is found in all such legislation. The increase in the Tobacco Duty may assist the efforts of the Anti-Smoking League, but that is not a reason why the Tobacco Duty is a bad form of tax. I believe it is also said that a tariff is not only for the purpose of revenue, but has also the effect of giving encouragement to our national industries. I do not know whether, if at some future time—I trust and believe it will be a distant time—a tariff is proposed to this House, the purists opposite will raise their voice in protest, and say, "This is not a Finance Bill, this is not intended for revenue. This is a means for relieving unemployment; this is a means encouraging agriculture, a method of promoting national industry. All those may be very good objects, or may be bad objects, but at all events, do not confuse them with the financial proposals of the year." Of course, a tax must have an indirect effect, and if you raise the price of the article you discourage the purchaser. If you raise the price of licences pro tanto you discourage the purchase of licences. As a matter of fact, in 1880, after the Budget to which reference has been made, a certain number—not a very large number—of licences were discontinued. Persons who found themselves on the border line where their business hardly paid did not take out their licences when the scale of duties was increased. But I do not know that anyone at that time, or since, has said that the

      869
      fact made a readjustment of the Licence Duties an illegitimate means of raising revenue. There will be cases, though I believe not a large number, in which the owners of licensed premises may find that the increased duty makes the difference in the margin of profit. There are many houses now which are continued open not really because they give any income or profit worth having, but because the owners anticipate that sooner or later they may be suppressed under the Act of 1904, and be the subject of compensation under that Act. They are kept open for that purpose, and not for purposes of profitable trade, and it may be taken as certain that a number of them will disappear. There is unquestionably in this country a notorious over-supply of public-houses. The fact that the over-supply exists, and the fact that there is a certain number of public-houses which now hardly pay at all are facts, I submit, which afford no reason why the State should not get the revenue which it is justly entitled to obtain from this particular trade.
      The House has to take into account these considerations, and, if they do so, I trust they will agree that the Government on making these proposals have not departed one inch from the straight and narrow path of financial legislation.
      The question then arises whether the taxes in themselves are too high. We again have the argument about taxing a declining trade. The consumption of alcoholic liquor is decreasing, but I must once more point out, as I have done on many occasions, that the decline which has taken place in the last ten years followed on a very rapid increase. We are now on the descending curve, which succeeded an ascending curve. The consumption of alcoholic liquor per head of the population now is about the same as it was 20 years ago. While these are the facts with regard to consumption, the sources of supply have also declined. The number of public-houses is declining year by year, and the increase of clubs in no way counterbalance that decline. I have quoted figures in this House on previous occasions giving precisely the number of clubs that have been opened and the number of public-houses which have been closed, pointing out that the average membership of the clubs has not increased. That being so, we must take into account the fact that the sources of supply have been diminishing almost pari passu with the diminution of consumption. Taking the consumption
      870
      per public-house, there is not much decrease even within the last 10 years, and there has been an increase within the last 20 years. I will not repeat all the figures, because I gave them somewhat elaborately in the Committee stage on this Bill on the last occasion when we discussed this Clause. Further, with reference to the compensation levy, which has been given as a reason why the trade cannot afford to pay increased duties, I again repeat that the compensation levy can in no way be regarded in the light of taxation. The compensation levy is the price of the insecurity of the licence prior to the Act of 1904. The cost of the insurance funds, money put to reserve, the writing down of capital, which took place before the Act of 1901, was all in consequence of the knowledge of the insecurity of licences.
      With reference to these taxes, are they too high? Hon. Members opposite tell us that they are, and they have proposed their own alternative scheme. When we discussed the matter in Committee, with much elaboration they placed upon the Paper the proposal they were prepared to make in order to secure from the trade increased contributions to the revenue, and that scheme—according to their own estimate—would have given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a sum of £23,000 yearly. They said: "We will not refuse altogether to respond to your demand for a contribution by the trade to a larger Navy. We realise that the nation is called upon to make some sacrifice, and we are prepared to bear our share, and we will contribute year by year," not a "Dreadnought," not a cruiser, not a torpedo destroyer, not a submarine, but we will give you £23,000, which will enable you to add one Admiralty tug." That is the offer of the trade. They have long boasted that the whole of the Navy, and part of the Army, were paid for from revenue derived from the liquor trade. They are prepared still to assist the Empire in its needs, and they will go so far as to give the Admiralty, year by year, one tug boat for the maintenance of the Fleet. We consider that the sum of £23,000, which was the offer made by the trade through the Amendment of hon. Members opposite, is inadequate to the circumstances of the moment. We propose a contribution of £2,100,000, of which about £500,000 is drawn from the manufacturers and dealers; and the retail licence-holders of all kinds, publicans, beerhouse keepers, grocers, hotels, and clubs as well, will contribute to the revenue a sum of £1,600,000.
      Mr. YOUNGER: Those figures have been challenged.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We will come to that further on. We stand by them, and our estimate is that a sum of £1,600,000 is asked from the retail trade of this country, and, in consideration of the requirements of the State, we submit that from a trade with so vast a turnover, as the liquor trade in this country has, that that is not an excessive sum to demand. With reference to the scale of duties which is challenged is it asserted that on a house with the annual value of £50 half the rateable value is an excessive sum to ask? That is the scale of Licence Duty which the hon. Member for York says is unprecedented in history, but that scale of Licence Duty on a £50 house of half the rateable value has been the law of the land for 30 years, and has been paid without difficulty by those houses.
      Mr. G. D. FABER: I said £2,600,000 on the top of £2,200,000.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understood him to say that to charge half the rateable value was an exorbitant and oppressive sum. I may have misunderstood him, but the argument has been advanced repeatedly in that form, in this House and out of it, that under no circumstances ought you to charge half duty, but on the greater number of houses in this country the Licence Duty of half the rateable value has been charged for 30 years and has been paid. I fail to understand the justice of charging a house of £50 value a Licence Duty of £25 and charging a house of £500 value, or ten times the value, only twice the Licence Duty. A house ten times the value of the £50 only pays twice the Licence Duty that the house of £50 pays. The house of £50 pays a Licence Duty equal to six months of its rent. A great gin palace in London, with a rateable value perhaps of £2,000, pays only 3 per cent. instead of 50 per cent., or pays only 10 days' rent as compared with six months rent.
      Mr. YOUNGER: That is on site value, not on trade.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We propose to alter the basis, and to place it on the basis of trade, which is, I admit, a more just basis; but even taking rateable value it is surely indefensible to charge 3 per cent. on a house of £2,000 value and 50 per cent. on a house of £50 value. Hon. Members opposite have said that the free house is prejudiced by our proposals in
      872
      comparison with the tied house. I cannot agree. The duty on the free house and on the tied house of equal value doing the same trade will be precisely the same. There is no discrimination at all with respect to the Licence Duty payable on those two houses. No differentiation is made either for or against the free house as compared with the tied house. In relation to the amount of Licence Duty which is payable, many hon. Members opposite have quoted figures to show that those duties are oppressive. Those figures are many of them open to challenge. I regret that the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant) is not in the House at the moment, but he, on more than one occasion, quoted figures which I venture to say would not satisfy examination. On one occasion he quoted some figures which I know impressed the House and hon. Members on this side as to the excessive amount of Licence Duty chargeable on certain houses in London. I asked him, across the floor, whether those figures had taken into account that on all houses above £500 valuation a much lower Licence Duty is chargeable, and that it will be chargeable on the basis of licence value. He replied, across the floor, that allowance had been made in respect of those figures. The hon. Member for Lincoln, who followed him, said that he was quoting from precisely the same document in respect of the same houses. He read out words from the document to the effect that the concession made to the larger houses over £500 valuation had not been taken into account in assessing the amount of duty payable. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn is not here. It would be interesting to have some explanation from him of that discrepancy. Again, the hon. Member declared that the Holborn Restaurant would pay a Licence Duty of no less than £4,000 a year. I have asked him to substantiate that figure, and he is quite unable to do so, and on application to the Holborn Restaurant they are unable to say that they would not come under the restaurant Clause and would be charged on the rateable value basis as if they were an ordinary public-house. [An HON. MEMBER: "Can they say how much?"] That was not the question. It would undoubtedly be very much lower than the amount named. The hon. Member would not suggest that one-fourth of their licence value would amount to £4,000. Four thousand pounds is half the rateable value, which is £8,000. The hon. Member for Holborn quoted that figure as if the Hol-

      873
      born Restaurant were going to be charged half rateable value which would certainly not be the case. Across the floor of the House I asked hon. Members who had given figures to submit them for examination, but none of those figures have been submitted. I asked across the floor of the House during the last Debate when hon. Members quoted very large figures, and I said that, with our experience last year with regard to the Licensing Bill, we could not accept those figures without examination. None of the figures relating to public-houses, as to the large sums which it was said we were going to charge on public-houses, have been presented for examination. I very much suspect from some which have come to me from other quarters, most of which have been found to be wrong, that they in the main have been very greatly exaggerated. Hon. Members representing Scotland have had representations made to them that in Scotland at all events these Licence Duties will press with peculiar severity, first, because the Scottish public-houses are very highly assessed compared with English public-houses; secondly, because they have no Sunday sale, and that, therefore, they are under a disadvantage compared with public-houses in England.
      Mr. YOUNGER: And shorter hours.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: With regard to the higher assessment it is true that the assessment in Scotland is a little more strict than in England, but against that there is an important consideration to be set off. In Scotland the justices do not allow as a rule, I think with very few exceptions, the publican to live on his premises. The premises which form the basis of the tax are merely the liquor shop, and not the dwelling-house. It is the shop alone which is assessed, consequently the assessment is on a smaller subject than in England, where not only the liquor shop but also the place of residence of the publican is included in the valuation. In Scotland it is the shop only which is assessed. In England it is both the shop and the dwelling-house, and in Ireland it is the shop and the dwelling-house, and the grocery store as well which is assessed. Consequently the Scotsman gets off most lightly, and the Irishman if treated most heavily in this matter of assessment. That is a sufficient set-off to the greater strictness in making valuations in Scotland. With regard to Sunday sale the duty payable is reduced by one-seventh for all houses which are closed on Sundays, so that that
      874
      contention is completely met by a reduction on the Licence Duty.
      5.0 P.M.
      I am sorry to weary the House with so many details, but these matters are of great importance, and there is much misunderstanding with regard to them in the country and amongst some hon. Members in this House. Therefore, while I apologise for detaining the House, I feel I must still detain them a little longer to deal with the special case of the beerhouses. Hon. Members who have just spoken, and the Leader of the Opposition the other day, made a very strong attack on the Government for increasing the Licence Duty on beerhouses. They said that they at all events are entitled to more consideration than the public-houses receive, In 1830 Parliament allowed anyone to sell beer if he paid a duty of £2 2s. There was no monopoly. Anyone could obtain that licence. Immediately after that 20,000 persons took out licences, much to the detriment of the sobriety of the nation. In 1869 those houses were brought within the control of the justices, and in 1872 they were subjected to more stringent control. Under the Licensing Act of that year no new houses could be opened to compete with the existing houses without the consent of the justices, and the relation between the State and those houses was completely altered by the law of 1869 and 1872. It was no longer possible for anyone who wished to open a house to compete with the beerhouses, merely on payment of the low Licence Duties of £2 2s., subsequently raised to £3 10s. What did they buy for their payments of £2 2s.? The right to sell subject to the competition of all and sundry. Any man who chose might go and compete with them. There was nothing in the nature of monopoly value. Since 1869, and still more since 1872, a monopoly has been created, and no one has been able to open beerhouses without the sanction of the local justices, which is rarely, if ever, given. Consequently it is, I submit, absurd to say, the conditions having been altered by the State to the advantage of those houses, that it is illegitimate for the State to charge a Licence Duty which is in some degree proportionate to the monopoly which has since their creation been conferred on that class of houses. In any case, even if that had not been done, I fail to see how the Act of 1830 or of 1869 could be used as an argument to the effect that under no circumstances should the State increase the Licence Duty on these

      875
      houses. Does the Leader of the Opposition really seriously contend that the past relations between Parliament and these houses——
      Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have not the words with me, but the right hon. Gentleman said the other day in Committee, in discussing the Schedule, that these houses having had a statutory right, people having been invited by the State, so to speak, to invest their money in them, the houses being opened free from any onerous Licence Duty, and free from the justices' control, it is a monstrous exercise of legislative authority now to come down upon them and charge them this increased Licence Duty.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think I said that.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Then I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's argument was.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I quite admit that my recollection of my speeches is shadowy, but in regard to the speeches to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, what I think I said was that the Government had no right to impose a tax which had for its known result the squeezing out of existence of these houses which had a statutory right—the Government having stated not merely that they were raising the tax, but that the result would be to squeeze these houses out and destroy them altogether.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the first place, I think the right hon. Gentleman is putting the statutory title much too high. In the second place, he is making an assumption that the necessary consequence of these duties will be to squeeze out a large number of houses.
      Mr. BALFOUR: That is admitted by the Government.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think so. I have admitted that there may be some cases in which the licences will be discontinued just as they were in 1880. But my point is this. The right hon. Gentleman surely cannot argue that the past history of these houses is such that under no circumstances is the State justified in increasing the Licence Duty upon them. He agrees. That being so, that supports and enforces my argument that the question at issue is one not of prin-
      876
      ciple, but merely of amount. You may say that these duties are too high; but I do not think you can say that on the ground of principle, in view of previous legislation, it is illegitimate for the State to impose increased duties upon ante-1869 public-houses. As a matter of fact, the increased duty will be only about £10 per house on the average. The larger houses will pay more, the smaller houses less; but the average increase will be £10. I put it somewhat too high in a previous Debate, when, by a mistake in arithmetic, I put it at £13. The increase will be about £10, which, I submit, is not an excessive charge to lay upon them. It is true that that is an increase of three times the present duty; but that is because the present duty is absurdly low, for houses frequently doing a large trade, and which when they receive compensation, are paid for at the rate of many hundreds, even of thousands, of pounds. Three pounds ten shillings annual duty is a derisory sum. The increase is not the measure of our future oppression, but the measure of their past quite indefensible immunity.
      I come, lastly, to the case of hotels. At the present time an hotel which is used bonâ fide as an hotel, and which has no bar, or has a bar of less than £25 annual value, pays only £20 in Licence Duty. The rateable value may be £50 or £20,000; its liquor sales may be £50 or, as they sometimes are, £20,000, the Licence Duty charged is the same. It is precisely the same as for a public-house rated at £40. Hotels like the Savoy, the Metropole, the Grand, and others in London, are now paying to the revenue only £20 per annum. If hotels have a bar worth worth more than £25 a year they may have to pay a larger sum, but never more than £60. That is all that is paid by the Hotel Cecil. It is said that these houses have no monopoly value. But under the Act of 1904 it is distinctly declared that where a new hotel is opened, it is to pay a sum in respect of its monopoly value. New hotels that have been opened in London and elsewhere during the last five years are to-day paying from £20 up to £500, and in one case £1,000 a year, for monopoly value under the Act of 1904, passed by the party opposite. The hotels have made representations to the Government, and the Government have been very anxious to meet them. Some time ago a committee appointed by the hotel and restaurant trades of the United Kingdom circulated to Members of this House and the Government a memorandum

      877
      stating what they desired. Of course they said that they would prefer no increase of taxation at all; but they went on to say that if there had to be increased taxation on the lines of this Bill they thought that certain drastic Amendments, to use their own term, were necessary unless serious injury was to be done to the hotel and restaurant business. The Government, being most anxious not in any degree to impose an undue burden upon this important industry, met the hotel and restaurant proprietors, and we have adopted practically the whole of the proposals included in this memorandum. In the first place they say, as the House is aware, that special conditions are allowed to hotels and restaurants, which are defined as being places bonâ fide used for this purpose, and in which the proportion of liquor receipts are 33 per cent. or less of the total receipts. They must do two-thirds of their trade in non-alcoholics. The committee who represented the hotel and restaurant keepers urged that this one-third should be altered to 40 per cent. for the sake of the restaurants. They said that some bonâ-fide restaurants would otherwise be treated as public-houses, and not get the benefit of the Clause. An Amendment stands on the Paper in my name which will effect that alteration. Secondly, it was proposed in the Bill as introduced that the Licence Duty might be reduced in the case of hotels and restaurants to a proportion of the full duty payable being double that which the liquor receipts bear to the total receipts. The hotel keepers urged that the words "double that" should be omitted. That would effect a halving of the proposed duty. We have accepted that representation, and as the Bill now stands the words "double that" are being omitted. The next proposal is to me incomprehensible, namely, to insert after the word "payable" the words "on the annual compensation value." I think that must have been put down by some mistake. I cannot understand its purpose, and no one has been able to explain it to me. Then they proposed that the tax, if it is on the basis of annual licence value, should be not 33 per cent. but 25 per cent. of that value. We have accepted that also, and in the Committee stage 25 per cent. was substituted for 33 per cent. Lastly, they asked for the deletion of the minimum duty, which, it was proposed, should be one-twentieth of the rateable value. We have not been able to delete that altogether, because, if we did so, it would
      878
      allow some hotels to escape with an absurdly low amount, perhaps of £2 or £3, although in some cases they might be doing a considerable trade. If the minimum were omitted, there would be cases in which hotels would pay less than they are now paying. We have, however, to a very large extent met this contention, and, in the place of one-twentieth, we propose it should be one-thirtieth of the rateable value, which is an exceedingly low minimum. Therefore, I think we may claim that in these respects we have accepted practically the whole of the proposals of the hotel and restaurant trade, and we consider that we have met the views of that important industry very fairly.
      Not only in regard to the hotels and restaurants have we done this, but in other cases where hardships have been proved to exist we have endeavoured by Amendments in the Bill to mitigate those hardships. In the first place, as far as the larger public-houses are concerned, houses doing a small trade but having highly assessed premises, they will greatly gain by being charged on their licence value instead of on their rateable value. Not only that, but we have reduced the charge on their licence value from one-half, which was originally proposed, to one-third. That is a great concession, and it will reduce the revenue receipts from these houses by 33 per cent. That will mean a very large lowering of the Licence Duties payable in London. Further, in Ireland, while we keep the same scale of duty in both countries, we have altered the minimum in respect of the population in the areas in which the public-houses are situated, because, as has been pointed out, the valuation of licensed houses in Ireland is on a totally different basis from that in England. Further, we have reduced the scale for off-licence holders, and that scale is now agreed with the off-licence trade. It has also been urged that seasonal hotels in the Highlands, and at seaside resorts, might not be able to claim the benefit of the hotel exemption, because their liuqor receipts are higher than one-third of the total. Their case has been met by a special provision. Theatres in the provinces, which, in some cases, were able to show that they would be charged too heavily, have also received a concession. Music-halls having public-houses attached to them, which would have been charged on the basis of half the rateable value of the whole of the premises, have also been satisfied by an Amendment

      879
      which fully meets the justice of their case. The special case of the pottery towns has been met by a special provision. We have conceded to the brewers and to other licence holders the right of paying their duty by instalments, which, I admit, is a poor consolation if the duty is high, but it is an arrangement of some convenience to the trade. The date of the brewers' Licence Duty has been altered to meet their views. Further, although we do not share the distrust of hon. Members opposite of the discretion of the Inland Revenue and Excise Commissioners, we have given a full right of appeal to the courts of law wherever it has been asked for in this part of the Bill. In addition, the House must not forget that our proposals effect a much-needed simplification of our whole system of Excise licences. It must also be remembered that the Licence Duties as they will be charged will still be lower than the duties in many of our Colonies and in the United States. Taking all these facts into consideration, I have no hesitation in commending this scheme as worthy of the approval of the House and the country.
      Mr. WALTER LONG: I doubt if anybody is now astonished at anything that happens on the part of the Government. Had it not been for that fact I think everybody would have been amazed at the situation in which we find ourselves. It is well known that the Government are extremely anxious to terminate further Debates on this stage of the Bill as rapidly as possible. It is an open secret that appeals and suggestions have been made, and are directly made, for our Debates on certain portions of the Bill to conclude rapidly. And now, Sir, at the eleventh hour, on the Report stage, when a Motion before the House is that a particular Clause should be omitted, the Minister in charge of the Bill has made a speech which is in itself the strongest confirmation that you could possibly ask for of the views advanced by my hon. Friends behind me who have moved the rejection of this Clause. A very able speech—as all the right hon. Gentleman's speeches are—has been made by the Chancellor of the Duchy, a very comprehensive speech and a very long speech, as he admitted himself. I venture to say that if he had been the Minister in charge, not of a Finance Bill, but of a new Licensing Bill; if he had set himself the difficult task of justifying the rearrangement of the licensing system of this country, that he could not reasonably, I think, have occupied for a much longer period the time of the
      880
      House. I do not think he could have made a speech more suitable to the occasion. But we are not, as he has assured us, and as the Government frequently have assured us, dealing with a Licensing Bill. We are told we are dealing with a Finance Bill pure and simple, and that our contention that this Bill is directed against a particular trade, and is not a Bill which seeks to establish a revenue, are contentions for which there is no foundation. I am bound to say that it would have been a little more to the point if the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his prolonged and interesting remarks, had found it possible to deal with the main contentions advanced by my right hon. Friend behind me, who moved the rejection of this Bill. The two contentions are condemnatory of the proposals of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman has not found time, or found it convenient, to make one single word in reply to them. I propose to make a few observations which occurred to me while sitting here, and which also are probably familiar to all of us. The right hon. Gentleman has failed, as I say, to deal with the argument of my hon. Friend owing to the fact—he will not, I am sure, imagine that I wish to be discourteous to him—that he came armed, as Ministers generally are when they have to move the second reading of a great measure, with a carefully prepared oration. By some mistake, and unlike his usual acuteness, he did not anticipate the arguments addressed from this side of the House. Consequently, in the course of his very interesting speech, he has not dealt with either of the two arguments which my hon. Friend put before the House. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the question that has been frequently dealt with before, and that is the fall in the consumption of spirituous liquors. In the conclusion of his speech, what did he tell us? He appealed to the House to support this great measure—I think he used the words "great measure" to a particular part of a Bill dealing with parts of the licensing proposals—on general grounds. He told us in his peroration that the Government had made great concessions to the hotels and various other branches of the licensing trade. In listening to the right hon. Gentleman one would believe that everybody connected with this trade would be in a state, not of deep indignation at the way in which they are being treated, but of profound gratitude to the Government for the way in which they have meted out to them the most generous proposals.

      881
      I have not personal knowledge of the incidence of these new taxes upon the trade, but I have had a great many communications and a great many interviews with people interested in the trade, and I have done my best to find out on the spot what is the effect upon a variety of the smaller hotels and public-houses of the new taxes. I do not hesitate to say that without a single exception the answer given by the people concerned is entirely opposed to the view which the Chancellor of the Duchy has sought to put before the House. The main contention, the grounds upon which my hon. Friend moved the rejection of this Clause, are twofold. First of all, he said that it is unsound to increase your taxes upon a source of revenue which is in itself decreasing. To that I think the right hon. Gentleman advanced some general reply. He tells us that on the whole the consumption is getting back very much to what it was, that there has been a tremendous decrease, but that decrease is not to be regarded as a real decrease, it is only one which is consequent upon an inflated period of trade. The right hon. Gentleman may be right. All I can say is that he is not confirmed in his views by those concerned with the trade. What he says may be so in certain parts of the country, in very populous parts, in some of our larger and more populous towns, and then in parts of those towns only. I venture to suggest that the different reports come from everywhere—and let me point out that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Leif Jones) and those who agree with him are constantly dwelling upon the fact with profound gratification that there are in all these cities to be found signs of diminution. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that either by your legislation or education you are producing a diminution in the consumption of spirituous liquors and beer, and at the same time justify the increase which you are laying upon taxation. But come from these general remarks to the particular objections mentioned by my hon. Friend. I will take them in a different order to that in which he put them forward. He dealt with the White Paper issued this morning, and also with particular cases. My hon. Friend gave what the Chancellor of the Duchy carefully avoided touching upon, that was specific cases of owners of properties in the country, and he gave present conditions in regard to their payments for licences, etc. He showed what the increase would be and he showed—he said what everybody knows
      882
      to be true—that those cases could be multiplied to an almost unlimited extent. He showed that the result of this new form of revenue will be ruinous to these people. What was the answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy? It was to refer us to the history of legislation upon these points, and to go back to the Report of the Commission of 1853. He not only did that, but he made what I thought a more extraordinary statement still in support of his conclusion. He referred to the fact that it had been stated by all parties that there was to be a rearrangement of licences. I am not aware that anybody has ever denied that the grades in which licences are placed by the taxes of the country are not open to alteration. If that alteration were justly and properly done it would probably not meet with opposition. What was the argument of the Chancellor of the Duchy. He referred to the fact that the Commission have recommended that this should be done in connection with local taxation. It was a most astounding argument for the Government to use in defence of their present proposals, because they are now making changes and putting the receipts of those changes into the Imperial Exchequer. Then they try to justify it by pointing to the Report which recommended that this rearrangement should be made for purely local purposes! If there is anything in the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has used at all, the force of it tells against the Government and against their proposals—not for them! Let me give the second argument of my hon. Friend. He called the attention of the Government to the White Paper which I have referred to, and he referred to the fact that this White Paper claims that there will be a decrease under the new arrangement of the Government of £300,000. He went on to show that this is a peculiar conclusion to arrive at, that the figure is a grossly exaggerated one, and that the reduction is nothing of the kind. The Chancellor of the Duchy never made one single word in reply on a most important point put forward, and that anybody speaking for the Government might have been expected to deal with.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I said I would deal with it when we came to the question of the licensing part of the Clause, to which this matter would be more appropriate, and when we were considering the basis on which the new Licence Duties are to be made.
      Mr. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman would have been a little fairer to us if he had confined himself in his speech to the special points raised by my hon. Friend, and not have selected those particular points which seem more suitable for him to answer. We have great reason to complain that in a speech of the length and character delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the main points—what we, at all events, refer to as the main points to justify our arguments—are not referred to at all. The reason why we object to this Clause is not only that we believe that you are taxing a class of property which cannot bear more taxation except under a system of rearrangement which is very carefully calculated and suited to the requirements and conditions of each case; not only because we believe that the effect of it will be to strike a very heavy blow at a trade which some people refuse to regard as specially entitled to be attacked, and a trade which, I believe, is as respectable and well worth fair treatment as any other trade in the country. These are not the only reasons. There are in addition to them the right hon. Gentleman's complaint, that there was a suggestion that this legislation was not conceived solely from a desire to get revenue, but that there was something to do with past history. We are blamed that that is the view we take. We are not to blame on this side of the House. My hon. Friend behind me asked the Government to answer the specific cases he gave. He said that by this new rearrangement of the taxation of the country many respectable people would be absolutely ruined, and he quoted individual cases. Not one of these cases has been dealt with. I do not propose now to quote the numerous speeches which have been made. But I could quote speeches made—by whom? Not by Gentlemen on this side of the House, not by people interested in the trade, but by prominent leading Members of the Government. These speeches were made last year, and this, I think, is the most important point of all. The speeches were made not after the fate of the Licensing Bill had been declared, but when the Licensing Bill was still under consideration. We all remember the threats—there were nothing else—which were uttered at that time: the adjurations addressed to another place to pass the Bill, and to the trade to do their very best to get the House of Lords to pass it. Why? Because we were told: "If we fail in our at-
      884
      tempt to legislate in order to alter the licensing laws of the country there is another measure by which we can do it. We can impose License Duties, which will be the same thing in another way." That is not our language. It is not the language of those who are interested in defending themselves against these attacks. It is the language of Members opposite, Members of the Government, and leading Members of the Government. If I remember rightly the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one who used language of that kind. So, also, I believe, was the Chancellor of the Duchy.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL dissented.
      Mr. WALTER LONG: If the Chancellor of the Duchy says he made no use of such language I accept his statement, but my contention is that Members of the Government used it. They then brought forward a great measure which they declared was a temperance measure. I appeal to the House—I do not care to which side—what were the grounds upon which that licensing measure were supported? Were they not because it was a great temperance measure? When they found, or thought, it was likely they would be unable to carry it and to effect their reforms in that way they turned round and said, "We will do it in another way. We will tax you and make these changes." My hon. Friend did not give quotations. I am not going to give them now. I have not come down prepared for a second reading speech like the Chancellor of the Duchy. If I had made the same preparations I would have had these extracts.
      To that there has been no reply. All we have heard from the Chancellor of the Duchy was in regard to one or two statements, not made now, but on previous occasions, and then this general statement that the whole trade has been met in a singularly generous way, and that the Government have listened to their demands and, in some cases, have conceded more than they have asked, and that it is a most unreasonable thing that a great scheme of this kind should not be supported by Parliament. All I can say is, so far as the trade is concerned, I do not care whether you go to the trade representing the large or the smaller class, whether you take the case of public-houses whether they are ante-1869 beerhouses, or whether you take the case—and I think, perhaps, these are the hardest of all cases—of the smaller class of hotels of the country, I venture to say that to the

      885
      general trade of the country these hotels are of the utmost consequence. They are the only places where people who come to many of our towns either for business or for pleasure can stay. They ought to be encouraged to conduct their business as they are anxious to do in a thoroughly respectable way, yet the Chancellor of the Duchy tells us that the concessions of the Government are going to put them in a better position than ever they were before. Not one of these hotels think that. There is no owner or occupier who holds any view but that the proposals of the Government are going to strike a fatal blow at them. Under these circumstances, while I listened with interest, as I always do, to the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy, and realise that he was putting this great scheme and measure before us as such measures are put before us on second reading, I have heard nothing to make me alter my view that this is not a great measure to regulate the liquor trade as he described it, but that it is really one that does nothing but gross injustice to a very great and, as I hold, to a very respectably-conducted trade. I think we are entitled to claim that when it is alleged, as it is alleged—and this House surely cannot ignore the statements made by representative men connected with a great industry like this, who speak from personal knowledge and give figures which have never been disputed, and which now at the eleventh hour remain undisputed, I think we are entitled to claim that these statements cannot be ignored; statements of men who are as well entitled to be listened to as any other body of men in the country. I believe that this part of the Government's proposals are really not part of a Finance Bill, but that they are licensing proposals, and that they are unjust, and that they will work irreparable injury to the trade. I regret very much that in any concession made there has been no real attempt to grapple with the question of licensing, to do so in such a way as to do the minimum amount of injury to that particular class of houses, the small country hotel, to which I referred, and which, if comparisons are to be made, have the strongest claim of all. I said nothing of the larger hotels. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy referred to a statement made by the Waldorf Hotel. That statement was made in the Committee stage, and it was claimed to be one to which there was no reply; but it has now turned out that that state-
      886
      ment was made under a complete misapprehension. I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman refer to it again. There is a general consensus of opinion that you are doing great injury to these hotels, and in these circumstances it seems to me that nothing we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman ought to alter the view we have taken that this is an unjust and unsound proposal, and is one which ought to be rejected by this House.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of having come here either with the intention or with the necessary preparation for a Second Heading speech. I should not have intervened at all in the Debate, after the most able and exhaustive speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, except for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman complains that one or two points have been left unnoticed. I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather difficult to please, because he finds first that my right hon. Friend's speech was too long and then he thought it was not long enough. For my own part, I venture to say that it covered the whole ground, and that every reasonable objection made in the course of this Debate to the licensing proposals was dealt with, and that it was an appropriate speech to make upon this occasion, when the hon. Gentleman opposite proposed to omit practically the whole of our licensing proposals. But out of deference and courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, I will endeavour now for two or three minutes to deal with the points he raised. First of all, he repeated the argument that it is bad finance to lay additional taxation upon a dwindling source of revenue. No doubt that, as a general proposition, is very sound canon both of local and Imperial finance, but when you speak of the revenue from intoxicating liquor as being a dwindling source that statement is perfectly true if you regard the consumption per head of the population to-day compared with what it was ten years ago; but it is not in the least true if you compare the amount of business which is done in the average public-house with the amount of business done in such a house ten years ago. The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to observe, or has not given due weight, to the fact that while it is perfectly true that the amount of liquor consumed per head is decreasing, simultaneously there has been a very substantial diminution of the number of public-houses, and if I may once more quote the figures already given by my right

      887
      hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, you will find—this takes a period of 20 years, 1888, 1898, and 1908—you will find that, taking the consumption of liquors per licensed house, in 1888 it was, in spirits, 323 gallons; in 1898 it was 385 gallons; and 1908 357; and in beer, 184, 234, and 224 gallons. So that per licensed house the consumption has very largely increased during the 20 years, although it is not quite so high in the case of spirits, and not quite so high in the case of beer as it was 10 years ago. Yet the consumption per licensed house shows a very much smaller falling off than the consumption per head of the population——
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure whether I understand the right hon. Gentleman. If I do, he divides the total consumption of the country by the number of public-houses—he is not referring at all to the amount actually consumed—but he is dividing the whole consumption of the country whether in or out of public-houses—
      The PRIME MINISTER: That is quite true. I quite admit that private consumption or house to house consumption ought to be mathematically and strictly excluded, but I do not know that it is possible to make such a calculation——
      Mr. PHILIP SNOWDEN: Yes, it is.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree that is the basis upon which the figures should be arrived at, because you are dealing with the same class of figures at each stage, in 1888, 1898, and 1908. You are dealing on the one hand with the number of licensed houses, and on the other with the total consumption of liquor.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There has been a great change in the methods of distribution.
      The PRIME MINISTER: All that must be allowed for. I say you are dealing with the same figures. [An HON. MEMBER: "There has been an increase of clubs."] It is possible that there has been a large increase of clubs, but I think it will be found that there has been a larger percentage of diminution of consumption in private houses than in public-houses. I agree you must take all these factors into account, but the net result will be found to be that the consumption per licensed house has not diminished in anything like the same proportion, even if it his diminished in the 20 years, as com-
      888
      pared with the consumption per head of the population, and these Licence Duties with which we are dealing in this particular Clause are duties imposed upon licensed houses. They are imposed, in other words, upon the monopoly value which these licensed houses have to their owners or occupiers. When you are considering—I am still dealing with the argument that you ought not to tax a dwindling source of revenue—what is the subject-matter of the tax, namely, the monopoly value of the house, and, on the other hand, when you observe that as regards the average consumption per house there has been nothing like the diminution suggested per head of population, the argument loses, if not the whole, at least a great part of its weight.
      Let me come to another point. The right hon. Gentleman is surprised that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy should refer to the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation and to their recommendations of an increased Licensed Duty as a possible, and, indeed, as a practical source of additional revenue. He says you are taking this revenue in the shape of taxation and not of rates. What possible relevance has that to the position taken up by my right hon. Friend? My right hon. Friend was arguing that the licensed house could bear this additional burden, that at the present they were being undertaxed, and that the duties were on an insufficient scale. It does not matter whether you apply the additional revenue you receive to rates or taxes. You are not justified in deriving the increased revenue at all unless you are satisfied that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation were right in saying that the existing revenue is not equal to the requirements of justice, and that the licensed holder could easily bear an additional charge.
      Then let me come to another and much more serious point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He says that some of the arguments used in defence of this part of the Finance Bill proves that the object of these particular provisions is not a proper object for a Finance Bill, but is an object which would more properly be aimed at in a Licensing Bill.
      Mr. LONG: I said from the speeches that have been made.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Well, I seem to remember that last year, when we were engaged in the discussion of the Licensing Bill, hon. Members who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman complained that the

      889
      purposes of the Bill would be more properly included in a Finance Bill than in a Licensing Bill. I remember perfectly well that when we were dealing with the monopoly value and proposing that the State, after the expiration of a term of 21 years, should be entitled to resume the monopoly value which they themselves created, they said that that has nothing whatever to do with licensing or with temperance; it is merely a means of securing for the State an additional source of revenue; so that when we introduced those proposals in a Licensing Bill we were told it was a Bill for the relief of the fiscal situation, and when we introduce it in a Finance Bill we are told that it properly belongs to a Licensing Bill. We cannot get it right whatever way we try to do it. But as a matter of fact we here start in regard to these Licence Duties from the fiscal point of view. For years and years past we have stated, quite independently of any reform in our licensing laws, that the present scale of duties as applied to licensed houses is wholly indefensible, and if you are entitled to expect, as we think you are, from the lower class of houses a rate of duties on a scale established in 1880, you cannot possibly justify letting off the higher class of houses on the derisory duty they at present pay, and you have there a most legitimate source of revenue That has been the position which I believe every responsible leader of this party has taken up ever since I have been in Parliament. Remember always that these License Duties—as I have said before, and cannot too often repeat—are duties upon the monopoly value which the State has created, and upon a privilege which the State has granted. Last year, wishing as we did for a comprehensive settlement of our Licensing Laws, we proposed to defer the right of the State to resume that monopoly value for a fixed term of years, allowing it in the interval to continue to be enjoyed by those who are at present licence-holders in consideration of the enormous and beneficial change which we believed they would bring about in the conditions of temperance and the consumption and sale of intoxicating liquor. I have been accused of using a threat, but I am sure I did not, although I admit I did utter warnings, and that I did say—and I am not at all ashamed of having said it—that if that proposal on our part which would have foregone the right of the State to all intents and purposes to enjoy for many years to come any substantial addition to
      890
      the revenue from these sources were rejected, the trade of the country must not be surprised if we reverted to our original position, and said, "Here is a source of revenue ready to our hand to which we may justly resort to meet the exceptional necessities of the State for social reform and national defence."
      Mr. WALTER LONG: I was not referring to any statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I was referring to explicit statements made by his colleagues in the Cabinet.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I hope we shall never arrive at a time in this country when the speeches of Cabinet Ministers will not be read with interest. Well, I have known times when they were not treated in all quarters with becoming respect, but I am not aware that anything which my colleagues have said on this matter is in any way inconsistent with the position I have just stated. At any rate, that is the view of the Government. Our proposals for deferring for a long period the possibility of resorting to these sources of revenue having been deliberately rejected, we are perfectly entitled now, as a matter of fiscal expediency and justice—and I put it upon that ground alone—to demand from the persons to whom the State has granted as a privilege this valuable monopoly, that they should in the shape of additional taxation render something more like an equivalent return for the privileges they enjoy. I come lastly to the crucial point. The right hon. Gentleman himself does not deny that the existing scale of duties is indefensible. Neither the Mover nor the Seconder of this Amendment have attempted to defend it. It has been condemned in most explicit and emphatic terms by statesmen belonging to both parties sitting on both sides of the House. To exact a Licence Duty which averages something like, I suppose, 50 per cent. on the lower-value houses, and when you get to the higher-value houses, the great gin palaces of our large towns—which everyone will admit are, from a moral point of view, more potent sources of demoralisation, and, from a fiscal point of view, are certainly fit subjects for taxation—these great establishments escape not altogether scot free, but pay a contribution to the State which it is impossible for any man of fairness or common-sense to justify. I think the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment paraded, as they always do on these occasions, the great authority of Mr. Glad-

      891
      stone. They build tombs for the prophets, nevertheless they stone them to death. The collection of epitaphs upon Mr. Glad stone which we have heard from Dukes downwards in the course of the criticism inside and outside of this House of the Budget Bill would occupy an amount of space which I do not think any lapidary could estimate. It is some consolation to remember that Mr. Gladstone was denounced with exactly the same epithets, and, I think, with even more vehemence of spirit, than are the degenerate successors who at present unworthily occupy his place. That is my parenthesis. What Mr. Gladstone did in 1880 when he established this scale was, I think, a tentative matter, and in some senses a new departure, but I think it was very much more in conformity with the then existing state of facts than it is to-day. What was the state of things then? The great bulk of the public-houses in this country then were of the small class. It is during the 30 years which have elapsed since 1880 that there has been this enormous multiplication and addition to the bigger class of houses at the top of the scale. Mr. Gladstone, framing his Budget as he did quite properly for the primary purpose of raising revenue, placed the burden of the tax upon the average house, which was the house normally in existence at that time, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to keep constantly and steadily in view. Those who have witnessed the great transformation and change which has taken place in the trade since 1880 will agree that the scale of 1880, even if justified at the time, has become hopelessly obsolete and impossible to reconcile with the elementary principles of taxation to-day.
      That being so, what is the objection to our proposal? We are applying all the way up the same ratio which Mr. Gladstone applied to the normal and average public-house in 1880, neither more nor less, but precisely the same. Admitting, as we do, in regard to some of the larger houses, that the application of such a scale might be oppressive and in some cases even ruinous to the persons concerned, we have offered them an alternative which we believe will prevent any case of real substantial hardship, which my right hon. Friend was right in saying might more properly be discussed when we come to the Clause which specially deals with it. In regard to the hotels a simple cast-iron inflexible 50
      892
      per cent. would have presented cases of considerable hardship, and in regard to them we have practically met all the demands made by their representatives when the Budget was introduced. I do ask those who take part in future stages of this Debate to address themselves to this question which I have never heard touched upon in these discussions. You admit the present scale to be unjust. Everyone admits that. What do you propose, or have you anything to propose in place of the scale adopted by the Government which would bring about these two results, both of which you ought equally to have in view, first to establish something in the nature of equity as between the different classes of licence holders, and in the next place to produce to the State an adequate contribution to the revenue for the necessities of the State? For a solution of that question the Government proposals hold the field.
      Mr. A. E. W. MASON: We have all listened with great interest to the speech of the Prime Minister, and from my point of view certain words he uttered towards the end throw a rather different complexion upon the whole matter. All through these Debates we have been labouring under a certain difficulty, because we are not aware what are the actual Amendments to be brought forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Prime Minister expressed the opinion that they would prevent any actual hardship being inflicted in individual cases. I think it has been admitted by those sitting on the Government Bench and those who sit behind them that as a result of these Licence Duties great hardship will be inflicted upon particular members of the community. I think it is perfectly true, as the Prime Minister has stated, that our main difficulty is the consideration of the actual amount which ought to be levied upon the licensed trade. In that question of the amount there is undoubtedly raised a very large question of principle. Any hon. Member sitting on the Ministerial side of the House is quite certain to accept any statement falling from the Prime Minister, and when he declares that the object of this Clause is a fiscal object and not a social one, and that incidentally it is only to aid temperance reform; when the right hon. Gentleman declares that its real object is to raise necessary revenue we are bound to accept his statement. On the other hand, I do say that the statement which the Prime Minister has just made was a very necessary one, because we have

      893
      had the hon. Member for the Appleby Division (Mr. Leif Jones) declaring publicly that you cannot put too heavy a duty upon the trade, and therefore it is necessary for someone to state clearly and precisely that the object of the Budget proposals in this case is to raise revenue. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he believes that as a result of these Clauses no man earning his livelihood at the present moment protected by the laws of England will be prevented from making his living in the same way when these taxes are imposed? After all, if the object of this Budget is to raise money and nothing else, surely it is an essential consideration whether you are levying taxes which will prevent people from continuing to earn their living in the way they were doing before. I am not aware of any principle of taxation which would justify the levying of a tax so high that a man would have to turn to another trade in order to get his living. It certainly would not be placing the burden upon the shoulders of people best able to bear it. I, for my part, would certainly accept in that sense the statement just now made to us, that the new Clauses and the Amendments of those Clauses to be put forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy will prevent any case of individual hardship which it was generally admitted would occur without those emendations.
      6.0 P.M.
      Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The Prime Minister, just before he sat down, challenged us on this side of the House to produce some scale as an alternative. The right hon. Gentleman was not here when in Committee I moved a scale which we said would meet the justice of the case, and would distribute the present duties in a more equitable manner, and which was so arranged to produce £23,000 more than the present revenue. I mention that because I think the Prime Minister was not aware that we had produced a scale. What is the origin of these proposals in this Budget? I have no doubt they originated 12 months ago when the Licensing Bill was rejected. We had it from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House over and over again that if the Licensing Bill was rejected other means would be taken to attain its object, which was to reduce the number of licensed houses by one-third during 21 years, and not to obtain revenue. No revenue was to come in until 21 years had expired, and, not only was no revenue
      894
      to be obtained, but there was to be a loss from the licences, which were to be reduced by one-third during that time. That, as the Government stated, was a temperance measure, and its object was to reduce the licences. The object of a Budget is to produce revenue. But supporters of the Government have stated that a reduction in the number of licences would be obtained by taxing them so that they would have to close their doors. There is no doubt about that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. P. Whittaker) said that if they could not get the Licensing Bill passed the obvious plan was to increase the duty. The object was to diminish the value of licences. That is the Budget, according to the right hon. Gentleman. The Lord Advocate, who is always so accurate in his statements, made it plain that in the event of the House of Lords throwing out, or mangling, the Bill to any extent, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would impose such a Licence Duty that fully one-fourth of the public-houses would have to close their doors. The right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary (Mr. Joseph Pease), on 4th December last, said:—
      "I imagine people will expect that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will cause the abolition of redundant licenses by placing taxation on them so that people may get back their own."
      The Prime Minister himself has just now admitted that he stated in June of the present year that the question of whether the effect might not be to discourage the growth, and, indeed, the existence, of the worst class of houses, may be taken into account by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that it would be perfectly justified. I do not want to enter at any great length into the general arguments. We have had them over and over again during the last two months. Shortly, they are these: The trade is already taxed up to the hilt, and the point has been reached when no further revenue can be obtained. That is quite clear from the Spirit Duty. We also say that the taxes borne at the present moment by the trade amount to no less than about 29 per cent. of the total taxes and some of them consist of taxes which were put on by various Chancellors of the Exchequer as a temporary expedient only, as, for instance, the Whisky Tax and the War Taxes. Then the trade has to bear an extra burden in the levies under the Act of 1904 towards the compensation money. If we compare the total amount now being paid under the head of taxation for liquor with that which is paid in other countries we find we are very greatly

      895
      ahead. The Beer and Spirit Taxes in the United Kingdom last year worked out at 16s. 9d. per head, whilst in France they amounted to only 9s. 5d., in Germany to only 4s. 5d., and in the United States of America to 10s. 7d. The House will, therefore, see we are very greatly ahead of our rivals in this direction, and that we are certainly overtaxed at the present time. The result, no doubt, would be very severely felt, especially in our large city, where the minimum duties will operate. The House will remember that the minimum duty on all beerhouses is to be £23 10s. and on fully licensed public-houses in all cities with a population of 100,000 and more it is to be £35. The result is going to be very disastrous in our large towns. In Bristol the increase in the amount that will be paid will be 165 per cent.; in Norwich, 141 per cent.; in Dover, 172 per cent.; in Birmingham, 193 per cent.; in Sheffield, 165 per cent.; and in Bradford, as much as 340 per cent. The ante-1869 beerhouses are in a very special sense deserving of the consideration of the House. They were created in 1830 on the invitation of the Government of the day. Owing to various causes beer had deteriorated, and the population of the country took to drinking inferior spirits that was considered to be bad for the people, and the policy of the Government was, therefore, changed from what it had been for 300 years, and they said that any householder should be able to take out a licence to sell beer on the payment of an Excise Duty of two guineas only. Immediately a great number of beerhouses were opened all over the country, and they continued till 1869, when I think there were about 50,000 of them. Parliament then changed the law, and said these houses must come under the general jurisdiction of the magistrates, but Mr. Gladstone's Government, in so changing the law, recognised that these houses had obtained a vested interest, and it was provided that the licences should not be taken away by the justices unless for misconduct. That went on till 1904, when the Act of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) provided that they were again to come under the general conditions, and that, if these beerhouses were considered redundant, the magistrates should have power to close them on due and adequate market value being paid. The Government now say, "We will make them close their doors by taxing them so much that they cannot pay, and we will not pay them
      896
      a single penny for compensation." There is a wide difference between the principles of the Act of my right hon. Friend and the principles of the Government. I hope it is not too late to make an appeal to the Government on this question. I should like to appeal to them, not in my own words, but in the words of their own Foreign Secretary (Sir E. Grey), who the other day, in a speech in the country said:—
      "There is far too much goodwill about the British community to make any large section really wish to see others taxed for the sake of penalising them, and so anything in the nature of a vindictive Budget, I am convinced, would have no chance in the country."
      I hope the Government will give us the opportunity of seeing whether this vindictive Budget has any chance in the country. I believe they will find that the people of the country have a very different opinion as to what is justice from what they think justice. I believe the people of the country, when they are appealed to, will say that all the provisions of the Budget, and especially these Licensing Clauses, will create and inflict a grievous injury on a large number of persons who have done nothing wrong and who have a right to claim from the Government of the day and from the law that same protection which all citizens have in this country.
      Mr. JOHN GRETTON: The Prime Minister defended the increased scale of duties on the ground that the consumption of spirits and beer is divided by the number of public-houses, though he did not altogether adhere to that statement. It is an undoubted fact that, stating the total consumption of beer in any one year and dividing those figures by the number of licensed houses, will give a most inexact and fallacious view as to the business done upon the licensed premises generally. The conditions of the licensed trade in this country have changed very much during the last 20 years. My hon. Friend has pointed out that during that time there has been a great increase in the number of clubs, and that there has been very considerable alteration in the methods of distributing beer and spirits. There has, for instance, been a very great increase in the amount of beer bottled, and, as a consequence, there has been much less supplied in tankards and glasses across the counter. That means that there has been a proportionate loss on sales on licensed premises during the last two decades. I think the Prime Minister must have for gotten that taxation on liquor itself has increased. The Budget has already pro-

      897
      duced a very large reduction in the amount of spirits consumed on licensed premises in this country, and this, of course, means taking away a very considerable proportion of the revenue of these licensed premises. I think, too, the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that there has also been a constant increase of rates. The Government are coming in rather late. The local authorities have been before them. Those authorities have been carefully watching any increase which may have taken place in the value of licensed premises. There has been a continual process of screwing up the rates by the local authorities, and the Government are coming into the field very late in the day in their endeavour to secure for Imperial taxation what has already been paid for years in the form of local rates. The London County Council woke up to that fact the other day when it stated in terms that this increased taxation on licences will result in a reduction of the rates in London by upwards of £200,000, a sum which represents, on the remaining property in London, over one penny in the pound. These facts ought to be borne in mind.
      I will only, in passing, refer to the comparisons which have been made with licence taxes in foreign countries. They have been mentioned by different speakers, but I would like to suggest that these comparisons are misleading and not worth notice, unless they take into account not merely the taxes imposed by the local authorities, but also the contributions which it has been the custom in foreign countries to exact on the means of the distribution. But under this Budget the Government are taxing the article higher than ever before: they are increasing the tax on whisky and beer, and at the same time they are adding to the taxation on the licences themselves out of all measure. I think the case of the '69 beerhouses is peculiarly hard. These licences, prior to the Act of 1904, had an absolute statutory right by Act of Parliament which the financial proposals of this Budget will destroy. The new principle introduced into the Schedule with regard to minimum duties will seriously affect these houses. They are chiefly houses of small value, but they will be wiped out practically by the proposed minimum scale. There is not the slightest intention to treat them with any consideration whatsoever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has never attempted to show one tittle of
      898
      consideration for the position of these beerhouses. The Government have made concessions to grocers, and they have very much reduced the scale for off-licence holders, and, though that scale may be considered more bearable, bitter complaint is still made that the Government have taken away one of the most valuable considerations which they offered for the acceptance of the increased scale. Hotels undoubtedly have had some consideration shown them, but, again, it should be understood that these concessions only affect the larger hotels which have sprung up in recent years, and will not affect the smaller hotels. The case of the latter is hard and almost intolerable. These so-called concessions are practically of no value at all as regards a very large class of on-licences in this country. There has really been nothing done to meet their case, and no one connected with the trade or who has to do with these houses attaches the slightest value to these so-called concessions. The fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs stated very plainly, is that the total amount to be collected under the new scale from this class of houses throughout the United Kingdom only amounts to £325,000. The concessions represent £300,000, and these bring practically the large houses back to the value on which they are paying at the present moment. As to other classes no attempt whatsoever has been made to meet them, except in one case, where there has been a slight adjustment of the minimum scale. I do not propose to repeat the argument which has been urged on the consideration of the Government, showing the overwhelming weight and crushing effect of these duties. They evidently mean wiping out a large number of the houses. It has been admitted by the Government itself that that must be the effect, and calculations have been made showing that at least one-third of the houses will be wiped out as a result of the duties. The produce of the licences will be at least one million more than the Government has put down in its estimate, and that, too, shows that they intend to wipe out one-third of the licences, and have arranged their estimates of revenue accordingly. I maintain that this is not a Finance Bill, so much as a proposal to revive the worst and most unbearable provisions of the Licensing Bill of last year, and to carry into effect abortive proposals which never received the assent of the country. The Government, in my opinion,

      899
      are not seeking to raise revenue on sound economic lines, but they are endeavouring to extort and exact it by methods which might be more natural to Eastern potentates.
      Mr. A. J. SHERWELL: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry put an explicit question just now, which I think every one will agree, went very largely to the root of this question. His question was this: "Can the Government give an assurance that the scale proposed in this Finance Bill will not lead to the suppression of a single existing licensing interest at the present moment. That is a fundamental point, because if it is to receive anything like universal and compulsory application it will have financial consequences which are not agreeable to the hon. Gentleman opposite. I imagine that the equitable application of the principle must entirely depend on the assumption that since the existing taxes were first calculated there has been no change in circumstances or conditions which in any way disturbs the equity of the taxation as it at present exists. Speaking from a personal point of view alone, I say that the whole argument for the increased taxation proposed by the Government in their Finance Bill rests on the overwhelming and perfectly unanswerable fact that since the existing set of taxes was levied by Parliament the value and character of licences has been changed, and has been changed by the action of Parliament without any fiscal or financial consequences. My point in defending the Government scheme and my ground for supporting that scheme is this: that Parliament from time to time, and since the present taxes have been in vogue, has most substantially and materially changed the character of the licences and enormously enhanced their value by diminishing, but not at the same time adjusting, its scale of taxation to the change made in the character and value of the licence. Therefore, if I am to ask myself how far the existing standard of taxation is a proper standard, I must, to arrive at a conclusion, enter upon an examination of the condition of things which existed when it was imposed and the conditions which are prevailing to-day under the altered circumstances. Moreover, the Amendment of my hon. Friend, if carried to its logical issue, would not only be financially indefensible, but also entirely unprecedented. It will be within the recollection of the
      900
      House that when Mr. Gladstone in 1880 proposed his certainly very moderate scale of licence taxation, although the standard then imposed, as I, for one, believe, and as anyone who has regard to the history of the question will admit, was exceedingly moderate, and, as I hold, an entirely inadequate one, yet the effect of that alteration was to lead three or four thousand public-house holders in Scotland to surrender their licences and take up another kind of licence in their places, namely, the grocer's licence.
      When that consequence took place there was no question as to the equity of the scale of taxation brought about, and it is the first time I ever heard it suggested that those licensees who in 1880 surrendered their licences rather than pay the additional amount of taxation were entitled to a great amount of sympathy from the House. Moreover, there is a fact which is very partinent to the arguments we have heard this afternoon as to the ethical or moral right of Parliament to impose a new scale of taxation, or to alter the law in a way which drives licensees out of existence. We have heard that there is a special hardship in the case of the licensee holding an ante-1869 beerhouse, but we have not had a single reminder of the perfectly analogous case of the holders of the ante-1869 off-beerhouse licences, who had precisely the same statutory right as the ante-1869 on-beer licensees. What happened? At the instance, and with the support of the trade Mr. Ritchie introduced a Bill which deprived the ante-1869 off-beerhouse licensees of their statutory rights without the payment of a single penny of compensation, and I cannot help thinking that this historic precedent is a sufficient answer to much of the argument that has been heard as to the special hardship to the ante-1869 beerhouse licensees this afternoon. But I think we shall all admit that the point which the House is primarily concerned with is the general equitableness of the scale of taxation proposed by the Government, modified as they are by the Amendments on the Paper—the broad, equitable defence and justification of that scheme. I have tried to work out the actual effect on existing licensees of the present proposals, and it has not been possible until all the Amendments have been brought together.
      I have been trying to work out very elaborately and carefully what will be the actual financial effect of the Government scheme upon the existing licensees of the Kingdom, and I should like to give just

      901
      a few figures which will enable me to show what will be the actual financial effect of the new scale moved by the Government. I will take first of all the case of England and Wales, taking merely houses under £500 annual value, which represent something like 97 per cent. or 98 per cent. of the whole. The present average annual Licence Duty they pay at present is £20, and the effect of the proposals of this Bill will be that the future average duty for those same licences will be £41, or just double the present duty. Taking in all the public-houses now public-houses under this Bill above and below £500, and excluding houses rated above £3,000, which are not public-houses proper but hotels and restaurants, which take out at present the ordinary publican's licence—including all public-house licences above and below £500 in England and Wales—the present annual duty averages at present £21, and in future under the effect of this Bill it will be £49. I cannot for a moment conceive that that difference justifies the very strong language we have heard concerning punitive taxation which is constantly being addressed to Members on this side of the House. Take the case of Scotland. The new taxes proposed are less severe there. The present average of duty on all public-houses is £20 15s., and the average future duty under this Bill will be £39 10s., an increase of £19 a year. In Ireland the effect is almost negligible, and that is not due owing to the special concession which the Government made, which I think was a perfectly righteous concession in regard to the minimum duties. It did not mean very much. Owing to the low rateable value which exists in Ireland the effect of the new scale is almost inappreciable. At present the average duty is £8, and in future under this Bill it will be £9 9s.
      May I give the House some details which I think will bring home much more clearly the actual effect of this Bill in the case of England and Wales. I take England and Wales, because they represent 73 per cent. of all the public-houses in the United Kingdom, and the new scale happens to press with greater severity in the case of England and Wales than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The effect of the new scale, making full allowance for the actual rateable value of all the public-houses in every town and urban district in England and Wales, and making the fullest possible allowance for the scale of minimum duties in the Bill set up by the Government—the actual effect of
      902
      the new scale will be this, that in the case of 5 per cent. of the whole of the public-houses in England and Wales the amount of the Licence Duty will be actually reduced by this Bill. In the case of 28 per cent. the average increase will range from 5s. to 10s. a year, and in the case of a further 8½ per cent. the average increase will range from £1 to £2 10s. In another 6 per cent. the average increase will be from £3 to £7, and in the case of another 23½ per cent. the average increase will not exceed from £9 to £12 10s. a year. In other words, 5 per cent. of all licensed public-houses in England and Wales will actually have their Licence Duty reduced, while another 66 per cent. of the whole number will have their Licence Duty increased by an average sum ranging from 5s. to £12 10s.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon for interrupting. But where does the revenue come from? I cannot follow his figures, nor do I see how such figures can be reconciled with the estimated revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated.
      Mr. SHERWELL: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the actual estimates of increased revenue which I calculate the Treasury will receive, and which I estimate will be a large sum.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will it be the same as the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
      Mr. SHERWELL: I am not at all sure. I will give it as my own personal view of the situation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not suffer to the extent of £500,000, but, broadly speaking, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate of expected revenue will be realised. I think my own figures would not fall very far short of the estimate originally made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I can give the right hon. Gentleman the detailed figures which will show him how the revenue is to be raised. In respect of the low figures, but setting aside certain small intervening increases between £12 10s. and a higher sum, 13 per cent. of the licensees will have their duties raised by £45 a year, or 17s. a week. The figures I have given represent altogether 84 per cent. of the licences in England and Wales. There is no doubt that the scale of the Government Bill does hit somewhat heavily a certain number of highly-rated public-houses, but those highly-rated public-houses are rela-

      903
      tively very few, although the revenue to be derived from them is substantial in view of their number. They really represent all those houses of over £500 annual value, although public-houses are probably represented by only 2 per cent. of their total number in the United Kingdom, and while I admit that the fewness of these public-houses does not justify an excessive taxation of them, I cannot subscribe to the view that a house rated at £500 gross rateable value is excessively taxed if called upon to pay a Licence Duty of £250 per annum. There is enough evidence to show that a Licence Duty of £250 per annum for a house rated at £500 is well within the taxable capacity of the publican if he is protected from unfair competition. The essential equity of the new scale is that it does broadly adjust the weight of the taxation to the character and size of the premises. An anomaly which has been freely admitted to exist in connection with the existing scale of Licence Duty is that the small houses pay quite a disproportionate amount to their annual rateable value as compared with the larger and more heavily rated portion, and so it comes about that under the existing scale the villages and the rural districts and the small towns pay a much higher proportion of Licence Duty than is paid by the publicans in the larger towns.
      Perhaps the House will permit me without trespassing unduly on its patience to give a few figures showing how equitable the incidence of the tax is to the small houses in the towns and villages of the country. I will take the Government's own line of demarcation. Take rural districts and urban centres having a population of less than 2,000 people, and in the case of 11 per cent. of all the public-houses in these areas the Licence Duty under the Bill will actually be reduced. In the case of 70 per cent. of the others the average increase will range from 5s. to 15s. a year, and in the case of 8 per cent. the average increase will be £2 10s. a year, so that in the case of all the public-houses in the rural or urban districts in places with a population under 2,000 people in the case of 90 per cent. of the public-houses the Licence Duty will either be reduced or raised by an amount varying from 5s. to £2 10s. I cannot see any justification in those figures for the charge of punitive taxation. May I take the next population group given by the Government? Urban districts having a population of from 2,000 to 5,000 and upwards. In this group 11
      904
      per cent. of the total number of licensees will have their Licence Duty reduced under the Bill, 33 per cent. will have an average increase of from 5s. to 10s., and 23 per cent. will have an average increase: of from £2 to £2 10s. Here again you have 70 per cent. of all the public-houses in these small places of from 2,000 to 5,000 inhabitants in which the Licence Duty is actually reduced or is raised on the average by sums of from 5s. to £2 10s. a year.
      May I take a further group of places having from 5,000 to 10,000 population? In 27 per cent. of these cases the Licence Duty under the Bill will be raised front 10s. to £1. In the cases of 13 per cent. more the duty will be raised by £2 10s. a year; in the case of 11 per cent. more the duty will be raised by £4 a year; in the case of another 9 per cent. by £7, and in the case of another 22 per cent. by £12 10s. Here, again, you have in towns of from 5,000 to 10,000 population 83 per cent. of the whole number of public-houses raised by average sums ranging from 10s. up to £12 10s. a year. Let me take a group of towns having from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants; 27 per cent. of the public-houses in that group of towns will have their Licence Duty raised under the Bill by from £2 to £3 per annum; 7 per cent. more will have their Licence Duty raised by £6 per annum; and 41 per cent. more will have their Licence Duty raised from £9 to £12 per annum, or 3s. 6d. to 5s. a week. These figures cover 75 per cent. of all the public-houses in that group of towns. To take the larger cities. It is inevitable that, under any readjusted scale of taxation which has any regard to equitable principles, the incidence of that readjusted scale must fall much more heavily upon a large city than upon a small town or rural district. But, taking a group of towns having from 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants, 11 per cent. are raised by £10 a year, or 4s. a week; 45 per cent. more are raised by £12 to £13, or 5s. a week; 7 per cent. are raised by £16 to £20; 22 per cent. more are raised by £45 a year, or 17s. a week; while 7 per cent. more are raised by £90, or 34s. 7d. a week. Here, again, the figures are 92 per cent. of the whole of the public-houses in that particular group of towns. When you come to houses above £500 annual value, I admit that the increase is substantial, but if any regard were to be had to justice and to equity the increase was bound to be disproportionate in a number of cases; and I still suggest my own personal belief that there is nothing under the revised scheme of the Government that

      905
      can constitute any reasonable justification for the characterisation of this scheme as being a revengeful or punitive scheme of taxation. The figures I have quoted are actually higher than the actual figures, because I have been bound to treat all licences on the basis of a tax of 50 per cent. of their gross rateable value, because the new valuations of annual licence values are not ascertainable at present. I have also had to include in public-houses a number of hotels and restaurants and refreshment rooms which took out an ordinary publican's licence, but which, under the Bill, will receive special concessions and exceptional treatment. The figures I have given are really outside figures, and it is on the strength of those figures that I, for one, have no hesitation in supporting the scheme of the Government.
      Mr. BALFOUR: It is with very great diffidence that I follow, upon such a subject as this, an expert like the hon. Gentleman. He has devoted an immense amount of labour to the consideration of licensing questions, and he has written a very elaborate and authoritative treatise on the subject, and, of course, I do not for a moment put my authority against his in matters of detail. He will forgive me for saying, however, that there are certain broad aspects of the question touched upon in earlier speeches this evening on which he does not seem to me to have thrown any important light. We have heard a good deal of the Licence Tax being lightened on certain classes of licensed property, and that bulked rather largely in the hon. Gentleman's statement, but somehow everything in the nature of an increase seemed to be glossed over, and almost to vanish in the statement which be gave to the House. If no one is going to pay anything, how comes it that the Exchequer is going to get over £2,000,000? If the whole of this £2,000,000 is going to be got out of a particular trade, it is really going rather far to assume that it will have no ill consequences to any members of the trade. I will ask the House to consider the general view of finance in connection with the subject which has been given us by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy. They have told us that we are most unjust to accuse them of having brought forward a Licensing Bill under the guise of a Finance Bill, because, adding to the licences has always been a part of Liberal finance, and when they are asked for authority for that state-
      906
      ment, they go back to the speech of the late Prime Minister eight or nine years ago, in which he appears to have thrown across the floor of the House a suggestion to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might increase the Licence Duties. I do not traverse the authenticity of that history, but, after all, what were the Government doing last year when they brought forward their Licensing Bill? They knew then practically the whole extent of the financial obligations which would have to be met in this Budget. They knew then the full burdens of the old age pensions. No new class of liability has come upon them since then. They knew what was being done in foreign countries in the way of shipbuilding. They had already had the authentic information which has made them, and still more us, deeply anxious about the condition of the Navy and brought home to everyone the necessity of an increased expenditure upon that branch of our defensive services. They knew, broadly speaking, what the financial situation was, and I do not understand in those circumstances how they can, with a clear conscience, have abandoned Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman's principles of finance and brought forward a Licensing Bill which entirely destroyed that broad system of finance which was a source of revenue for 21 years. If they have been looking ever since 1901 to an increase of the Licensing Duties as a proper way of meeting that expenditure, how was it that they tried to destroy that source of revenue a year ago, when they were fully conscious of all the new strains which were going to be put upon our national finances by old age pensions, the increase of shipbuilding and social reforms? All this history and quotation from the speech of 1901 is a mere afterthought. It is done with the intention of getting over the objection which we have urged from these benches, that in truth those Members of the Government were right, including the Chancellor of the Duchy, who said that this part of the Budget was an alternative to the Licensing Bill, and as they were deprived of the Licensing Bill they proposed to bring forward this alternative in a form in which it could not be amended in another place.
      Mr HERBERT SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman quoting my words? I have no recollection personally of saying so.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have not the quotation, but I believe the right hon. Gentleman will find that the substance is this,

      907
      that the Government were now going to propose a way of doing what had been done by the Bill of last year, although the way they were now going to do it was not so good. There is no one in the House who doubts for a moment that the broad contention I am making is accurate, that Members and supporters of the Government have over and over again, since it appeared that the Bill of last year was in peril, made statements of which only one interpretation can be given, namely, that if the Bill of last year failed there was another way of doing what it would have done, with the additional consolation of bringing in some immediate resources to the Exchequer. In that case I do not think the Prime Minister ever succeeded or could succeed in inducing the House to believe that there is no relation between the financial proposals of 1909 and the licensing proposals of 1908. Both had an effect, near or remote, on the revenue, but that in this Bill the Government have the deliberate object not merely of getting revenue but of doing something which they have tried to do by another means.
      I do not believe any candid inquirer will deny, and however ingeniously the theme may be treated by hon. Gentlemen opposite everyone in his heart knows that the general statement I have made is perfectly accurate.
      7.0 P.M.
      Now I come to what is even a more serious objection to the scheme of the Government, and that is the equity of this tax, tested by any of the canons by which we judge the equity of a tax. I venture to lay down the proposition that a tax which has for its object the avowed and admitted effect of squeezing out of any legitimate business a certain number of people who are practising it is a tax which so far stands condemned. If you put a tax on of such magnitude that you so utterly alter the conditions of business that people are no longer able to carry it on who were carrying it on, that may not be a conclusive argument against the tax, but it shows that it is a very oppressive tax. I do not think anybody will deny that. I ask, Is this new scheme of duties framed in a manner which can be defended? The defence which has been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that Mr. Gladstone in 1880 left the scale at the lower end so framed that about one-half of the rateable value was paid to the Exchequer. They say, "That is quite inequitable, and we propose to alter it." I
      908
      believe that many people hearing this are under the impression that Mr. Gladstone imposed for the first time on small licensed holders a tax equal to half the annual value. He did nothing of the kind. He found the tax of about that amount. The hon. Member who has just sat down will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am not wrong in saying that Mr. Gladstone, in 1880, did not greatly raise the scale of duties on the smaller houses. It is not accurate to represent, as the supporters of this Bill seem to represent, that Mr. Gladstone began by raising the duty from nothing to half the rateable value, and that the Government are merely carrying on that beneficent operation from one end of the scale to the other end. Mr. Gladstone found these duties not differing very substantially from those which the present Government are proposing at the lower end. He therefore did not put on any punitive taxation. The Government are undoubtedly putting on punitive taxation at the other end of the scale.
      Nobody will pretend that when you come to a house with a rateable value of £450 or £500, and suddenly put on a tax of £200 on that house, you are dealing with the particular individual engaged in a particular industry as this country has ever dealt with a particular industry, so far as I know, in the whole history of its finance. I do not think that either the Chancellor of the Duchy or the Prime Minister has made the smallest reply to that case. All they have said is that you bring forward the case of the man having licensed premises of the annual value of £400 or £500. They say that the man who has licensed premises of small value has long been taxed half the rateable value. That is true, but these two obvious observations have to be made. Iu the first place, the rateable value at the higher scale has not the same relation to the trade as in the case of the smaller house. The second observation is whether that condition of the licence was fair or unfair on the small houses, not merely since 1880, but for a much longer time, the tax has been imposed, and therefore the original inequity, if inequity there was, has constantly changed hands, and has not now that oppressive effect which it may originally have had, and which your new tax will have at present. Unquestionably you are practically going down to these people and saying, "The Chancellor of the Exchequer wants £2,000,000. You inhabit a

      909
      house worth £500; you should pay £200 a year more than before." That will have a most oppressive effect on a large number of licence holders, and surely to ask us to believe the proposition that it is just is to ask us to accept something at which commonsense absolutely revolts. I say you cannot find a precedent in regard to the larger licence holders in anything which Mr. Gladstone did in 1880 in regard to the small licences. That is our case, broadly speaking, in regard to the licence holders in the larger and more valuable houses. How about the licence holders in the small houses? Anybody who listened to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down would suppose that they had been left where they were, and that they had suffered no wrong or injustice under this Bill. It is perfectly true that in many districts of the country the licence will not have been seriously increased in value, or increased in value at all. Is that the case all over the country? On the contrary, directly you get to the areas of large populations, you have imposed a minimum which may increase seven or eight times the tax which these people are now paying. Can that be described as otherwise than oppressive to that particular class of individuals? Granted, with the hon. Gentleman opposite that there are licence holders in the country who have no special reason to complain of the taxation now proposed. That is not my criticism of the Budget proposals as regards licences. My criticism is that while there may be people who have no reason to complain, there are people who have a perfect right to say, "You are specially selecting a class of individuals in the community, and you are treating us with special hardship; you are driving us out of our business; you are asking us to pay more than any individual specially selected ought to be asked to pay out of his earnings." Of course, it is quite true that the obligations of the country have to be met. It is quite true that it may be a very disagreeable and onerous business for the community at large to meet them, but nobody complains of taxation diffused over the community upon understood and accepted principles. My complaint as regards this part of the Budget is that licence holders are worse treated than any other class. You are selecting certain individuals merely because they happen to be carrying on a legitimate business in houses rated at something between £400 and £500 a year, and you come down upon them and
      910
      ask a contribution to the State out of all proportion to their general means and far beyond what you are asking any other member of the community, be he rich or poor, to contribute, and the result must be in some cases that these persons will be not merely made much poorer but driven out of business altogether.
      Nobody will make me believe that that is legitimate finance. I am perfectly certain that if you insist upon leaving this part of the Bill what it is intended to be namely, a substitute for the measure the object of which was to squeeze publicans out of existence, and as long as you leave it an effective substitute for that Bill for squeezing publicans out, so long will it leave a sense of rancourous wrong in those who are oppressed, and those who have, unfortunately for themselves, anything directly or indirectly to do with the licensed trade will have a feeling that this House cannot be trusted to deal fairly between interest and interest, and that political and social prejudices are allowed to interfere with the fair use of your financial power, with the result of throwing upon one small class of the community a burden which indeed must be borne, but which should be diffused over every class of the community benefiting by the finance which the Government are endeavouring to raise. That is the reason that makes me feel that both in principle and practice it is bad to impose taxation in this manner, and that it is bad if you look at it in relation to the broad principles of taxation which have hitherto governed taxation in this country. For both of these reasons I heartily support my hon. Friends, and if they go, as I trust they will, to a Division, and ask the last judgment which this House will be in a position to pass upon this part of the Budget in isolation from the other proposals, I shall vote with them. I have no doubt that the Government are ill-advised in their proceedings. They have shown considerable ingenuity to-night in trying to disguise the general trend of their policy, but I think the plain Statement of fact which I have ventured to make will show perfectly clearly what are the grounds that move us to object to their proposals, and I think we shall have the general sense of equity in the community on our side.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'or' ['for the manufacture or'] stand part of the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 91.

      Division No. 841.]

      AYES.

      [7.15 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Morse, L. L.

      Agnew, George William

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

      Alden, Percy

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Myer, Horatio

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Gulland, John W.

      Napier, T. B.

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Hall, Frederick

      Nicholls, George

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

      Astbury, John Meir

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Pollard, Dr. G. H.

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Barker, Sir John

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Haworth, Arthur A.

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

      Beale, W. P.

      Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

      Radford, G. H.

      Beauchamp, E.

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Bennett, E. N.

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Rees, J. D.

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Rendall, Athelstan

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

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

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Henry, Charles S.

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

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Boulton, A. C. F.

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Roberson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Brace, William

      Hodge, John

      Robinson, S.

      Brigg, John

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Bright, J. A.

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Brodie, H. C.

      Hooper, A. G.

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Brooke, Stopford

      Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hudson, Walter

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

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Sears, J. E.

      Byles, William Pollard

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Seely, Colonel

      Cameron, Robert

      Jackson, R. S.

      Shackleton, David James

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

      Simon, John Allsebrook

      Clough, William

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Snowden, P.

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Stanger, H. Y.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

      Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Steadman, W. C.

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

      Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Lambert, George

      Summerbell, T.

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Lamont, Norman

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Crossley, William J.

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

      Thomas, Abel Carmarthen, E.)

      Davies, Elis William (Eifion)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Toulmin, George

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Vivian, Henry

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

      Lupton, Arnold

      Wadsworth, J.

      Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

      Lynch, H. B.

      Wardle, George J.

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Elibank, Master of

      Mackarness, Frederick C.

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Erskine, David C.

      Maclean, Donald

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

      White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

      Evans, Sir S. T.

      M'Callum, John M.

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Everett, R. Lacey

      M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Falconer, J.

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

      Williamson, Sir A.

      Ferens, T. R.

      M'Micking, Major G.

      Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Maddison, Frederick

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

      Findlay, Alexander

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Winfrey, R.

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Marnham, F. J.

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Glendinning, R. G.

      Massie, J.

      Glover, Thomas

      Menzies, Sir Walter

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

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      NOES.

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Balcarres, Lord

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Bull, Sir William James

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Carlile, E. Hildred

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

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

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Clive, Percy Archer

      912

      913

      Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

      Hunt, Rowland

      Renwick, George

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Kerry, Earl of

      Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Keswick, William

      Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

      Fell, Arthur

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

      Stanier, Beville

      Fletcher, J. S.

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

      Starkey, John R.

      Forster, Henry William

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      Stone, Sir Benjamin

      Foster, P. S.

      Lowe, Sir Francis William

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Gardner, Ernest

      Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Newdegate, F. A.

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

      Gretton, John

      Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

      Whitbread, S. Howard

      Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

      Nield, Herbert

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

      Nolan, Joseph

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

      Hamilton, Marquess of

      Oddy, John James

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Younger, George

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

      Hills, J. W.

      Percy, Earl

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      CLAUSE 44.—(Valuation of Licensed Premises.)
      (1) The annual value of any premises for the purposes of any duty charged in the First Schedule to this Act shall be determined in the same manner and subject to the same conditions (including as respects licensed premises in Ireland the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section forty-three of the Inland Revenue Act, 1880), as the annual value of premises is determined for the purpose of a publican's licence, and in the determination of that value the duty on the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction.
      (2) It shall be the duty of the Commissioners to prepare, and to keep corrected, a register as respects all fully licensed premises and beerhouses respectively of the amount which would be payable as compensation in respect of the premises under Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Licensing Act, 1904, if the premises were premises in respect of which compensation was payable under that Act, and of the annual equivalent of that amount (in this Act referred to as the annual compensation value, that equivalent being determined for the purposes of this Act in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury). That amount and the annual equivalent thereof shall be certified respectively for the purposes of this Act by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and any such certificate shall be subject to the like appeal as that to which the determination of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the amount to be paid for compensation under Sub-section (2) of Section two of the Licensing Act, 1904, is for the time being subject, with the substitution, as respects Scotland of the Judges of the Court
      914
      of Session named for the purpose of hearing appeals under the Valuation of Land (Scotland) Acts, and as respects Ireland of the High Court of Justice of Ireland, for the High Court.
      In estimating for that purpose the value as licensed premises of hotels or other premises used for purposes other than the sale of intoxicating liquor, no increased value arising from profits not derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be taken into consideration.
      (3) The licence holder and any person interested in licensed premises shall, if required by the Commissioners, make a return in such form and containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require for the purpose of the ascertainment under this Section of the annual value or the annual compensation value of the premises, and if any person fails to make such a return within the time, not being less than thirty days, specified in the notice requiring the return he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
      Mr. PEEL Mr. PEEL moved, in Sub-section (1), to omit from the word "licence" ["purpose of a publican's licence"] to the end of the Sub-section.
      In the discussion to which we have just listened we dealt with the very severe penalties which must fall on licence holders through the new scale of duties. The point which I now wish to bring before your attention is that unless my Amendment is carried a far heavier range of duties will be cast on licence holders than exists at present. In the Debate on this point in Committee the Solicitor-General

      915
      treated these words as being only in accord with the statutory form of existing practice, and he said that in arriving at the values on these occasions you do not deduct from the gross value the value of the licence. This statement is literally true, but it is only true in a perfectly literal sense, and in a sense which I can show very briefly is entirely unmeaning. In fact these words, in the sense in which they are suggested to be intended by the Solicitor-General, have really no meaning at all. His contention is a mere quibble on the word "deduction." The Licence Duty is not deducted in the same way as certain deductions are made to reach the rateable value from the gross value, but it has already been taken into consideration in deciding what the rate is to be, and, of course, we all know that the rent is the basis of all calculations of assessment. Therefore, I think, I will be justified in saying that his contention is really a mere quibble, because, whether the Licence Duty is deducted in the first stage or the second stage, whether it is treated as being merely taken into consideration or subsequently deducted, in either case you arrive at exactly the same result, and, broadly and practically speaking, the Licence Duty is deducted. But I am afraid that if these words mean anything, they mean that the Licence Duty is to be added to the rateable value. If that is so, it practically means you are taking by your Licence Duty 100 per cent. of the gross value and not 50 per cent. In fact, it means that this Clause which we have just discussed, of taking 50 per cent. of the gross value, because it is on the gross value the Licence Duty is charged, is a false statement made in this Bill, and that by apparently innocent words attached to this particular Clause in the Bill you are by a side-wind—or inference, if you like—actually doubling the gigantic range of this duty.
      If I may use a word well known I believe in Scotch law, this is indeed a swingeing duty which you are going to put on these licence holders. Take a house of £280 valuation, on which a man may have been paying £35. If in the future he is going to pay £140, it is perfectly clear that that house will be £105 less value than it was before, taking £35 from £140, and under those circumstances it is quite ludicrous to say that there is no change in the gross value or in the rateable value. What you are doing, therefore, is this: You are not charging a
      916
      percentage of the gross value as that is ordinarily understood, but you are doing what is done so often in this Bill; you are inventing a totally different sort of value, an absolutely fictitious value, a value which does not exist for any reason except for the purpose of levying this gigantic duty. It is a pure creation of this Bill, bearing no relation whatever to any existing value, rateable or otherwise, which has previously obtained in finance or rating schemes. The point is, therefore, a perfectly simple one. It is a gigantic new creation. It is doubling rateable values. I ask the House to simply, as it were, to double all those statements which have been made on this side of the House, notably by the Leader of the Opposition, and then they will get some idea of the severity with which this new impost is going to fall on the licensed trade. The effect of these new Licence Duties levied in this way on the ratepayers will be serious because it is impossible in this respect to separate ratepayers from taxpayers. I think it will bear some weight in this discussion if I can show, as I think I can, that not only will this tax tremendously hit the licensed trade, but that because of this new form of taxation the ratepayers all over the country will be called upon to fill very large gaps indeed by increasing the rates in the towns, because the assessment on which those rates are levied will have fallen largely owing to this new and heavy taxation.
      I would point out that, although you are going to adopt for the purpose of this tax, this new and fictitious annual value, you are not going to adopt it for the purpose of your rates. Your rating will go on exactly as before, and as your rating the system is to ask, in those cases, what the hypothetical tenant will do, of course the hypothetical tenant, in calculating the payments in relation to the existing tenant, will be ready to give much less than before because of this new duty. Therefore, the rateable value will fall very heavily. I wish to give certain figures affecting London, although, of course, they apply to the rest of this country. These figures are from a report to the London County Council by Mr. Harper, their statistical officer, in which he tries to arrive at the effect of this tax upon the rates of London. I think they will afford an example to the rest of the country of what will be the effect of this new imposition. The total value of all licensed premises in London amounts to £2,642,049 gross and £2,203,610

      917
      rateable value. I am sorry to say it is quite impossible to give the figures with regard to hotels, restaurants, and beerhouses. The only figures which I give are those which affect fully licensed houses. In the case of these, on the present duty, the Licence Duties payable are £183,000, and the existing value of those fully licensed houses is £1,576,266. I want to take the effect of the tax in two cases—first of all, if the Licence Duty is still considered as a deduction in arriving at this value; and, next, where it can no longer be deducted or taken into consideration. Under the first case, the Licence Duty will run from £183,000 to £627,000, and the rateable value will be reduced from £1,315,000 to £1,045,000. But, of course, if we are to take the figures as they appear, if my Amendment is not accepted, the position of the ratepayers will be far worse, because the Licence Duties rise from £183,000, as it was originally, to £991,000, while the rateable value is reduced by £826,000.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the hon. Member say that if you take, for instance, a house at £600 rateable value, if the licence value is £300, that in future it becomes £900 as a result of these figures?
      Mr. PEEL: I was not dealing for the moment with houses over £500. In this case the assumption is that we do no take into consideration, in fixing the gross value, the new amount of licence. That is my assumption.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: You say a £500 house will remain at £500 still?
      Mr. PEEL: It will remain a £500 house still. Take those figures as they are—I only give the general result—it is estimated that the loss to the ratepayers, including the ratepayers of the Metropolitan Water Board of London, would be no less than £208,000, and that figure represents one and one-sixth pence over the administrative County of London. I do not propose to give the figures as to the inhabited House Duty, and so on, because I am dealing at this moment with rates. There you have a tremendously heavy fall. I have confined my remarks solely to fully-licensed houses. If it was found possible at this stage to give the figures relating to hotels, restaurants, and beer-houses, the sufferings of the ratepayers would be heavier still. Perhaps I can add, as relevant to the interests of the ratepayers, that the reduction of the consumption of the Whisky Tax, as it is given in the figures for the first five
      918
      months of this financial year, to the ratepayers will mean from the 3d. per barrel on beer, and the 2s. 6d. a gallon on whisky, a further loss of no less than £203,000. Therefore, in considering the effect on the ratepayers, you must also bear in mind that in another way they are very heavily hit by this Budget. There are two similar points in connection with this matter that I ought to deal with, because it might be suggested that in relation to this particular point the ratepayers do not suffer so heavily. There are in the next Clause deductions under certain circumstances by which licensees are able to deduct from their Licence Duty a certain amount of money which they pay as rent to the brewer. But that has no effect upon the rateable value, because the rateable value of these houses—in London, at any rate—is fixed at what it would be to a free tenant, and therefore no help could come to the ratepayers from that source. The second point is one which has already been alluded to. As to houses over £500 a year, they will be able to charge in another way, namely, on the compensation value. Speaking during the Committee stage, the Chancellor of the Duchy declared—and I think he was confining his remarks to London, and was speaking of the ratepayers—that the amount that would be gained by the trade, or lost by the Exchequer, would be something like £150,000. I think that applies to London. I am very interested to know where the right hon. Gentleman obtained his figures from, because we can only obtain facts from figures which really exist, otherwise they are purely vague guesses. Since the Act of 1904 was passed only one house in London of over £500 in value has received compensation, owing to its having been suppressed under the Act of 1904. Therefore, if the Chancellor of the Duchy in giving those figures generalised on the one single instance, I am advised that if that particular house were dealt with on the basis of compensation value it would pay in Licence Duty a considerably higher sum than it would pay in the other way. Therefore I confess I challenge the figures which the Chancellor of the Duchy gave, and I challenge him to show how he arrived at the basis of £150,000. That is the only way in which he could possibly test it—namely, in the instance of that one house. I say, looking at some of the values of houses in London, that this so-called diminution of charge will act very unequally in London, and will have very little effect in

      919
      reducing the amount those houses will pay; in fact, in many cases it will very much increase it. I think that is the general view taken by the Chancellor of the Duchy. I think he took the view that charging these houses on compensation value will really inconsiderably reduce the amount to be paid, because when he was speaking before in Committee he was trying to defend himself from the allegation that he was charging much more. The Chancellor of the Duchy said:—
      "I never in any case, except perhaps in certain particular cases, said that the charge would be less. On the whole my argument was directed to a different position."
      On 3rd September he said:—
      "This new system of valuation is not intended to be the vehicle of extracting any burdensome taxation from the trade, and I hope, in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said and my assurance, the discussion will be conducted on that basis."
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was referring to £500 houses, and that it would not be a reason for extracting anything more. They would take the option.
      Mr PEEL: I think the reason would apply to houses under £500 as well as to houses above £500, because there would probably be very little difference with regard to the basis of computation in the case of a house of £450 as compared with a house of £550. Therefore my remarks remain unchallenged. Under existing figures, I say it is impossible to show that the figures I have given to the House can be in any way challenged or diminished by the so-called concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy as regards houses of £500 in value. Therefore I want to move the omission of these words, which double the charge which the Bill itself says is to be put on a licensed house. Secondly, its reflex effect will be very serious indeed to the ratepayers of this country. It is only fair that the Chancellor of the Duchy, who has had so much to tell us on various occasions about the hardship upon the ratepayers, and the necessity of making grants from the Exchequer for certain national purposes which they are now performing, should at least give some sort of ear to my plea when I point out that these unfortunate ratepayers, as a result of this tax, are to have a very heavy and fresh burden cast upon them, and that in order to meet the gap made in their rates they not only will not get a substantial grant from the Exchequer, but the Exchequer itself in this back-handed way is going to
      920
      deprive them of a very large source of revenue which they are at present enjoying.
      Mr. E. H. CARLILE: I beg to second the Amendment.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): I hope the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into the more general portion of his speech, and I will deal at once with the effect of this particular Amendment. Let me disabuse his mind of the impression which apparently is upon it, namely, that the effect of not omitting the words which he seeks to omit would be to double the duty at present imposed. The effect is nothing of the kind. We do not propose to make any change in the law at all as it now stands. It is perfectly right, of course, that the duties are increased. Let us see what the law now is and as it has been understood since the year 1880. As the law now is the Licence Duty is not deducted from the annual value. I said in the Committee stage that there was no decision of the law courts on the point, but it has been the invariable practice, and, therefore, we wanted to put it in the clearest way in the Bill, so that there should not be any change in the law. The practice was referred to in a case which dealt with another matter, in which judgment was given by the present Lord Chief Justice. It was a case of Waddle v. the Sunderland Union, and the point was whether in assessing the rateable value of the licensed premises they were entitled to deduct the compensation which was fixed by the Act of 1904. It was decided in that case that they could not make that deduction, the charge not being necessary to maintaining the premises in a state to command a rent thereon. With reference to the non-deduction of the license duty, the Lord Chief Justice said, "I do not attach much importance to the fact that the money has to be paid with the duty on the Excise licence. It is admitted that it has not been the practice to deduct the duty on the Excise Licence." There can be no doubt at all about the practice. There never has been allowed or claimed the right to deduct the present Licence Duty from the annual value of the premises. Therefore, we do not make any change in the law. The only objection that could be raised is that as your duties are now going to be increased you ought to change the law, but it would have a very material effect on the money that would come to the Exchequer.

      921
      Let me take a particular case, that of a £100 house, an ordinary house of which the annual value is £100, and which would pay an annual duty of, say, £30 according to the present law. If the hon. Member's Amendment were carried, and the result of his Amendment was as he desires it to be, that the deduction should be made from the annual value you would deduct from the £100 the £50 duty under this Bill, then by a process of going a little further instead of getting 50 per cent. of the annual value, which we propose under this Bill, you would only get 25 per cent., because it is sought to have the right to deduct first of all the amount of the duty, i.e., £50 from the £100, and then take 50 per cent. of the balance, which would only give you £25 on the £100 annual value. That would diminish the duty from one-half to a quarter, but I prefer to rest my case upon this that the present Licence Duty is not allowed as a deduction at all. The reason why we put it in this Bill is that though there has been no legal decision on the matter there is the obiter dictum in the case I have referred to, and to make it beyond all question lest the matter might be raised at any time we put these words in. They do not make any change except so far as increased duties are imposed under the Bill.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I speak with diffidence on the subject, as it is extremely puzzling as to the procedure. As I understand the matter, the valuer has to consider the premises without a licence, and then that there is a licence. He has to consider the building, as it would be unlicensed, and how much that value has to be increased owing to the fact it has got a licence. That is the existing procedure as I understand it. Is not that so?
      Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That may be. I do not deny that the rateable value is arrived at by the process described.
      Mr. BALFOUR: Then somehow or other the valuer has got to arrive at what the rental value is, and, of course, in arriving at the rental value he must take into account the duty, and the man who offers a rent offers that rent knowing what duty he has got to pay. Therefore, as I understand it, whatever words you put in to your Act of Parliament, when a valuer values a house now he does take into account the amount of duty which you are now charging, and that must be a consideration which the prospective tenant has in
      922
      his mind when he offers a rent. I do not see how that proposition can possibly be denied; therefore, when the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the existing practice is not affected, I say that whatever view or whatever gloss a lawyer may put on the actual existing transaction, the present duty is taken into account, and must be still more so with the heavy duties you are now putting on. Take the case of a house valued with a licence. Let us say that the value of that house with a licence and with no duty at all was £400. You then put on a duty of £200. Every tenant taking that house will say, "No doubt I take this house with the licence, and if I pay £400 for it I shall have a duty of half that amount, therefore I am not going to pay £400, I am not such a fool. I am only going to pay such a rent for the house as with the duty will put me in as good a position as I should have been if I had to pay £400 for it without duty." I do not care what is put in your Act of Parliament in that sense if the landlord takes into account what the tenant is ready to give the duty must be included.
      What I am afraid will happen if you put in these words will be this, a valuer will say, "No doubt under the existing law a tenant will not pay more than £200 for this house, but when I look at the Act of Parliament I see that the duty is not to be deducted. Now, as the duty is not to be deducted, and if I am to act as if there were no duty, this tenant would pay £400, and then I must rate it at £400." You do not go on what the tenant will pay, but to what the tenant will pay you add the amount of the duty. I believe you are changing the law by this procedure. As the law at present stands the valuer tacitly does take the duty into account, knowing what rents are given in the neighbourhood for the kind of house which pays £30 in duty and which lets for, say, £200 per year. If you put these words into the Bill I am convinced that the valuer would say I have got to value this house as it would be when licensed and with an annual duty, and then I have got to add the whole amount of the duty. If that is going to be the interpretation of the words, then I say you are grossly increasing the injustice of a very unjust tax, and if you are not doubling the amount you are very nearly doing so, and so far from getting the rateable value under present conditions you are going to alter that fundamentally, and in a manner most injurious to these particular kind of houses.
      Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I was very much astonished to hear the learned Solicitor-General state that the law does not allow the deduction of licence value in arriving at gross value. Of course it does not allow it in so many words, because that deduction has been made already before the rent has been arrived at. Under the existing law the gross value is the annual value adopted for the purpose of Licence Duties. I think, perhaps, I can make my point clear if I read the definition of gross value. I have got the Act of 1836 here and the Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act of 1869.
      Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The definition in the Act of 1836 did not apply to the annual value for Licence Duty. In arriving at the Licence Duty you must arrive at it by the process pointed out by the Act of 1825 as amended by the Act of 1834. Perhaps it will be convenient if I would read what the Act says on the subject. Under that Act it was enacted that in all cases in which the premises were not so rated, the person Applying for the licence, being the tenant, should produce to the person authorised to grant licences a certificate signed by himself, and the owner or landlord of the premises, stating the true rent paid or for which such premises were let; and that if the true rent, by reason of the payment of any premium, or the performance of any condition or otherwise, should not be reserved and payable, then, and in such case, stating the estimated rent or true annual value of the premises, and that the rate of duty payable by the tenant for the licence should be paid according to the rent or value so certified.
      Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I quite agree as to the Act of 1836 that it does rather complicate the matter as to the exact definition of gross value for the rest of the country. But for London, under the Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act, there is a definite definition for gross value. That Act provides "The term 'gross value' means the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for an hereditament, if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes, and tithe commutation, rentcharge…" Surely on that definition the Licence Duty is considered in fixing the rent. The whole basis of your assessment is rent, and the rent obtainable obviously depends on the outgoings, and if, as I say, the Licence Duty is deducted from your calculation of
      924
      the rent, which rent necessarily depends to a large extent on the amount of taxation, then I am perfectly clear the effect of this Clause will be more far-reaching than the Government state, and that it will mean that a new annual value will have to be obtained, quite a different value from the gross value, by adding the Licence Duty to the rent, or by adding the Licence Duty to the gross value.
      As has been pointed out, this is a very serious matter indeed to the publican, and I do not think that the concession of the Government to allow the publican, in the case of houses of greater value than £500, to have the option to pay one-third of the annual equivalent of the compensation value of the licence is of any value whatever. I will not say there is any harm in having it in the Bill. There may be an exceptional case where the assessment is unduly high and where the publican may take advantage of it, but the experience in London is that this concession really amounts to nothing. In the case of houses of a very small annual value something might be obtained, but the Government carefully exclude those small houses from the benefits of the exemption, and they have limited it to the houses of over £500 per year. Since the Act of 1904 114 houses have been extinguished in London of less value than £50, and in those cases the average number of years' purchase of the rateable value was 39½ years. If you had given the concession to those houses no doubt you would have been making a substantial concession. But when you take the houses over £200 you find that instead of 39½ years' purchase you only get 21½ years' purchase, and in the only case of a house over £500 if advantage had been taken of this concession the licensee would have paid a heavier Licence Duty than if he had been content to pay half the annual value. In any case there is only a small number of houses in London of that large valuation. They number 743, as against 3,600 which are below the valuation.
      8.0 P.M.
      I really think that the Government cannot appreciate the very burdensome effect which their proposal will have. I put down this Amendment at the instance of the London County Council, but I notice that the Solicitor-General did not say a single word as to the undoubted effect of this proposal on the ratepayers. If this provision becomes law, every publican at the first possible opportunity will go to the overseer and get him to move the assessment

      925
      committee to grant a provisional list. He will say that his outgoings have been increased, and I am informed by a London County Council official of great experience in rating that the assessment committee will, as a matter of course, grant as a reduction the whole of the Licence Duty about to be imposed. Even if the Government accept this Amendment, the ratepayers of London will lose £115,000 a year on the rates, while if the Amendment is not accepted the loss will be about doubled. That is on fully licensed houses only. The loss of rates will be far greater if you take hotels into consideration, because they will have their assessment reduced in exactly the same way. They will pay their Licence Duty on a different basis, on the compensation value instead of on the annual value, but they equally will be able to go to the assessment committee, demand a new provisional list, and deduct the increased payment from their rateable value. This is a very serious matter, and in view of the burden which local authorities have to bear I think it is most unjust. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a great deal of his concession to local authorities of half the produce of the Land Taxes. That half the produce for the whole country will probably be more than swallowed up by the loss to the rates of London under this one provision. The Government may almost be said to have broken faith with the local authorities, because under the Finance Act of 1907 the present Prime Minister provided that local authorities should not lose anything by the increase in the local taxation Licence Duties. He provided that where there was a drop in the local taxation licences, the local authorities would get the average which bad been payable to them for the previous three years. This year, on top of the enormous loss which you are going to impose on the local authorities, you go back on that provision, and you throw on the ratepayers of London an additional loss of £36,000 owing to the decreased consumption of whisky, due to a tax which has prevented people from drinking whisky and turned their attention to other forms of alcoholic liquors. If the Clause passes in its present form the local authorities, in spite of the land taxes, must be very much worse off, and I claim in common fairness that they should be secured from this additional loss. We do not ask for any change; we ask only that the law should be left as it is at present.
      Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: The speech to which we have just listened reinforces an important point made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel), who urged, in the first instance, that if the words which we wish to omit are retained there will be a substantial loss to the ratepayers of the country. The Solicitor-General shakes his head, but he did not reply to that point. There may be an answer to it, and, if so, we ought to have it, as obviously it is a very serious allegation. I will not attempt to repeat the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, but the House will admit that he speaks with great authority on this matter. His connection with the London County Council entitles him to speak on behalf of that body, and as their expert in finance, he declares that unless you accept this Amendment you will inflict on the ratepayers of London a loss running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Solicitor-General, in replying, took no notice of that charge whatever. It is not that he put up a reply which does not satisfy us; he passed the matter over in silence. But you cannot pass over in silence an allegation of that character coming from my hon. Friend. I am the more surprised that the Member of the Government undertaking the defence of these words should have left that charge altogether unnoticed, because several times in the course of our discussions Members of the Government have not contradicted but have themselves confirmed the view that if you increase these Licence Duties that increase ought to go to the ratepayers. As the Bill stands, that will not be the case. But if our reading of these words be the true reading, they are not only increasing the duties, but they are actually deducting from the ratepayers an amount of money which in the case of the administrative County of London is asserted by an expert member of the London County Council to be £208,000 a year. It is clear that an answer must be given to so important an allegation. Having heard the speech of the Leader of the Opposition I cannot doubt that the law is being changed by these words. The Solicitor-General read a quotation from an Act of Parliament of 1825, as I thought in order to rebut the view put forward by my right hon. Friend, but those of us who are not learned in the law were unable to see any close relation between the passage cited by the Solicitor-General and the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend said that in effect

      927
      these words would add the duty to what is, in the parlance of laymen, the true rental or average annual value of the house. To anyone not learned in the law, but still conversant with what takes place every day, that seems to be a necessary result. If you have a private dwelling-house in London and the rates are largely increased, the letting value of that house is less. Whatever the law may be now, nothing else can happen. If you impose a large additional burden upon the occupier of the house, the average letting value of the house is diminished by about the amount of that burden. The Solicitor-General has not attempted to deal with that point. He has said that as the law stands, as interpreted by one obiter dictum, the amount of the existing Licence Duty is not taken into account.
      Sir SAMUEL EVANS: And according to the invariable practice.
      Mr. WYNDHAM: Then allow matters to stand as they are. Earlier this afternoon we heard from the Prime Minister that the existing Licence Duties were in many cases derisory, that they were so small as to be wholly illusory. It may well be, de minimis non curat lex, nobody has been at the pains to discover accurately whether such duties were taken into account; but now that you are going to make these duties so gigantic that in some cases a tax of £50 is to become a tax of £250, it is a matter of enormous moment to the individual whether that £250 is to be dealt with as you propose, or whether the practice is to be left as it is, which is the real point we are urging on the attention of the House. When the fact that this tax is no longer derisory, but that it is multiplied by five or seven, is added to the fact that this large amount will be deducted from the ratepayers, I think the Government are bound to explain how the ratepayers not only of London, but throughout the country, are not going to be mulcted, under these words, of enormous sums of money in respect of duties which they have been told in the past ought to be used to ease the burdens under which they already labour.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I rise in response to the request of the right hon. Gentleman, although I can add nothing to what seems to be the perfectly lucid answer already given by the Solicitor-General, who has shown very clearly that the fears entertained by hon. Members opposite are unfounded. Suppose they
      928
      were well founded, what becomes of all the attacks on the Licence Duties from the standpoint of the trade? We are told that the London County Council are going to lose £208,000, which is at present being paid by the liquor trade in rates. Who is going to get that £208,000? Clearly the liquor trade. From the point of view of the ratepayers, if the contention put forward were true, the loss would be serious; but from the point of view of the trade they have completely destroyed their own case with reference to the Licence Duties as a whole by that contention. For while they say we are ruining the brewers, destroying the profits of the shareholders, and turning publicans into the street by imposing upon them excessive duties, amounting, in the case of London, to some hundreds of thousands of pounds, in the next breath they tell us that the London publicans are going to escape with no leas than £208,000 less of rates than they pay to-day. Consequently the increased burden upon them will be nil, or extremely small, taking the rates and the Licence Duties together. Therefore if hon. Members have proved their case they have proved much too much, and the liquor trade in London will escape very lightly indeed. But their contention is not one with which we agree, and the Solicitor-General, fortified by legal precedents and conclusive arguments, has shown that it is not well founded.
      Mr. YOUNGER: This case is not a case made by the trade at all. It is a case advanced by my hon. Friends on behalf of the London County Council. The interest of the trade in this particular question differs entirely from theirs. What the trade fear is not that they are to pay £200,000 less rates in London, but that they are going to pay more rates, owing to the fact that this particular Clause may influence the rateable value on which they are charged. What is the Government doing? I know what they meant to do. They mean to take care that the additional burden which they are placing on these houses shall not be taken into account for the first year on which they pay on rateable value. They desire that rateable value to be in no way affected by the heavy additional charge they are placing upon the houses. That is the intention of the Government. What the effect of it will be it is impossible to say. Whether it will affect the valuation which is placed in the assessment book or whether it will not is what the Government

      929
      have failed to explain in Committee. They have not taken up that point at all. They always evade it. And now the right hon. Gentleman says, in that delightfully merry way in which he gets rid of our difficulties, that there is no use traders bothering; if they pay in one way they will not in another. That, I am very much afraid, will not be the case. It is certainly ridiculous to set up an argument of that kind in dealing with this matter. Have not the Government all along objected to the rateable value at all being taken as the basis of assessment? They have made a very strong point of that, yet what are they doing with the off-licences? They are adopting for the first time a rateable value
      on which they are going to tax. They are the most inconsistent people in the world. They charged beer-houses £3 10s. whatever the rateable value was. They said the rateable value was not a suitable thing to charge on. Neither is it. But the Government adopt it for a scale for off-licences and therefore are most thoroughly and completely inconsistent in the matter. I am quite sure the trade is extremely uncertain as to the effect of these taxes.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'the' ["for the purpose of"], stand part of the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 64.

      Division No. 842.]

      AYES.

      [8.20 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Lynch, H. B.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Falconer, J.

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Agnew, George William

      Ferens, T. R.

      Maclean, Donald

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      M'Callum, John M.

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Findlay, Alexander

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Fuller, John Michael F.

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

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Glendinning, R. G.

      Maddison, Frederick

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Glover, Thomas

      Mallet, Charles E.

      Astbury, John Meir

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Marnham, F. J.

      Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Massie, J.

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Barker, Sir John

      Gulland, John W.

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Hall, Frederick

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Beale, W. P.

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

      Bell, Richard

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Myer, Horatio

      Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

      Napier, T. B.

      Bennett, E. N.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Nicholls, George

      Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romford)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Pollard, Dr. G. H.

      Boulton, A. C. F.

      Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Brace, William

      Hedges, A. Paget

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

      Brigg, John

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Radford, G. H.

      Bright, J. A.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

      Brodie, H. C.

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

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Brooke, Stopford

      Henry, Charles S.

      Rees, J. D.

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

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Rendall, Athelstan

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

      Higham, John Sharp

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

      Hodge, John

      Robinson, S.

      Byles, William Pollard

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Cameron, Robert

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Hooper, A. G.

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      Clough, William

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Hudson, Walter

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

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

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

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

      Jackson, R. S.

      Sears, J. E.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Seely, Colonel

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Shackleton, David James

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Jowett, F. W.

      Snowden, P.

      Crossley, William J.

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Stanger, H. Y.

      Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.)

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

      Steadman, W. C.

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

      Lamont, Norman

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Elibank, Master of

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Toulmin, George

      Evans, Sir S. T.

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Vivian, Henry

      Wadsworth, J.

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Winfrey, R.

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

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

      White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

      NOES.

      Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F.

      Gardner, Ernest

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Gretton, John

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Balcarres, Lord

      Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

      Hamilton, Marquess of

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Barnard, E. B.

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

      Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Bowles, G. Stewart

      Hills, J. W.

      Stanier, Beville

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Stone, Sir Benjamin

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Valentia, Viscount

      Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Clive, Percy Archer

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

      Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

      Lowe, Sir Francis William

      Younger, George

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Fletcher, J. S.

      Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Peel and Mr. Goulding.

      Forster, Henry William

      Nield, Herbert

      Foster, P. S.

      Oddy, John James

      Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved, in Subsection (1), after the word "value" ["in the determination of that value"], to insert the words "any increase in."
      This Amendment rather gives an opportunity to the Government in order to make a concession. It limits the duty which is not to be considerable as calculated in the annual value to the increase proposed by this Bill; that is to say that the whole duty is to be taken into consideration as it is now, but the increase of that duty is not to be taken into consideration. I cannot see why the Government should not accept this proposal, because, if they do not, what we fear the result will be is this. The present duty will be added to the present annual value, inasmuch as the present duty has already been taken into consideration in calculating the gross annual value. The valuer will say the duty has already been deducted, and we must add it to the present annual value before we can get at the new annual value. Supposing a house was at the present of the gross annual value of a £100, and the duty is £30, the valuer would say, I must add that £30 to the £100, because the £30 had been already taken into consideration in calculating the £100. So that the new duty will be taken to be half of £130, that is £65, instead of £50, which is the scale of the Government. We contend that some limiting words such as those proposed in my Amendment should be accepted, and put into the Bill.
      Mr. GRETTON: I second the Amendment. The Government contend the duty is not taken into account in assessing the present annual value of the licence at all. If their contention is right, why put in these words. We really have a suspicion that they are wrong. The object of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is that this charge shall not be added to the value of the house. It is merely intended to keep the value of the house as it is. The object of the Amendment is to keep the basis of the present practice, and not to start upon a hypothetical practice which has never been put into force.
      Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I venture to suggest that this Amendment is practically covered by the decision which the House has come to on the last Amendment, but I do not want to raise that as a point of Order. The effect of carrying this Amendment would be unquestionably to say that the present duty can be deducted. Nobody will deny that the effect of the Amendment would be to say in language sufficiently expressive that the present duty can be deducted, but that the increased duty cannot. I said, dealing with the last Amendment, that the unbroken practice has been not to deduct the Licence Duty at all in arriving at the annual value of the premises, and I fortified myself by quoting the dictum of the Lord Chief Justice in a compensation claim. The Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, therefore, would mean a serious alteration in the law. I think the hon. Member and his

      933
      friends are under a misapprehension as to the effect of the words which they have sought to have omitted altogether. Unquestionably the effect of the Licence Duty upon the rental value of the premises will be borne in upon the mind of the valuer. No valuer can exclude entirely the consideration of the duty because he has to arrive at the rental value. What is secured by these words is this: that immediately you have the rental value of the premises arrived at the licence holder cannot then turn round and say, that being the annual value of the premises I want the deducted increased Licence Duty or the increased amount of the existing duty. An attempt of that kind was made in connection with compensation value. They said in arriving at the rateable value the compensation levy should be deducted, but the court said "No," so we say here that the Licence, Duty, whether the increased part of the Licence Duty of the existing Licence Duty ought not to be deducted at all. Unquestionably it will be taken into consideration not as a deduction of the whole sum. A man who takes a premises might want to deduct the whole of the licence. He might possibly take a smaller profit, but unquestionably any valuer must take into consideration the Licence Duty that is payable before he can arrive at the annual value. When that has been done we want to make it absolutely impossible for anyone to be able to turn round and say, "That being the only value, it ought to come out of the annual value." They do not do that at the present moment, and they will not be allowed to do so if the Bill remains in its present form. With the Amendment in its present form they will say, "Do not deduct the increased duty, because it produces an effect we do not desire." If the hon. Member thinks the effect of these words will be to prevent consideration of the duty in arriving at the annual value he is mistaken, because they will make it obligatory upon the present valuer to deduct only the existing duty and exclude entirely the consideration of the increased duties under this Bill. I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I know what the hon. Member and his fellow Members feel on this point. They are afraid that the valuer will be told by the provisions of this Clause that they cannot take into consideration in any way in arriving at the value of the premises the Licence Duty. That will not be the effect. The valuer will have to ascertain the rental value according to the Act, and that
      934
      having been done there can be no claim for the deduction in respect of any licensed premises.
      Sir E. CARSON: I think the arguments of the Solicitor-General are full of fallacies. Let us for the moment get away entirely from the question of the compensation value. This is purely an estimate of the value of the premises.
      Sir S. EVANS: I only gave it as an illustration of the deduction.
      Sir E. CARSON: The Solicitor-General now admits that this has nothing to say to the question we are discussing. I always suspect very much arguments such as that which has just been used in which we are told, "I can assure you that you are entirely wrong in your own interests and in the interests of persons you are attempting to protect from this outrageous charge. You are entirely wrong, and I know much better than you, and I am trying to do a great deal better for your friends than you are doing." I do not think that the licensed trade will agree with the arguments used by the Solicitor-General. He has been very plausible, and nobody is better able to put forward plausible arguments than the hon. and learned Gentleman. His arguments, however, are about as fallacious as any that could be put before the House of Commons. The Solicitor-General says he can assure us that under the present system the valuer who has to value for the purpose of estimating the rental and other purposes will always make an allowance for the Licence Duty.
      Sir S. EVANS: I said "take it into consideration."
      Sir E. CARSON: Hon. Members will see what thin ice we are skating upon. The valuer, we are now told, does not make an allowance, but takes it "into consideration." What does he do? When he "takes it into consideration" does he say, "I can assure you I have fully considered the matter, and I have come to no conclusion at all as to how this matter should be treated"? Does the Solicitor-General say that is what takes place at the present moment? All this is a mere question of language. Any valuer in estimating the annual value of the premises must take into consideration the question of the deduction. All this Amendment asks is that the adequate consideration which has been given hitherto should be allowed after the passing of this Act. The Solicitor-General says that it is considered now, but he

      935
      refuses an Amendment which says it should be considered after the passing of this Act. The whole thing is entirely fallacious, and when the Solicitor-General tells us the same consideration will be taken as before I ask him will it not be an express contravention of the Act of Parliament, which says that in the determination of the value the amount of the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction? Any valuer taking into consideration after this Bill has become law—which I earnestly hope it never will—but if it does become law the valuer would be acting in the teeth of the Act of Parliament. Let us face the real situation under the Act of Parliament. Let us face the worst. It is no use quibbling about words. What the Government mean is that the value is to be assessed, and that no consideration is to be given for the amount of the licence. There is no other meaning. If that is not the meaning, there are very simple words which the draftsman could suggest to the effect that in the valuation in future they shall not consider the amount of the Licence Duty except so far as they have hitherto been able to consider it. If the Solicitor-General is sincere and really means what he says, let him promise to put an Amendment into the Bill by which the valuers will give exactly the same consideration as hitherto. That is all my hon. Friend is asking for, and that is exactly the point which the Solicitor-General is refusing to concede. The whole of this matter which arises under this Amendment and under the preceding Amendment will, as far as I can see, throw the whole of this question into the greatest chaos, because, whether the amount is that which was put as the Licence Duty in the first place, or the amount provided for in this Bill, it will have to be considered for rating as it is now, because this Bill does not alter the rating law. Consequently, you will have one valuer for the premises for rating purposes, in which this deduction will be allowed, and you will have another valuer ascertaining the valuation for the purposes of this Bill, in which the deduction will not be allowed, and the chaos which will ensue under these different valuations and assessment as regards licensed premises will put the whole matter into such a confused condition that it is very hard to say what will be the result. The Solicitor-General, however, has refused this Amendment, and I suppose the Government have made up their
      936
      minds, although we always have expectations that they may make what purports to be a concession. If we are going to pass the Bill in its present form, let us be under no delusion, because, as a matter of fact, it will be impossible in the future to allow what has been allowed in the past: that is, a deduction in making an assessment of the annual value.
      Mr. YOUNGER: The hon. Gentleman has made the perfectly frank admission, for which I certainly thank him, that the valuers in assessing the premises will no doubt have regard to this particular charge upon them. Would the hon. Gentleman answer me this question? Is not the Licence Duty to be levied on the existing rental, and was any such consideration in the mind of the valuer when he fixed the existing rental? Of course not. Therefore, no consideration whatever has been given for this extra charge in fixing the basis on which at all events for the first year these people will have to pay the increased Licence Duty. It is obvious these people will be very unfairly and unjustly penalised. We suppose that within the year we shall have the new register and the new licence value, whatever that will be. Why should not the Government be perfectly content with things as they are? Then, if the register is not ready and this basis continues for a second year, consideration would no doubt, under the existing arrangements be given. My point is that as the thing stands the new Licence Duties will be charged on a rental value in which no reasonable consideration is given for the new burdens proposed.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: I cannot help remembering that exactly this time last year the learned Solicitor-General and Members on this side of the House were discussing an exactly similar proposal in a similar measure to this part of the Finance Bill. In those Debates I learned to admire the mixed ability and geniality with which the learned Solicitor-General, doubtless fortified by long experience, was able to make the best of a bad case, and so he is to-night. During the last few months I have had some experience of the Attorney-General, and I may say of both that I have noticed one thing in common. Whenever they are hard pressed on any point, and are asked to insert words to make the intention of the Government perfectly clear, they always say it is quite certain the Commissioners will do it, and why therefore put it in? There may, however, in the future be other Law Officers and

      937
      other Commissioners, and surely it is quite impossible for them to say, as a serious argument, "We quite agree with the substance of the Amendment, but it is unnecessary, because the Commissioners or the valuers will certainly carry it out." If they are certain to carry it out, it cannot do any harm to put in words directing them to do so, and that is what the Government refuse to do. The learned Solicitor-General says the valuers will undoubtedly take this Licence Duty into consideration in the assessment. What does "consideration" mean? If the assurance of the Solicitor-General is not worthless, it means deduction, and if it does mean deduction, why not say so on the face of the Bill? If, therefore, there is anything in the argument of the Solicitor-General, he can lose nothing by accepting these words.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: Speakers on the opposite side of the House have not taken into account the purpose for which the annual value is required. It is not the annual value for rental purposes, but for the purposes of the duties charged in the Schedule; and, seeing that the duty charged in the Schedule is to be a percentage of the annual value, if the Government did what the Opposition ask, they would be involved in a logical embarrassment. Take a house of which the annual value is £100. Under the Goverment scale you have £50 duty, and, according to the Opposition, the proper annual value is £50 and not £100. If £50 is the annual value, then the tax the Government are imposing is not £50 but £25. The annual value would then be £75 and the duty £37 10s., and not £25. The annual value would then become £62 10s. So the game goes on. So long as you fix your duty at a percentage of the annual value, that annual value must be determined without reference to the duty. Otherwise you will have confusion. It is, therefore, in my opinion, absolutely impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
      Sir E. CARSON: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with the new duty, but the old duty. The old duty is already deducted, and we are only asking that it should be allowed to be deducted still.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: If that is so, it really does not matter from the point of view of the Opposition. When dealing with a duty which is a percentage of the annual value, it is a logical impossibility to take that percentage into consideration in assessing the annual value, and the point has no meaning at all.
      Mr. G. D. FABER: May I take a concrete case—the case of a fully licensed house with £100 gross annual value and £30 Licence Duty? Will the new duty be half the £100, or half the £100 plus the £30, the present Licence Duty? We complain that that may be the effect of the Clause as it stands, because the Clause says the Licence Duty shall not be deducted. We therefore fear that the £30 Licence Duty will be added to the gross annual value of the house, making £130 in all, so that the duty, instead of being £50, will be £65. It seems to me to be open to that contention, and, if I am right, the difference will be something stupendous, because the present total licence value—£2,200,000—has hitherto been allowed for in arriving at the gross annual value, and, if in the future it is not to be allowed for, then you are going to add £2,200,000 to the gross annual value of the licensed premises of the country. It means if you take the total duty you are going, at 50 per cent., to get an increment of £1,100,000, and that is what I meant when, earlier in the evening, I said there might be a tremendous additional impost put on the trade by this Bill. We want to whittle down the chances of an interpretation of the Act which will bring that about.
      Sir S. EVANS: If the rental value of a house is £100 and the duty at present leviable £30, it is not intended to charge the 50 per cent. on the £100 plus the £30. But we also want to make it impossible to deduct the £30 fom the £100, and only charge the duty on £70. What is required is that the valuer shall take all the circumstances into consideration. If he arrives at an annual value of £100 the duty of 50 per cent. will be on that—it will not amount to either £65 or £37 10s., it will be £50.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 174.

      Division No. 843.]

      AYES.

      [9.0 p.m.

      Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F.

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Bull, Sir William James

      Clive, Percy Archer

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

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

      Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

      Hills, J. W.

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Fletcher, J. S.

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

      Stanier, Beville

      Forster, Henry William

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

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Foster, P. S.

      Lowe, Sir Francis William

      Valentia, Viscount

      Gardner, Ernest

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

      Hamilton, Marquess of

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Younger, George

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Oddy, John James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. S. Roberts and Mr. Gretton.

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Agnew, George William

      Glendinning, R. G.

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Glover, Thomas

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

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Myer, Horatio

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Napier, T. B.

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Astbury, John Meir

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Nicholls, George

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Gulland, John W.

      Nuttall, Harry

      Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

      Hall, Frederick

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Barker, Sir John

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Pollard, Dr. G. H.

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Hardy, George A. Suffolk)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Beale, W. P.

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

      Radford, G. H.

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Bell, Richard

      Hart-Davies, T.

      Rees, J. D.

      Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Bennett, E. N.

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Haworth, Arthur A.

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

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

      Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighshire)

      Boulton, A. C. F.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Robinson, S.

      Brace, William

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Brigg, John

      Higham, John Sharp

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Bright, J. A.

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Brooke, Stopford

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

      Hodge, John

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

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

      Holland, Sir William Henry

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

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Sears, J. E.

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hooper, A. G.

      Seely, Colonel

      Burnyeat, W. J. D.

      Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

      Shackleton, David James

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Byles, William Pollard

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Simon, John Allsebrook

      Cameron, Robert

      Hudson, Walter

      Stanger, H. Y.

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Steadman, W. C.

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Jackson, R. S.

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Clough, William

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Toulmin, George

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

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Vivian, Henry

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

      Wadsworth, J.

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Lambert, George

      Walsh, Stephen

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Lamont, Norman

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Crossley, William J.

      Lehmann, R. C.

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.)

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

      White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

      Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Whitehead, Rowland

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

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

      Lynch, H. B.

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

      Elibank, Master of

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Maclean, Donald

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

      Evans, Sir S. T.

      M'Callum, John M.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Maddison, Frederick

      Winfrey, R.

      Ferens, T. R.

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Marnham, F. J.

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

      Findlay, Alexander

      Massie, J.

      Mr. CLAVELL SALTER Mr. CLAVELL SALTER moved to leave out Sub-section (2).
      This Sub-section provides for the creation and continuance of a register of com-
      940
      pensation valuations. According to the intention of the Government every public-house in the country is to be valued upon the basis of the compensation which it

      941
      would receive if it were reduced for compensation, and that would apply not only to England and Wales, where the Compensation Act is in force, but also in Scotland and Ireland, in which that Act has never had any application. It is obvious that the proposal is one which will commit the country and the trade to a very costly and novel undertaking. That is quite clear. We all know how costly and tedious it is to ascertain the compensation value even of a single public-house, and when we reflect that there are in the country 120,000 on-licences we can form some idea of the magnitude of the undertaking to which this House is asked to commit the country. Nor does it deal only with the making of the original valuations, but the direction is for the keeping correct as well as for the making of these valuations. Considering how great are the fluctuations in the value of licensed property from year to year it is quite obvious that that will throw a heavy task upon whoever has to discharge it.
      I do not want to base our opposition to this Sub-section upon a matter of machinery, but I should like to point out how unfortunately vague this Sub-section is as to the manner of keeping this new register corrected. We are not told even how often or by whom these corrections are to be made. It was explained to the House by the Chancellor of the Duchy when this matter came up in Committee that in regard to the original valuation it was to be made by the Inland Revenue upon material to be collected by the Customs and Excise, and as I read this Sub-section the keeping of this register correctly clearly involves fresh valuation as well as the collection of materials, not to be conducted by the Customs, but by the Inland Revenue; and I shall be glad if information can be given to us in regard to that, because if the Excise are to make the valuations and the Inland Revenue the corrections it would appear a very strange proceeding. What justification is put forward by the Government for the vast expenditure and trouble to which they seek to put the country? So far as this Bill is concerned there is no justification for this great departure.
      There is practically no use to be made of this valuation. So far as the revenue is concerned it is to be used in exceedingly unimportant cases—the large hotels and houses over £500, but, with that exception, this valuation is a thing in the air, a costly thing to be done, of which no practical use is to be made. Of course, we all know what the intention of the Govern-
      942
      ment, repeatedly stated, is. It is that so soon as this valuation can be completed they will shift the basis of the whole licence taxation of the United Kingdom from its present basis of annual value on to this new basis which they formerly called compensation value, but which it is now proposed to call licence value. I think it will not be inconvenient to the House if I discuss this Sub-section in the form in which it is proposed it should take by the Amendments of the Chancellor of the Duchy. It is obvious that the matter for the House on this Sub-section is nothing less than what is the best, wisest and most politic basis, on which to base the whole of our licence taxation. Everyone will admit that the present basis is not free from fault, but I would point out that it is impossible to make a case for this proposed new basis merely by pointing out defects in the present system. It will be incumbent for the Government to go into the relative merits of the system which exists and the system which they propose to substitute for it, and to show that the system they advocate is superior to the system that at present exists. This is a matter which does not affect the amount of taxation at all. You can raise heavy or light taxation on either basis, but it is a matter which affects the incidence of the taxation and its fair adjustment between one publican and another.
      The change which is proposed is one, I think, of great magnitude and of great importance, and I think, in a few words, it amounts to this. Most people would agree in a public-house there are three main elements of value, on any one or more of which you may base your taxation. There is the value of the structure as unlicensed—its shop value. Second, there is the added value which is given to the structure by the existence of the licence and which I should call the licence value; and the third element of value and the most important of all is the goodwill. In view of the observations made on this matter by the Chancellor of the Duchy in Committee, I wish to make it clear I am not speaking of personal good will caused by the personal popularity of the tenant, I am speaking of the goodwill in the popular commercial sense, and of the added value which is given to the premises by reason of long-continued user of them for a particular purpose. Those are the three main elements of value. At present our taxation is based on the first and second, and it is now proposed to shift it to the second and third. It is

      943
      based at present on the annual value, that which is technically called gross estimated rental in rating; that is to say, upon the gross annual value of the premises, together with the added value of the licence as part, and it is proposed to change that to the second and third and to base the taxation upon the added licence value and on the goodwill. My main objection, on principle, to this proposed new basis is that it proposes to tax the goodwill, and that it will have the effect not merely of taxing each man's goodwill but making that the main subject of our taxation.
      To illustrate my meaning for a moment may I take the case of two public-houses of absolutely equal structure, convenience, age, and situation. Let me suppose that in one of these houses a successful trade has long been carried on, while the other has been unfortunately managed, and has done a bad trade. The actual value of these two concerns will be very different, and probably the actual rent of the two premises will be very different. The successful house will pay a much higher rent. The compensation value would be very different, and it ought to be. The present Licence Duty, I think, would be the same, and the annual value would be the same, and the rating would be the same. The rating is that which a hypothetical tenant would be prepared to give on a tenancy from year to year for the premises. In a court of law it would be permitted to give evidence in a case of that kind that a large and successful trade had been done, but no more. That evidence would be allowed to be given in order to show that the premises were suitable, and had proved suitable. The amount of the trade would be rigidly excluded, and, inasmuch as these two premises are on the hypothesis of exactly equal size and convenience, and afford an exactly equal opportunity for making profit, their rateable value would be identical, and their present taxation would be identical, and the change proposed to be made is to shift the taxation by taking the goodwill. At present it is beyond question that the publican's goodwill is not taxed. That is very strikingly shown in London, where rating proceeds upon an arrangement, and certain percentages are taken, among other things upon the premium. The percentage on the premium is always taken on half the premium for the reason that half the premium is assigned to the buildings and the licence, and the other half to the goodwill,
      944
      and the half which is supposed to represent the goodwill is always excluded, showing clearly that the goodwill is not in substance taxed.
      Under the system that the Government propose it is abundantly clear, not merely that the goodwill will be taxed but that the taxation will be mainly imposed upon the goodwill. The taxation is to be imposed on the compensation value, which is to be ascertained in accordance with the Compensation Act of 1904, which refers you back to the Finance Act of 1894, as interpreted in a judgment with which we are all familiar. In that judgment £1,412 was the value of the trade capitalised at ten years and £360 was the difference between the licensed and unlicensed rent taken at 18 years, so that it is quite clear in that case, and it is a fact in all these cases, not merely that the goodwill is taxed, but that it is the main item of taxation. If this kind of momentous change is to be undertaken by this House on reasoned discussion, and not by mere mechanical registration of the decrees of the Government, it is obvious that the onus rests very heavily upon the Government to institute a comparison of these two methods and bases of taxation, and to show that the proposed method is better than that which now exists. The Government have not succeeded in doing so, and have never attempted to do so. What they have done is most extraordinary. They began by denouncing the Kennedy judgment in no measured terms. They denounced it in the House and outside as being mistaken, as being unjust, as being not in accordance with the intention of Parliament, and as being a grossly excessive method of arriving at compensation. The next thing they did was to attempt to override it in the Licensing Bill of unhappy memory, but they were not successful. Then they suddenly turned round, and this Kennedy judgment is translated to the highest places. It is hurried from the dungeon to the palace, put upon the throne, worshipped, apotheosised, and they now declare it is to be the basis and foundation of their entire system. What they now say is not merely, "We accept this as the propoer method of compensation," but "We base our whole taxation upon the assumption that that which is the right basis for compensation must necessarily be the right basis for taxation." The thing is a transparent fallacy. It is right, that a man should be paid for his labour, it is right that he should be paid for that which he has personally

      945
      brought in and added to that which the State has given him, but it does not at all follow from that that it is right that he should be taxed upon it. That which the State has given him is not the trade nor the profit, but merely the opportunity to do the trade and make the profit. It does not at all follow that because it is right, when he is being bought out in the pubilc interests, that he should receive the actual market value of his business, that he should be taxed upon his labour in that way. Suppose two men were granted by the State an equal opportunity and a licence for premises of equal size. One makes a better use of the licence than the other. There is no ground in principle or justice for taxing one of those men higher than the other. They have received an equal privilege from the State, and ought to pay equal taxation in consideration of it.
      I want to say a word about the change, and although not vital, I think it is very important, which the Government are seeking to make in this Sub-section. They are taking the phrase which I suggested in Committee—the annual licence value—and applying it to a thing to which it cannot properly be applied at all, and the change which they are proposing to make, I think, amounts in practice to this. They are proposing to substitute what they now call the annual licence value for annual compensation value. As the Bill now stands the basis of taxation is to be ascertained by ascertaining, first, that lump sum which would be actually received as compensation, and then by ascertaining the annual equivalent to it. That is to say, you proceed under the Kennedy judgment to take the trade in so many years, and the difference between the licensed and unlicensed value at so many years, and having arrived at these annual factors you multiply them by the appropriate number of years' purchase, and so arrive at a lump sum in compensation which the persons interested in the house will receive. Then, according to the original scheme of this Bill, you will proceed to find the annual equivalent of that lump sum. That obviously involves the ascertainment of some constant divisor—because it is clear you must have a divisor of some kind in each case—which can be set up and defended as being just in all cases. I ventured when we were in Committee to say that this new method of annualising, if I may use the word, would be found to be very full of difficulties. Well, I think it has been found to be impossible, and it is because it has been found
      946
      to be impossible to discover any general annual equivalent of these compensation lump sums that the Government have resorted to a change of front, which I should think in a Bill of this kind and at this period is without precedent in the Debates of this House. What do they propose to do? In order to get rid of the difficulty of dividing, they propose to be rid both of multiplication and division. They are going to ignore the question of years' purchase altogether. It appears to me that that avoids one difficulty by introducing another and very serious difficulty. No one, I take it, would suggest that £100 a year in Consols is property of the same value as £100 a year in some even more speculative security. The difference is the difference in the quality of the security. In ascertaining the compensation value of a public-house you have two elements. You have the annual factor, which represents the quantity, and you have years' purchase, which represents the quality of the security. Justice Kennedy, in his well-known judgment, referred to this, and pointed out how the number of years' purchase must differ in different cases, according to the neighbourhood, the quality of the trade, and other matters of that kind. If you take two public-houses, each of which has a profit of £200, it by no means follows that each has the same value. If one is in a sinking neighbourhood and the other in a growing neighbourhood, one may be entitled to many more years' purchase than the other. This the Government ignore. These two houses would represent very different values, and yet they would be taxed alike. The latest method of the Government is equal taxation of different values.
      The truth is that this latest position of the Government is neither one thing nor the other. First of all we have our taxation based on annual value. Then the Government proposed to change it, and base it on compensation value. That is logical. But now they propose to do neither the one thing nor the other. They propose to base it on the factor which goes to the ascertainment of annual value. I venture to say that the Government in their latest change of front have avoided the difficulty by introducing another injustice. From the Prime Minister downwards we have always been told—and indeed it is the only logical justification for exceptional taxation this trade is called upon to bear—that the principle is that they should pay an exceptional tribute to the State for the exceptional privilege

      947
      which is given to them by the State. If that is the principle, it logically follows that the publican is entitled to say, "Let me be taxed by the State for that privilege in proportion to the opportunity given to me for making a profit." The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) stated that licences had become more valuable because of the more rigorous way in which they were now looked after. If that is so, let the publican pay on his opportunity. Do not go beyond that and tax him upon the uses he makes of his experience and ability in the industry in which he is engaged.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: I desire to second the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Duchy asked us earlier in the day to name any provision in this Bill which was not appropriate to a Finance Act. Surely this provision is not appropriate to it? This is a Sub-section in vacuo. If it is not, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman on the ground that he is proposing an Amendment which is out of Order because of increasing the charge. I cannot do that because it has no binding force. Surely it is a strange thing to say that a register is to be prepared which can have no effect upon the finance of the year, and which can have no effect at all until future legislation is introduced. The register is going to be a matter of great difficulty. I do not know the estimated cost of preparing it, but it must be a matter of considerable difficulty, because this is to be based upon certain factors of annual compensation value, and in individual cases these factors take a great deal of time and trouble to work out. Sometimes it takes months. You are going to do this in the case of 120,000 licences up and down the country. The proposed land valuation is expected to take four years, and I should be surprised if a satisfactory register of annual licence values can be made in much less time. I believe the cost will be infinitely greater than anything that has been calculated for the making of these two valuations. It really is almost whimsical that the Kennedy judgment, which was the subject of attacks for years as giving the licence holder much too much, should now, when the object is not compensation but taxation, be acclaimed and made the basis for future legislation. As to compensation value I think it is not clear that other than personal goodwill will not be brought in. By bringing this in the basis must be enlarged, and if the basis is enlarged, supposing the factor be the same
      948
      then the unfortunate publican will certainly pay more in future than he does now. Having that in mind, the proposed concessions very soon lose their significance, because undoubtedly when put on this new basis, supposing the factor is the same, the result must be a heavier burden. But will the factor be the same? That is a point on which we are absolutely in the dark. When the register comes into operation—and we must assume that there will be a future enactment to make it operative—is one-half of the annual value to be taken or not? That is a matter of considerable importance, because what those interested in the trade feel more than the tax is the uncertainty. Every year a new burden is put upon them. They are threatened in different ways, and if they are not to know what the basis of the taxation is, they will not really know whether they have touched bottom under the Bill of the present Government. I submit that if they are to be taken on half the new value under this new Subsection, instead of half the annual value, their state in the great majority of cases will be far worse than under the present annual value. If that is so, they ought to know it at once.
      There is also one point as to goodwill. The effort of creating a successful business is not a proper subject of taxation. A fair analogy would be this. Take the case of two theatres. Both theatres are of the same capacity for receiving an audience and they have a similar situation, but the profit is different, because one is successfully conducted and the other is not successfully conducted. In the case of both theatres no higher duty should be charged on one of them simply because the management has enhanced the value. If that is a true analogy in the case of theatres I submit that it should be a true analogy in the case of licensed houses. Unless that point is cleared up the new valuation will be worse than the old. Then the application of this method to the whole of the United Kingdom is something grotesque. It depends on the Kennedy judgment, which depends on the Act of 1904, which Act applies only to England. How you are to ascertain for Scotland or Ireland what would be the annual licence value based on a state of things applying only to England passes my belief. I believe that even in England you have not got it quite uniform, because I am told that cases in Lancashire differ from the cases in Surrey, on which the Kennedy judgment was based.

      949
      Think of all the facts you will have to take into account to apply this Kennedy judgment to the case of Scotland and Ireland. I remember when the Opposition was being conducted against the Licensing Bill last year some ingenious person suggested that an Amendment should be moved applying the Bill to Scotland and Ireland, doubtless with the benevolent intention of giving Scotch and Irish Members an opportunity of proving their consistency by applying to their own country what they were so ready to apply to England. But when looked into this course was found to be quite impossible, because it was found that you would have to apply the 1904 Act, and all the definitions and all the readjustments that would have to be made would have been completely impossible, and, therefore, this amiable and benevolent idea did not fructify. But this is what the Government now proposes to do. Here you have to assume the hypothesis that the 1904 Act was applied in Scotland and Ireland, and that decisions were given under it similar to the Kennedy judgment. Until you are able to do that it is absolutely impossible to find a Scotch or Irish basis for the application of this provision. If the provision is a provision in vacuo as regards England, it is still more so as regards Scotland and Ireland. On all these grounds, of its injustice, its impracticability, and the fact that it is a provision which should find no place in a Finance Bill, I trust that this Amendment will pass.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I can understand hon. Members opposite opposing our general scheme of taxation on the ground that it is injurious to the interests of the trade, and imposes excessive burdens on their finances, but I confess, and I speak quite frankly, I think that hon. Members opposite are not justified, even from their own point of view, in opposing the proposition which is now before the House. This proposition is not intended to be in any sense a means of extracting from the trade any increase of revenue. It is solely intended to be a means for securing greater justice in the interests both of the trade and the community at large in the allocation of the burden on the trade among its different parts. It is admitted on all hands that rateable value is really not a satisfactory basis for taxation. It has to be used for this year, because it is the only basis that has existed in England really for centuries.
      Mr. YOUNGER: Off-licences.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the case of the off-licences the duties are comparatively low, but if you could arrive at a basis of licence value for the off-licences it would be far preferable. But the difficulty and complexity in seeing how much was due to the licence in a trade which was mainly in non-alcoholic commodities are so great that it is not practicable to take this step, and it is really unnecessary. But theoretically it would be better to have the value, not of the premises as premises, but the value of the licence as a licence to those premises; that is the value of the privilege conferred by the State enabling the holder to sell without competition from others. It is admitted that there are many public-houses which may have a rateable value—say, of £1,000 a year—which have not a trade in proportion to their rateable value, premises on a conspicuous site, in important thoroughfares, where they have to pay much for the land, and where the premises are expensive, but which, when the accounts come to be examined, are found to have a comparatively small liquor trade. It is not just to charge them merely on the basis of the value of the building. Now, when the Licence Duties are increased, the time has come for the State to make an effort to place the whole of these taxes on a fairer basis.
      The hon. Member who has just spoken was incorrect in saying that this provision will not have immediate application. All hotels and restaurants will at once be taxed under this provision; houses over £500 a year throughout the three Kingdoms will at once have the option of being taxed upon this basis instead of upon the annual value. In other cases throughout the three Kingdoms it is intended that this Clause shall come into operation when the register is completed, and when the new basis has been authorised by Parliament in a subsequent Finance Bill. But, if we are never to authorise the register until the same moment that we are ready to impose the tax, then the register can never be made. The register must take some time to make, and, therefore, it would be impracticable to authorise the two operations over the whole country in the same Bill.
      We desire that the register should be prepared as quickly as possible and that it should come into speedy operation. The hon. Member opposite asked whether after all it is really any concession to houses over £500 a year. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) gave

      951
      us some very remarkable figures, showing that no reduction of the revenue could be anticipated from this cause.
      Sir E. CARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many houses will be affected?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There were 1,957 houses over £500 a year in England, 60 in Scotland, and 6 in Ireland in 1907. In the first place, it has never been asserted or claimed that this will be a concession or advantage to all houses above £500 a year. I have stated again and again that it is not intended to have that effect. But where a house is of high rateable value, its licence value will be large, and the tax will be, and ought to be, large, and there is no reason why such a house should not pay the same tax in proportion to rateable value as the smaller house has to pay. This concession is intended to apply to the case of houses of high rateable value, but which do not do a proportionately large trade, and in their case it will be a very real concession. I do not see how that can be disputed.
      Mr. YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman mention a case?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not like to give a concrete case. I have examined the matter, and the hon. Member is well acquainted with the trade himself, and he knows that there are many houses in London—I have one or two instances in my own mind—where a remarkably small amount of business is done in proportion to the rateable value, and where the tax will be very much lower under this proposal than if it were charged on the rateable value, and had to pay £500 or £600 a year. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs is a very able exponent of the views of this trade, but when he challenges the estimates which have been very carefully formed by the Treasury and disputes the figures supplied to us by the Customs and Excise, he wanders a little bit outside the sphere which he so well adorns, and lays himself open to retort, which he seldom does when he is within his own domain. The hon. Member gave us certain figures.
      The Bill, as introduced, said that all houses over £700 a year should have the right of being charged on the basis of one-half of their compensation value. The hon. Member takes the difference between £500 and £700, and says there is not sufficient
      952
      margin for the estimate of £300,000. The hon. Member has clearly forgotten that the amendments not only lowered the figure from £700 to £500, but also said that the charge on compensation value should be not one-half but one-third in the case not only of houses of £500 to £700, but houses above £700.
      Mr. YOUNGER: That is not what your White Paper says. It says distinctly that the concession is in respect of public-houses and beer-houses of from £500 to £700 value. It is not I who am wrong, but your White Paper.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have not got the White Paper with me, but if that is so I apologise to the hon. Member that he should have been misled. I am exceedingly sorry, and the hon. Member is not in the least to blame for what is really an error in the White Paper in regard to the effect of the Bill. I very much regret that a Paper of that kind, which did not pass through my hands, should have been printed with the error that has misled the hon. Gentleman. The change not only applies to houses of between £500 and £700, but it also means that the basis is reduced from half to one-third of the compensation value. The difference between half and one-third is one-sixth, but the difference to the revenue is much more than one-sixth—it is two-sixths. Take a case of a house that is worth £1,200 licence value. If it were charged half the licence value it would pay £600 to the Exchequer; if it is charged on the one-third basis the Exchequer will receive £400. That is a reduction of one-third to the revenue. The reduction of from one-half to one-third is a reduction of 33 per cent. in revenue. That applies not only to houses of from £500 to £700, but also to houses above £700. The houses above £700 are in their total worth considerably more than twice as much, compared with the houses between £500 and £700, and that accounts for the discrepancy in the hon. Member's figures. The estimate of £300,000, as I have said on every occasion, is a rough one, and does not pretend to be exact. Possibly it may turn out to be somewhat less than that; I do not think it is likely to be more. However, it is obviously impossible in these matters to arrive at a precise estimate, or even a close estimate, though the matter can be precisely calculated when the register has been made. The officials have prepared these estimates with great care and trouble, and they may be accepted by the House as fairly accurate.

      953
      Let me turn to the general purpose of this Clause, and I think it may be to the convenience of the House if I take this opportunity to explain the Amendment which I have on the Paper, and when it is reached I can then move it formally. The question that presents itself to the Government is how you are to ascertain what is really the value of a licence? We want to charge, not the value of the premises, but the value of the licence. How are we to test what that value is? Last year, under the Licensing Bill, we proposed that for the purpose of obtaining the licence value we should take the Schedule A value of the premises licensed and the Schedule A value of the premises unlicensed, and deduct one from the other, and get at the licence value. That was strongly opposed by the trade and by hon. Members opposite. They said that it would give a most inadequate basis, and that it would be most unjust. We have said that it makes no difference to the purpose of revenue which basis we take. If you declare that the Act of 1904 as now interpreted really does give the value of these licences we will accept your own basis. That is our position. We consider there is no inconsistency between our position now and then. We still consider that that is too high to represent the value of the licence.
      Mr. G. D. FABER: That was compensation value.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The words of the Act of 1904 are that the value for the purpose of compensation is the difference between the value of the licensed premises and the value of those premises if they were not licensed premises, and that is precisely what we want to arrive at. We say we want to arrive at that not only for the purpose of compensation, but also for the purpose of taxation. We declare, although on that basis it gives the valuation higher, that makes no difference for this purpose, for we have declared again and again that we do not propose to use this new assessment as a means for extracting from the trade as a whole any substantially greater sum than will be taken by the Licence Duties under the Finance Bill of this year. Of course, the new basis may cause variation as between one house and another. No doubt it will. It may cause variation between different localities. It may be so, and it is intended to have that effect. It is intended to charge higher the little liquor shop with a low valuation doing a large trade
      954
      which gets off too cheaply now, and it is intended to charge less than now on houses with commodious premises, doing perhaps a certain amount of restaurant business, and which at present will be somewhat highly taxed. We say that for our purpose it makes no difference whether you take as a whole the high valuation and put on a low rate, or whether you take a low valuation and put on a high rate.
      10.0 P.M.
      The Leader of the Opposition attacked the Government, hotly saying, "Although you admit this basis as unjust nevertheless you are going to commit the injustice." There is no injustice. Let me take as an analogy the local rates. Supposing that there was no question of grants in aid and that you want to get from a house of a certain value the sum of £20 for the local rates. It makes no difference whether you assess that house at £200 and charge at a rate of 2s. in the £ or whether you assess that house at £100 and charge at a rate of 4s. in the £, as it would yield £20 in either case. It makes no difference. So here also, although it is true you will have arrived at a basis somewhat higher than we should have put it if the Government does, as it is pledged to do, not impose upon that basis a rate higher than would yield a total sum substantially the same as is taken by the provisions of the Bill of this year, then I submit no injustice is being done, and that we may legitimately accept the basis of trade for the purpose of this Bill. With regard to the question whether it is just to take the same value for compensation and for taxation we submit, and on this matter I would like to have the attention of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Clavell Salter), who gave us a most interesting and lucid argument on this subject, our position is this, that personal goodwill will be excluded from both compensation and taxation. It ought to be excluded under the provisions of the Act of 1904 from compensation, and in our view from taxation also. If a publican is a specially popular publican, and we have had the illustration of the prize-fighter and the professional footballer, and if he attracts particular custom to a house and gives the house additional value that is not compensated for under the Act of 1904. The Act of 1904 did not intend to compensate for that, and the Kennedy judgment does not include it for the purposes of compensation. We say that goodwill shall be excluded similarly, since we use the same words as the Act of 1904, from taxation, and quite rightly, too.

      955
      Personal goodwill of that kind should not be included. Local goodwill which becomes inherent in the premises is included in both. It is now taxed under the existing law, it is also compensated for under the Act of 1904, and it will be taxed now under our new provisions.
      I will take the language of the hon. and learned Member, which seemed to me to be very excellent in defining the local goodwill as the annual value given to premises by the long continued conduct there of successful trade. I submit that is now taxed under the existing law. The hon. Member takes the instance of two houses similar in their building and in their situation. Take, as I have taken before, two houses in the market-place of some country town. One of them, the "George" Hotel, has been recognised for a long time past as the leading house in the town. The other, the "Rose and Crown," has an inferior position. As the hon. Member has said, the rent of the "George" will be higher than that of the "Rose and Crown." I do not know how he makes out with the rent higher that the assessment for local rating will be the same.
      Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: One is the actual rent, and the other is the hypothetical rent merely for the structure.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No matter how hypothetical he may be a tenant would certainly give a higher rent for the "George" than for the "Rose and Crown." I am advised that undoubtedly the assessment of the leading hotel of the town would be higher than the assessment of the inferior hotel, although from the point of view of bricks and mortar they may be identical.
      Sir E. CARSON: That shows goodwill.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It shows that a certain amount of local goodwill is taken into account for the purpose of existing Licence Duties. That has been the law of the land from time immemorial. When we assess our duties we make no difference. We take the existing law and practice. We say that while we do greater justice between one house and another we do not make any difference from the law and practice in respect to local goodwill. The hon. Member says that in his opinion what the State has to do is to charge a man for what he gets, that is the opportunity for trade. I wonder how he would do that. Does he really propose that every house be charged
      956
      precisely the same amount through out the country, or does he propose that every house in London should be charged the same amount, and that every house in the village should be charged the same amount. What is his ideal scheme under which Licence Duty would be charged? Would it be that £100 should be imposed on every house in London, no matter what its position, size, or trade, and, say, £10 on every house in the village, no matter what its position, size, and trade? If he rejects that, and there is the reductio ad absurdum of his argument, I do not see——
      Mr. YOUNGER: That is exactly what they do in America.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is open to very grave objection. Unless he does that, which is equivalent to a Poll Tax on licensed houses, so to speak, I do not see how he can assess what he calls the opportunity which the State gives to the licence holder, except by taking, in the words of the Act of 1904, the difference between the value of the premises licensed and the value of the premises unlicensed. How is that to be arrived at under the Act of 1904 and under our present proposals? Where there is a rack rent it can be easily ascertained. The Kennedy judgment does not apply to cases of rack rent; therefore it necessarily does not have any application to Scotland or Ireland. In those cases you take the rack rent and assess the value of the premises without a licence, and the difference between the two is the licence value for the purposes of the Act of 1904 and for our purposes also. If it is not a rack-rented house but a tied house, the rent is no real measure of the licence value. The rent may be little more than nominal, and the rent paid by the publican does not represent the licence value. That was realised in the Kennedy judgment, and by the Inland Revenue before the Kennedy judgment. The Kennedy judgment, therefore, said that in the case of a tied house you have to take into account three elements. You take, first, the tied or nominal rent, and secondly, the value of the house to the brewer for the trade he is able to do there; you capitalise those two amounts, and take, thirdly, the value of the house as bricks and mortar, as a shop for other purposes, and deduct that. The result represents the compensation value, taking a proper number of years' purchase. Having capitalised this sum, you have, according to the Act of 1904, to add an addi-

      957
      tional sum in respect of depreciation of fixtures. If a man has to leave a house because the licence is taken away, the value of the fixtures is depreciated, and it is quite right that he should be compensated for them. We have been anxious to keep as closely as possible to the Act of 1904, simply because that is the basis accepted by the trade as representing fairly the value of their licences for compensation purposes, and we claim that the same value shall be taken for the purposes of taxation. But where you have to impose a tax you must have an annual basis on which to impose it, whereas when you pay compensation you pay it in a lump sum. Therefore it is necessary to convert that lump sum of compensation value under the Act of 1904 and obtain an equivalent for it in annual value. In the Bill as introduced we proposed that, having got this capital sum for the purposes of compensation, we should convert it into an annual sum according to rules to be laid down by the Treasury. That could have been done; it would not have been impossible, as hon. Members said, but it would have been very complicated.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the first time it has been admitted. It was not admitted in the Committee stage.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think it was. I said in the Committee stage that it would be necessary to take into consideration varying circumstances in varying cases, and that you could not have, in my opinion, a single divisor—taking, say, the compensation value divided by 12. You would have to take into account a different number of years' purchase for public-houses, hotels, rack-rented premises, and others; and perhaps you would have to have a different basis of calculation for Scotland and Ireland. But while this could have been done—and an outline of the proposals has been prepared—it was found very complicated. As hon. Members opposite have claimed, other elements came in in compensation which ought not to come in in cases of annual value. Where there is a dwindling neighbourhood the number of years' purchase may be low. That ought not to make a difference in the taxation levied on the annual value. Then there is a rather exceptional case which would have had to be provided for, namely, that of a man against whom there was a conviction for illegal sale. That would at once have depreciated the compensation value and thereby lowered the annual
      958
      value for the purposes of taxation. As soon as a man had been convicted he could have gone to the Inland Revenue and said, "Put me down at a lower sum in the register," and at once he would have got off with a lower Licence Duty. Therefore it would have been necessary to provide in the rules for a case such as that. All these elements would have made it a very complicated matter to convert the lump sum into annual value. Hence, for the sake of simplicity, and in order to meet the views of hon. Members opposite, we now propose an alternative, which I think is admitted on all hands to be really preferable. Instead of taking the lump sum for compensation purposes and decapitalising it, we take the annual elements which go to make up that lump sum without capitalising and decapitalising. Where a rack rent can be ascertained, as in Scotland, you might take the rack rent, deduct from it the annual value of the premises for the purposes of a shop other than for the sale of liquor, and the difference between the two would be the licence value for the purposes of this Bill. In the case of hotels you would have to take into account the sales, for it is very difficult to estimate the rack rent. It may be said that it is impossible to arrive at the value of the premises licensed and unlicensed in the case of hotels. If it is impossible in the case of hotels in actual existence, how infinitely more impossible it would be under the Act of 1904, where you have to arrive at that very thing in the case of a new hotel which is going to be opened, in order to ascertain how much monopoly value should be paid to the public in respect of that hotel. In the Act of 1904 the very same words are used. The justices have to arrive, in the case of hotels and other newly licensed premises, at the amount of the difference between the value which the premises will bear as licensed and the value of the same premises if they were not licensed; and if it can be done in the case of a new hotel it can be done much more easily by skilled valuers in the case of a hotel actually working. In other cases, where you have an ordinary tied house, or a free house in a district in which the tied house system is the prevailing system, you have to take the basis of the Kennedy judgment. There you would take, as Mr. Justice Kennedy took, first, the nominal tied rent; secondly, the value of the house to the brewer for the purpose of his profit; add those together, and deduct the annual value of the premises as they would be for the purposes of a shop other than for the sale of liquor. This is a very

      959
      complicated and technical subject; I have done my best to make it clear, and I trust that I have succeeded in doing so. However that may be, I have been perfectly frank, and have stated quite clearly what is the whole view of the Government on the subject.
      The Amendment which I am about to move will have, in our view, practically the same result, though it differs in one small particular, as in the Bill as originally introduced you would take the compensation value and get the annual equivalent. Our proposal will still be the annual equivalent of the compensation value, but we get it direct instead of capitalising first—except, as I say, in one particular. The depreciation of fixtures, which is included in the compensation value under the Act of 1904, will not be included here. That is a distinct improvement. We recognised from the beginning that it was in principle wrong to tax a man upon the sum which would represent the depreciation of his fixtures, suppose his licence were taken away. But the error would be so small that we thought it would not be worth while making a distinction. The depreciation of the fixtures does not represent a large sum in any case. To get at its annual equivalent you have to divide it, perhaps, by 15, which reduces it to very little. A tax on that would have been one-third on public-houses and one-fourth on hotels. That would reduce the sum to an amount so minute that it could be regarded in the light of the principle, de minimis non curat lex, and it was not thought necessary to specially provide for it. I do think we have improved our proposal by eliminating the depreciation of fixtures, which is a matter quite right to be compensated, but not right to be taxed. With the exception of that slight alleviation and improvement, which is affected by our change, our proposals will make no difference in money compared with the proposals which were already in the Bill. There is a consequential change which we make in regard to compensation value. We use the term "annual licence value"—which is more applicable in the case of Scotland than Ireland, where the Act of 1894 does not apply—and which represents more closely the subject which is the real basis of the tax.
      There is only one other small point to which I need refer, which was raised by the Mover of this Amendment, who suggested that this Clause was imperfect, because it would be one set of Commissioners
      960
      that would make the original register, and another set of Commissioners who would correct it. If the Clause is carefully read I think that will be found not to be so, and that it will be the same Commissioners of Inland Revenue who will have any correction of the entry in the register to make as well as any original entry. Let me end as I began, by saying that in the view of the Government, while the trade naturally may be expected to oppose the increased burdens thrown upon them by this Finance Bill, we really do believe that this proposal is a fairer basis of taxation, which in the long run will be an advantage and privilege of the trade, rather than a burden upon it.
      Sir E. CARSON: I do not think anybody will in the least complain of the manner in which the Chancellor of the Duchy has treated the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend behind me. He has dealt with it at great length. He has admitted the great complication which now arises in reference to the subject. I venture to suggest to the House that now when we are going into the seventh month of the consideration of this Bill that we had a speech which would have been a worthy and very able speech on the second reading of a Valuation Bill in reference to the assessment of public houses. I do really ask the House to consider the way in which this Bill is being conducted. When this Clause was before the Committee, I think in the month of September, I took considerable interest in it. I said that the system which the Government were trying to set up was an impossible one. I said it was so complicated that it would not be worked out by regulations. I challenged over and over again the Members of the Government to give me any concrete cases—I did not care what their hypotheses were with regard to the figures, which would show us what we were attempting to work out. All we received from time to time was the usual ridicule that really we were asking matters which were so simple or easy that it was not necessary for Parliament to go into them at all, that "that will be all done by the simple regulations of the Commissioners, and you must trust them."
      Now, in the seventh month of our consideration, the Chancellor of the Duchy comes down here, and what does he tell us in an oration which does him great credit for the care he has bestowed upon it and the lucidity with which he has explained these matters. He says we find we really

      961
      cannot now stand by all we have been saying when this was before the Committee. The matter is so complicated—I took down his words—that we find that even the Commissioners and ourselves are unable to frame regulations by which we can carry out our original proposal.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I said precisely the opposite. I said undoubtedly it could be done, that regulations could be framed, but they would be very complicated and that it would be a simpler course to proceed upon the lines upon which we are now proceeding.
      Sir E. CARSON: At all events, he found out after the matter had been fought out and threshed out, as all these proposals of the Government are, that while he told the Committee that the real way to do it was by regulation, we now find it is so complex that we are agreed that Parliament should deal with it. Now look at what the House is brought to, and it really does show what Parliamentary procedure is in certain circumstances. The Chancellor of the Duchy or whoever was dealing with the Bill at the moment, said this was all quite simple and could be done by regulation, and the men behind him cheered that statement and followed him into the Lobby. Now when he says, We find the regulations will be so complex that we really rather agree with the Opposition, Members behind him cheer him, and they are prepared equally to follow him into the Lobby. I really believe that if the right hon. Gentleman or the Members of the Government were to say black is white hon. Members behind them would say: "It certainly is," and if they were to say "It is not," they would certainly say "It is not." But, after ail, what is all this complicated procedure being set up for? Is it being set up for revenue? It is not pretended that it is, because the admission of the Chancellor of the Duchy is that the provisions of this complicated Section which have been altered and realtered, sworn to and resworn to in different forms, are to have no application at all until another Parliament has fully considered them.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, not the whole of them.
      Sir EDWARD CARSON: I said the greater part of them, I will now go into how many. How many valuations are you to have under this complicated form? About 120,000. I will take it on a basis, which is, I believe, a low estimate, 120,000
      962
      valuation, and the Section is to apply to about 2,000. What will these 120,000 valuations cost? Put them at £10 per valuation, which is the very lowest estimate, and I will tell the House why. The owner of the house will have his expenses just as well as the Government, and if you put down the expenses both of the Government and the publican—it may be that you do not care about the publican, but this will be an expense to him all the same, and it will amount to an additional tax—therefore putting it at £10 in large and small cases, it is a very low valuation. Look what it means? It means putting £1,200,000 on to the taxpayers of this country for what purpose? In order that hereafter some Parliament, as regards all but 2,000 of these valuations, may deal with this matter in some way that the Chancellor of the Duchy or anybody else cannot indicate. I venture to say that at this stage of our proceedings to come down here and tell us that the only effect of your proposal as regards 118,000 out of 120,000 valuations is that you are going to put on a charge of £1,200,000 and to get no revenue for the year out of it is a monstrous proposal to make to the House at this stage of the Session in regard to a matter which the Chancellor of the Duchy himself admits requires the very closest attention, and which he found the greatest difficult in dealing with and explaining to the House.
      What does the right hon. Gentleman say as regards the effects of it? He says that the alteration brings it out at too high a value. Is that his argument? What right have the Government to adopt a valuation with a view to Parliament in future legislating with regard to it upon a basis which admittedly will be too high? What is the meaning of it? How does the Chancellor of the Duchy deal with his own conclusion? He says, "Oh! that makes no difference." Why? "Because," he says, "we assure you that having got out the valuation we will hereafter adjust our legislation in such a way that we will only take the same amount out of the trade as we are taking at the present moment." That is legislation by promise. You are simply setting up a basis for the purpose of knocking it down again, and you are doing that in relation to provisions so complicated that the right hon. Gentleman himself has said that they had to be altered and realtered in regard to a matter which is not going to bring in a single sixpence during the present year. This is unparalleled in the history of any fiscal Bill that has ever been brought before the

      963
      House. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon the merits of his proposal in adapting the procedure of the Act of 1904 for the purpose of taxation. I wish those who are in the House now had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter), because a more able, concise, or clearer argument has seldom been put before this House, and so far as I am concerned I do not profess to be able to add anything to it or make the matter clearer.
      What we want to know and have argued is this: What on earth has the question of an assessment for compensation to do with an assessment for taxation? The Chancellor of the Duchy seems to think the case is conclusive when he takes up the Act of 1904 and reads out the words, "The value of compensation shall be so-and-so." He says the Act of 1904 says that, and therefore we are justified in making it the basis of the value for taxation. What on earth is the relationship between the two? In the one case you are compensating a man for taking away a business he has conducted, or, at least, the value attaching to a licence which he, by his efforts, has greatly increased. The moment you adopt that as a basis for taxation you are taxing not merely what the State has given and what you claim to tax, but you are taxing in addition what the man's own hard work and energy have added to the value of the licence, and the whole argument on which you base the justice of this proposal entirely falls away, because you are not basing your taxation upon anything the State has given, but upon something the man has himself created. No reason has been or can be given as to why this should be selected as the method of taxation. You might as well say you will adopt the compensation given where a railway company or anything else under the Land Clauses Act takes away property from a licence holder, and say that because he was paid in that case certain moneys for the taking away of his property, therefore you ought to assess the taxation upon the same basis. Anything more ridiculous and absurd it is impossible to conceive. You are applying to the subject-matter of taxation a matter entirely different, and which has no analogy, and you are setting up a purely artificial standard, which is entirely unsuitable and inapplicable. The real and proper way to treat this matter is for us to drop this Subsection altogether. The Chancellor of the Duchy says, "You will find this scale will work great benefit to the people you re-
      964
      present." We hear that upon every occasion. We are always told, "You are nothing but a pack of fools; you do not really know what good things are given to you." That was exactly the argument used by the Solicitor-General on the Last Amendment. He said, "We are conferring much more benefit upon the trade than you imagine." Now we are told that if we will only trust them the one thing they have at heart is to work this matter out to the great benefit of the licensed trade. Probably we are wrong, but we consider ourselves able to form some judgment upon these matters, and we certainly do not trust the Government, having regard to their previous utterances. None of us forget the speeches of the Lord Advocate—his swingeing duties; which were to reduce licences, as he said, far more than the Bill of last year. Do the Government ask us not to believe the Lord Advocate? I venture to say that one of the most remarkable facts connected with this Sub-section is this—and the same applies to other sub-sections in the Bill—while we are asked to deal with this as a fiscal Bill we can strike out the whole of these complicated matters and not make one single shilling difference to the revenue. If you call that a fiscal proposal, I reply that it is an abuse of the term.
      Mr. YOUNGER: I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for having in his reply dealt with the figures I mentioned this afternoon. I also thank him for having exonerated me from any blame for having been misled by the White Taper. I do not on my part desire to impute any blame to the authors of that Paper. I know that lately the Treasury officials have practically been worked to death, and I am not at all surprised that Papers of this kind are not perhaps as efficiently revised as they might be. I am only sorry I gave imperfect figures when criticising the loss of £300,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he will make on the concessions granted to larger houses. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was extremely interesting and very lucid, but the real question is, Have the Government arrived at what may be regarded as a reasonable solution in their alternative to the present system of rating? I really felt that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was, from beginning to end, an elaborate apology for the failure of his advisers to translate into annual value the compensation value which was

      965
      originally proposed to be substituted for rateable value. In the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman was told over and over again that it was an impossible task. I do not think that even now he has got rid of the difficulty which embarrasses us. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University very truly said that the basis of compensation was in no sense a basis upon which you should base your taxation, largely because it includes elements which have no bearing whatever for the purposes of taxation. And when you consider what these elements are you are bound to admit that while the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Kennedy judgment—which takes the difference between the licensed and unlicensed value of the premises and the profits of the business, and uses these factors in order to arrive at the equivalent of the annual licence value—he is absolutely wrong in doing so, as he eliminates the very important consideration of the number of years' purchase. That is an unequal and thoroughly imperfect basis that cannot be fair. Did I hear some hon. Member say, "Why not?" I should have thought it was obvious. I should have thought, if you take a different multiplicand in two cases in regard to two houses on opposite sides of the street you will not get a similar basis. You will not get a similar basis if you eliminate the multiplicand.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not see that it is unfair for annual purposes which is the purpose we have in view.
      Mr. YOUNGER: That is another matter. You are basing this on the Kennedy judgment, but you have got to take into consideration what the Kennedy judgment means, and what it does. I am not discussing annual value. If you did that, and carry it out to capital value, you get all the elements which Lord Justice Kennedy said you ought to take into consideration, but if you stop there, and do not deal with the multiplicand you do not introduce all these elements which he said you ought to introduce. You are introducing into this new scale an uncertain factor which is to be made the basis of a generally applied rate which cannot be fair. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and it is a very difficult question, I know, but I do not see that there is any answer to that argument. The question of goodwill arises, and the right hon. Gentleman again stated that, in the decision of Lord Justice
      966
      Kennedy there is no personal goodwill included in this valuation. That, I agree, is Lord Justice Kennedy's dictum, but the application of that dictum is a very different thing. He said, "You must not take these personal considerations within your purview when you are dealing with this matter? That is perfectly true, but what did they go on to do in practice. They took the barrels of beer and the gallons of whisky which a man sold, and they based upon that turnover their valuation of the profits and of capital value. Does anyone suggest to me that the fact that the publican is a noted football player does not enter into the number of barrels of beer which he sells. Of course it does, every bit of it is in the trade for which the man is compensated, and although the dictum said it was not to be included every penny of it is included just as much as it is here. That cannot be right as a permanent basis for taxation, and while I am perfectly willing to admit that the Government intend this to be a concession, and I am willing to agree with them that if they could get a proper basis of annual licence value it would be a concession and it would be a proper thing to do, they do not get it. They are going to apply it to Scotland according to the Chancellor of the Duchy, but I cannot understand how under this Clause it is possible to translate the Kennedy judgment in Scotland into mere difference between two rental values, while in England we know it means profit value as well. I cannot understand it. It is a mystery to me. You say the Kennedy judgment is to be applied, but you are only applying one of the factors and ignoring the other. The Solicitor-General shakes his head, but the Chancellor of the Duchy said that in Scotland, where the basis was entirely different, the difference between the two rentals would be taken and nothing else. What I say is this, if you take the difference between the two rentals in Scotland, and that is the basis of your annual licensing value, it is totally different to that which you take in England, where you have not only that value, but a profit value as well.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The difference is not between Scotland and England, but between a country where there are no tied houses and a country where there are.
      Mr. YOUNGER: Precisely, and that is why I have always said you cannot apply the Kennedy case to Scotland.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not say we can.
      Mr. YOUNGER: But what are you going to apply? What are we to have in Scotland? You do not tell us at all. There is no single word of the Clause which gives the Scotch publican any idea whatever of what he has to pay. There is not a single word in the Clause to show that the difference between the two values is the value to be taxed.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, the whole Clause.
      Mr. YOUNGER: As interpreted by Mr. Justice Kennedy.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Our Bill does not mention Mr. Justice Kennedy's name. It imports the words of the Act of 1904, which speaks of the difference between the value of the premises licensed and the premises unlicensed.
      Mr. YOUNGER: If we admit that the difference between the two values is to be the annual licence value, I do not see how you can apply a rate to that which will be the same as the English rate without having inequality. Moreover, the licence value is somewhat less than the difference
      between the two values in Scotland, because the Schedule A valuation of licensed premises in Scotland unquestionably contains elements which are no part, and ought to be no part of the Schedule A valuation for this purpose in this respect, that it includes a certain amount for tenants' goodwill. It cannot be got rid of. The principles and manner in which the Somerset House officials value licensed premises in Scotland unquestionably includes part of the goodwill, and that goodwill ought not to be rated at all. Believing this is not the concession which the right hon. Gentleman believes, I still think there will not be anything like a loss of £300,000. I still think the Government is groping with this question and has found nothing like an adequate or fair solution of it. It is past praying for now. It has to stand, I suppose, as it is, but I believe it will be found that this valuation is not one which for the first year will be so largely taken advantage of as the right hon. Gentleman thinks.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'as' ['a register as respects'], stand part of the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 72.

      Division No. 844.]

      AYES.

      [10.50 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Clough, William

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Agnew, George William

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Astbury, John Meir

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Crosfield, A. H.

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

      Barker, Sir John

      Crossley, William J.

      Henry, Charles S.

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

      Beale, W. P.

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Beauchamp, E.

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

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Bell, Richard

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

      Hodge, John

      Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

      Erskine, David C.

      Holland, Sir William Henry

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

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Bennett, E. N.

      Evans, Sir S. T.

      Hooper, A. G.

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Black, Arthur W.

      Ferens, T. R.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Boulton, A. C. F.

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Hudson, Walter

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Findlay, Alexander

      Hyde, Clarendon G.

      Brace, William

      Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Brigg, John

      Glendinning, R. G.

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Brodic, H. C.

      Glover, Thomas

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Brooke, Stopford

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Jowett, F. W.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Gulland, John W.

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

      Hall, Frederick

      Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

      Byles, William Pollard

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      Lambert, George

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Lamont, Norman

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

      Radford, G. H.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Rees, J. D.

      Toulmin, George

      Lupton, Arnold

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Verney, F. W.

      Lynch, H. B.

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

      Villiers, Ernest Amherst

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

      Vivian, Henry

      Maclean, Donald

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Wadsworth, J.

      Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighshire)

      Walsh, Stephen

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

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Maddison, Frederick

      Robinson, S.

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Marnham, F. J.

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

      Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

      Massie, J.

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Williamson, Sir A.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

      Wills, Arthur Walters

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

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

      Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

      Myer, Horatio

      Seely, Colonel

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

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Shackleton, David James

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Nicholls, George

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Nuttall, Harry

      Simon, John Allsebrook

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Snowden, P.

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

      Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

      Pollard, Dr. G. H.

      Summerbell, T.

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      NOES.

      Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F.

      Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

      Gretton, John

      Nield, Herbert

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

      Oddy, John James

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Hamilton, Marquess of

      Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Harrison Broadley, H. B.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Hunt, Rowland

      Stanier, Beville

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Starkey, John R.

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

      Kerry, Earl of

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Clive, Percy Archer

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Valentia, Viscount

      Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

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

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

      Younger, George

      Fell, Arthur

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

      Fletcher, J. S.

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Clavell Salter and Mr. G. D. Faber.

      Forster, Henry William

      Lowe, Sir Francis William

      Foster, P. S.

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Gardner, Ernest

      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out from the word "register" ["to keep corrected a register"] all the words to the word "respectively" ["shall be certified respectively"], and to insert instead thereof the words "showing the annual licence value of all fully-licensed premises and all beer-houses.
      "For the purpose of this provision the annual licence value shall be taken to be the amount by which the annual value of the premises as licensed premises exceeds the value which the premises would bear if they were not licensed premises, those values being calculated on the same basis as that on which the amount to be paid as compensation under Section two of the
      970
      Licensing Act, 1904, is calculated in default of agreement and approval in cases where compensation is payable under that Act, but there shall not be included in the value of the premises as licensed premises any amount on account of depreciation of trade fixtures.
      "The annual licence value shall be fixed and certified."
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
      Mr. GRETTON Mr. GRETTON moved to leave out all the words of the proposed Amendment from the word "as" ["calculated on the same basis as"] to the end of the paragraph concluding with the word "fix-

      971
      tures," and to insert instead thereof the words "on the valuation of an estate for the purpose of the Estate Duty."
      The adoption of the Amendment would go down to what is really the basis of the principle of the Act of 1904, that the valuation of the licensed premises should be on the same basis as the valuation for the purpose of the Estate Duty. That was the intention of the Act of 1904, and I think the words of my Amendment to the proposed Amendment would conduce to greater simplicity than the words submitted by the Government.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, which I think offers a better means of solving the difficulty.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is not an Amendment the Government could accept. It is essential that it should be known what should be the method and the principles on which these valuations should be arrived at. The Act of 1904 in this country is well understood, and the principles of valuation have been accepted, and have been working now for five years. It is very advisable to stick as closely as we can to them. The hon. Member's words are open to this objection; he suggests that the same method as for the purposes of Estate Duty shall be applied here, but although it is true it is mentioned in the Acts of 1902 and 1904, it rarely ever occurs that the Board of Inland Revenue have to assess public-houses for Estate Duty. When the public-house belongs to a brewery then the valuation of the stocks
      is taken to cover the valuation, and of the premises that belong to that particular company. It practically never happens that a man dies who owns the premises and is the publican who owns the licence. Consequently, I am afraid those words would not give any special indication either to the brewer or to the Inland Revenue or satisfy parties interested. As for securing greater simplicity, in my view this would introduce fog into what is now limpid lucidity.
      Mr. GRETTON: I do not propose to proceed with this Amendment. His objections to the difficulty of valuing licensed premises for the purposes of Estate Duty will not hold water. The principles of the Kennedy judgment were not applied to the Metropolis at all, and does not apply to districts in the North.
      Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. CLAVELL SALTER Mr. CLAVELL SALTER moved, in the proposed Amendment, after the word "Act" ["compensation is payable under that Act"], to insert the words "except that in the calculation of the annual licence value for the purposes of this Act the value of the goodwill shall not be included."
      This Amendment raises separately the question of goodwill, and I think we ought to divide upon it.
      Mr. G. D. FABER Mr. G. D. FABER seconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The House divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 175.

      Division No. 845.]

      AYES.

      [11.12 p.m.

      Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F.

      Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

      Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

      Oddy, John James

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

      Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

      Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Hamilton, Marquess of

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Stanier, Beville

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Hunt, Rowland

      Starkey, John R.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

      Kerry, Earl of

      Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

      Clive, Percy Archer

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

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

      Faber, George Denison (York)

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

      Fell, Arthur

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

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Fletcher, J. S.

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      Younger, George

      Forster, Henry William

      Lowe, Sir Francis William

      Foster, P. S.

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Clavell Salter and Mr. Gretton.

      Gardner, Ernest

      Meysey Thompson, E. C.

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Glover, Thomas

      Nuttall, Harry

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Agnew, George William

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Pollard, Dr. G. H.

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Gulland, John W.

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Hall, Frederick

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Astbury, John Meir

      Haroourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Radford, G. H.

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Barker, Sir John

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

      Beale, W. P.

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Beauchamp, E.

      Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighshire)

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Bell, Richard

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Robinson, S.

      Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Bennett, E. N.

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

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Berridge, T. H. D.

      Henry, Charles S.

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Black, Arthur W.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      Boulton, A. C. F.

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

      Brace, William

      Hodge, John

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Brigg, John

      Holland, Sir William Henry

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

      Brodie, H. C.

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Seely, Colonel

      Brooke, Stopford

      Hooper, A. G.

      Shackleton, David James

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

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Sherwell, Arthur James

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

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Simon, John Allsebrook

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hudson, Walter

      Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hyde, Clarendon G.

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Byles, William Pollard

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Summerbell, T.

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Clough, William

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Toulmin, George

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Jowett, F. W.

      Verney, F. W.

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Vivian, Henry

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

      Wadsworth, J.

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Lambert, George

      Walsh, Stephen

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Lament, Norman

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Crossley, William J.

      Lehmann, R. C.

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

      White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

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

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

      Lupton, Arnold

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Williamson, Sir A.

      Elibank, Master of

      Maclean, Donald

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      Erskine, David C.

      Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

      Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Maddison, Frederick

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

      Evans, Sir S. T.

      Massie, J.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Ferens, T. R.

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

      Findlay, Alexander

      Myer, Horatio

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

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Glendinning, R. G.

      Nicholls, George

      Mr. JAMES HOPE Mr. JAMES HOPE moved, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the word "annually."
      This will make the proposed Amendment read at the end, "The annual licence value shall be fixed and certified annually." It is obvious that every year the factors change, and may change. It is only fair that the certified annual licence value shall be varied accordingly, without the necessity of going through a complicated appeal.
      Mr. J. S. ARKWRIGHT: I second the Amendment. May I express the hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will see his
      974
      way to accept what does seem to be a most reasonable proposition?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think this Amendment would really be desired either by the trade or by the Board of Customs and Excise or by the Board of Inland Revenue. It would involve a great deal of expense and trouble, and it is quite unnecessary. It is true annual values will be corrected from time to time; there are cases where corrections will have to be made, but that is no reason why every licensed premises in the country should be assessed annually. Where corrections are

      975
      necessary the parties will apply to the Commissioners, whose duty it is to keep corrected the register they have made. If they refuse to do so, and the parties are dissatisfied, they always have the right of appeal.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
      Question put, "That those words as amended be there inserted in the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 58.

      Division No. 846.]

      AYES.

      [11.22 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Rhondda)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

      Agnew, George William

      Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

      Pollard, Dr. G. H.

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Greenwood, Hamar (York)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Gulland, John W.

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Hall, Frederick

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

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      Radford, G. H.

      Astbury, John Meir

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

      Beale, W. P.

      Haworth, Arthur A.

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Beauchamp, E.

      Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Beck, A. Cecil

      Hedges, A. Paget

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Robinson, S.

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

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Robson, Sir Wm. Snowdon

      Bennett, E. N.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Henry, Charles S.

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Boulton, A. C. F.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      Brace, William

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

      Brigg, John

      Hodge, John

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

      Brodie, H. C.

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Brooke, Stopford

      Holt, Richard Durning

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

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

      Hooper, A. G.

      Seely, Colonel

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

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Shackleton, David James

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hyde, Clarendon G.

      Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

      Byles, William Pollard

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Channing, Sir Francis Allston

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Summerbell, T.

      Clough, William

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

      Jowett, F. W.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Toulmin, George

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

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Verney, F. W.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Lambert, George

      Villiers, Ernest Amherst

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      Lamont, Norman

      Vivian, Henry

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

      Walsh, Stephen

      Crosfield, A. H.

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Crossley, William J.

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

      Waterlow, D. S.

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      White, Sir George (Norfolk)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

      Lupton, Arnold

      Whitehead, Rowland

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

      Maclean, Donald

      Wiles, Thomas

      Elibank, Master of

      Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Erskine, David C.

      Maddison, Frederick

      Williamson, Sir A.

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Massie, J.

      Wills, Arthur Walters

      Evans, Sir S. T.

      Micklem, Nathaniel

      Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Molteno, Percy Alport

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

      Ferens, T. R.

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

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

      Myer, Horatio

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Findlay, Alexander

      Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

      Fuller, John Michael F.

      Nicholls, George

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

      Glendinning, R. G.

      Nuttall, Harry

      Glover, Thomas

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      NOES.

      Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Gardner, Ernest

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

      Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Clive, Percy Archer

      Gretton, John

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

      Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

      Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

      Banner, John S. Harwood

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Hamilton, Marquess of

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

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Fell, Arthur

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Carlile, E. Hildred

      Fletcher, J. S.

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Foster, P. S.

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Lowe, Sir Francis William

      Starkey, John R.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Hunt, Rowland

      Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Kerry, Earl of

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

      Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

      Younger, George

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

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

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

      Stanier, Beville

      Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved in Subsection (2), after the word "and" ["and any such certificate"], to insert the words "those Commissioners shall send by post a copy of the certificate to the licence-holder, and on the application of any other person who appears to them to be interested in the premises furnish a copy of the certificate to him."
      Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved in the proposed Amendment, after the word "shall" to insert the words "not later than the 1st of July in England and Ireland and the 1st of March in Scotland in any year."
      It is quite evident there ought to be some date after which the certificate ought not to be sent, and my Amendment will make it incumbent upon the Commissioners to send three weeks' notice.
      Mr. G. D. FABER Mr. G. D. FABER seconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This Amendment would really apply to an annual, valuation of the premises, but that is not the purpose of the Clause. The valuation, when made, will be made once and for all, unless there is some reason to change it. Consequently, it would be inconsistent with the scheme of the Clause to insert an annual date. It is contemplated that those who think the licence value of their premises has altered, and that the register ought to be corrected, should apply to the Commissioners to have the correction made. Supposing the licence-holder were to apply in England and Ireland in the latter part of July or in Scotland in the latter part of March, this would apparently be an intimation to the Commissioners that they are not to consider his request until a period of eleven months had elapsed and the date for the sending of the certificates had come round. For these reasons I trust the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
      Amendment made: In the proposed Amendment, after the word "certificate" ["a copy of the certificate to the licence-holder"], to insert the words "(and in case any correction is subsequently made in the amount certified, a copy of the corrected certificate)."—[Mr. James Hope.]
      Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved, in the proposed Amendment after the word "licence-holder," to insert the words "together with a statement showing the basis on which the amount has been determined."
      This Amendment provides that when the certificate is sent a statement shall also be sent showing the basis on which the amount has been determined. It is very advisable that the licence-holder should have a statement of the basis, because, if he has not a detailed statement as to how the amount has been arrived at, it will be very difficult for him to appeal.
      Mr. CARLILE Mr. CARLILE seconded the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
      Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Amendment of the hon. Member would not make any difference, because all he proposes is that the Commissioners should send with the certificate a statement showing the basis on which the amount has been determined, and that is set out in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, and which we have just accepted. The basis is to be that set out in Section 2 of the Act of 1904. The Amendment, therefore, will not have any effect at all. The hon. Member probably means to cast the obligation upon the Commissioners to send details of their calculations, and that I am afraid we could not accept. We discussed proposals of that kind in Committee, and I think it would be sufficient to say if there is to be an appeal, if there is such dissatisfaction with the amount named in the certificate as to give rise to a desire to appeal, I should have no doubt it would in the ordinary course be given by the Commissioners, thereby enabling the person who feels aggrieved to make up his mind whether or not to appeal. In no case that I know of is it the practice, where a

      979
      certificate of this kind has to be made out, for details of the ultimate figure arrived at to be supplied to anybody concerned.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Government, I believe, refused to yield on this point in Committee. They also, at that stage, refused to make a similar concession in regard to the Land Tax, but on the Report stage they agreed, so far as the Land Tax was concerned, that the person assessed should have all the facts supplied. In order to show how the valuation was arrived at, it would be necessary to set forth the gross value as well as the deductions; indeed, all the factors which contributed to the ultimate figure of assessment would have to be set out. This illustrates one of the disadvantages arising from the method in which the Government conduct their business. I do not think that either the Chancellor of the Duchy or the Solicitor-General were aware of what took place with regard to the Land Tax, and of the fact that, in the discussion of that, it was explicitly stated that the subject should have all the information which my hon. Friend is now seeking to secure in relation to this particular tax which we are debating. I quite agree with the Solicitor-General that the words of my hon. Friend's Amendment are not quite properly chosen; it might be desirable to substitute the word "factor" for "basis"; that would cure, at any rate, the Amendment of the defect pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am sure my hon. Friend will consent to make that alteration. The Solicitor-General said that if the assessment became a matter of appeal, the Commissioners would be willing to give this information. But a little earlier in the evening we had the Chancellor of the Duchy protesting that there was no earthly reason why the subject should not immediately get the information which, if the case were taken into court, would be at once forthcoming, and the earlier giving of which might prevent the appeal being lodged.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not say that.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am confusing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with another speech. I think it was the hon. Member for the Hitchin Division of Herts (Mr. J. Bertram) who, speaking on an Amendment in regard to the Land Tax, protested that the information which was being asked for from the subject was the information on which he
      980
      would have to rely in case of appeal. The answer of the Government was that it was in the interest of the subject to produce the information at once, as it might prevent the necessity for going to the court. If the information was material to the judgment, it was only proper that it should be produced at the earliest possible moment. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it is true of the subject it must be equally true of the taxing authority. If it is right to call on the subject to produce material facts for the information of the Government it must be equally right for the Government to produce material information for the benefit of the subject. I hope that with the substitution of the word "factor" for the word "basis" the Government will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, as by so doing they will only be acting in harmony with the change they made in the Land Tax yesterday, and with the defence they advanced of the proposal which they submitted to the House.
      Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am quite willing to indicate that the Commissioners should give the two factors which I think are the only necessary factors. What I object to is to place upon them obligations, whether they like it or not, to give all the details on which they arrived at the amount. If it would satisfy hon. and right hon. Gentlemen I am willing to give the two annual values, that is, to state what the annual value of the premises with the licence and what the annual value of the premises without the licence is. I would, after the words in the original Amendment, "copy of the certificate to the licence holder," be prepared to insert the words "stating the two annual values upon which the true annual licence value has been arrived at."
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting, after the words "licence holder" ["copy of the certificate to the licence holder"] the words "stating the two annual values upon which the true annual licence value has been arrived at."
      Mr. GRETTON: I would like, with the leave of the House, to point out that the two annual values are not the real factors, they do not cover the whole ground, but the proposal is some mitigation of the Amendment. The annual licensing value is one factor, but it is only of very partial

      981
      value. However, what is proposed is some indication, and although it is only a partial indication, it is better than none at all, and I shall be prepared to support it as far as it goes.
      Amendment to proposed Amendment made.
      Further Amendment made in the pro posed Amendment: After the word "certificate" ["furnish a copy of the certificate to him"] to insert the words "or corrected certificate."—[Mr. James Hope.]
      Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
      Resolved: That the further proceedings on the Bill be adjourned till to-morrow.
      Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow.

WEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL SEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords' Amendments considered.
Clause 1, Sub-section (4) to leave out the words "with the consent of the county council, or the county council may," and to insert instead thereof the words "may, and at the request of the county council shall."
Question proposed, "That the House agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: I should like to have some information upon this Amendment.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): These Amendments are comparatively simple and almost formal. The effect is that the Department, having entire control over these orders, will be obliged to agree to the action of the people's representatives in the event of a county council asking that a particular order shall be revoked.

POLICE (LIVERPOOL ENQUIRY) BILL.
Order for second reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This is a Bill desired by all the Members for the City of Liverpool. There were some disturbances there recently, and the Watch Committee
982
asked to have an enquiry. The Home Secretary is willing to grant an enquiry, the Watch Committee is willing to bear the cost if the evidence is given on oath, and that is provided for by the Bill. It is exactly on the lines of the Commission to enquire into the conduct of the Metropolitan Police three or four years ago.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I hope my hon. Friend will not raise any difficulties in the way of the Bill being advanced, as all parties are anxious that the enquiry should be held, and that the powers of the Commissioners should be as simple as possible.
Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House for to-morrow."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell) in the Chair.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Detention to be Substituted for Imprisonment as Punishment for Offences against Discipline.)
  (1) For the purpose of preventing persons subject to the Naval Discipline Act convicted of offences against discipline under that Act, and not dismissed from His Majesty's Service, from being subjected to the stigma attaching to imprisonment there shall be added to the punishments specified in Section 52 of the Naval Discipline Act the punishment of detention, which in the scale of punishments mentioned in that section shall come next before dismissal from His Majesty's service.
  (2) The maximum term of detention shall be two yeans, and a person sentenced to detention shall undergo the term of his detention either in naval detention quarters or in a detention barrack, or partly in one way and partly in another: a person liable to imprisonment in a naval prison may be confined in naval detention quarters, but a person sentenced to detention shall not be confined in a prison.
  (3) The Admiralty shall have the same power of setting apart buildings or vessels, or any parts thereof, as naval detention quarters as they have of setting apart such buildings or vessels or parts thereof as naval prisons.
  (4) For the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions such Amendments shall be made in the Naval Discipline Act as are set forth in the Schedule to this Act.
  Mr. HAY Mr. HAY moved, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "added" ["there shall be added"] and to insert instead thereof the word "substituted for."
  I shall be obliged if the Secretary to the Admiralty will give us some reason why the word "added" is put into the Bill when a new form of punishment is created in lieu of the existing code. Not only that, but the hon. Gentleman gave us particulars as to the rearrangement of these naval prisons, rearrangements which were to do away with the existing system. I gather that the intention is to practically abolish naval prisons and to create in lieu thereof these places of detention. The Clause refers to Section 52 of the Naval Discipline Act, which contains many very severe penalties, including that of death. The matters referred to in that Clause, it appears to me, hardly come within the category of those which should be dealt with in this Bill. The phrase "custom of the Navy" is affected by this Clause. Will the Secretary to the Admiralty kindly state how the "custom of the Navy" comes in with respect to the treatment of those persons who are to be sent to the new establishments? What are the minor punishments inflicted according to the custom of the Navy?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): We cannot accept this Amendment. When a sailor is to be subjected to naval discipline and not dismissed, we propose that he should be sent to detention barracks which are to be set up at certain ports. As a rule in cases of naval discipline, instead of sending a man to a naval prison to undergo shot drill and to pick oakum, he will be sent to detention barracks.
  Mr. HAY: Do you propose to keep alongside the detention quarters the existing naval prisons, such as at Lewes, where very severe punishments are inflicted for purely naval offences? What is the custom of the Navy in regard to these punishments? It is a very vague phrase.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We do not propose either at Chatham, Portsmouth, or Devonport to have anything but the detention quarters. That is to be the general rule for offences against naval discipline. I
  984
  explained very fully the other morning exactly the course to be pursued in these detention quarters. Generally we propose that the men under detention will have naval drill, drill with the rifle and loading practice with the large gun, and physical exercise, which we make of a pretty severe character without making it what we consider degrading.
  Mr. HAY: Are you going to retain Lewes Prison as a prison or not?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We are not.
  Mr. HAY: What is the custom of the Navy as regards these punishments? Is flogging a custom of the Navy? Will the hon. Gentleman say categorically does the punishment inflicted by this Clause involve disrating?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I explained very fully before what we proposed to do. All this Bill does is to give power in cases of offences against naval discipline to substitute the punishment of detention. It does not touch flogging. Flogging has been suspended in the Navy since 1881, and so far as I know is certain to continue to be suspended. It cannot be re-enacted except by special Admiralty Order. As to disrating, I assume that the punishment of disrating will continue to be imposed for the offences for which it has been imposed in the past. As to whether sending a man to detention quarters, as against sending him to a naval prison, will affect the question of disrating, I should say off-hand that it would not, and that a man will be disrated in future for whatever offences he would be disrated in the past.
  12.0 P.M.
  Mr. HAY: Before withdrawing the Amendment, I should like to have an assurance, if he does not know that the punishment involves disrating, that the hon. Gentleman will ascertain and let us know before the Report stage.
  Mr. ARNOLD LUPTON: There are two kinds of flogging—one the sentence of flogging and flogging for breaches of prison discipline. I wish to know whether there will be flogging in these detention quarters for breaches of discipline?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no flogging, and it cannot be reinstated except by order of the Admiralty. With regard to disrating, I am perfectly safe in stating that this Bill has nothing to do with it at all. If a man has been previously disrated for any offence he will, I

  985
  assume, be disrated in the future, irrespective of the change we are now making.
  Mr. HAY: I desire to call attention to Sub-section 10 of Clause 53 of the Naval Discipline Act, which says upon imprisonment, whether on board ship or on shore, shall involve disrating. In view of the fact that this Bill substitutes detention for imprisonment, ipso facto it carries with it disrating of a bluejacket.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: Of course, I entirely approve of the main purpose of this Bill, but I am desirous of asking whether birching and caning are still suspended. I understand that the abatement of punishment is not statutory, but depends upon circulars and regulations issued by the Board of Admiralty, which might be also withdrawn from time to time. Therefore, we embrace this opportunity of ascertaining whether the abatement of minor punishments is still in force.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: With regard to minor punishments in the case of young bluejackets and boys, on the 30th January, 1906, instructions were issued that birching as a summary punishment should be discontinued, and that caning should only be inflicted on the actual order of the captain of the ship. I am very glad to say, having ascertained the opinion of flag officers with regard to this suspension of birching that, generally speaking, they endorse the change that was made in 1906. Therefore, birching is entirely suspended, and is likely to continue to be suspended, as has flogging since 1881. I repeat that the rules with regard to the suspension of flogging and the suspension of birching are so far permanent that they cannot be altered, except by special order of the Admiralty, and I have no reason whatever to suppose that that order is likely to be issued.
  Mr. LUPTON: Since the results of stopping birching have been, according to the flag officers, satisfactory, I would like to ask, Will they not also take the step of abolishing those canings which are not carried out in any Navy in the world but ours?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. HAY: In his statement on the second reading the hon. Gentleman said that the detention buildings were to be at Devonport, Portsmouth, and Chatham, but he did not give us any particulars as to
  986
  the places of detention on board ship to bring them up to the level of the detention barracks on shore.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We propose to spend £50,000 in dealing with Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devonport. With regard to any alterations made in ship's quarters for cases of detention, I could not say at this moment we have any particular scheme on hand for altering the ship's quarters, but I assume the main commitment will be in the three great detention barracks. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that this should be done thoroughly. Certainly, apart altogether from the quarters, it will be a great consideration for the men that they should be committed in their ordinary uniforms, and doing the sort of work we propose instead of shot drill and so on. I am as anxious as the hon. Member that this should be a real change.
  Clause 2 (Printing and Construction of Naval Discipline Act) agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Short Title and Commencement)
  1. This Act may be cited as the Naval Discipline Act, 1909.
  2. This Act shall come into force on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and eleven.
  Mr. HAY Mr. HAY moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "eleven," and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
  Why on earth this Bill should be postponed for a year I cannot conceive. Why should not the Navy have the advantage of the change forthwith? If that cannot be done in respect of the actual structures, at least the improved forms of punishment could be brought into force.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid no good service would be served by the Amendment, as the remodelling and alteration of the buildings will take certainly 2½ years. But apart from the question of buildings, this is a thing which must be done with care, discretion, and a certain amount of circumspection, and we have put in the earliest practicable date.
  Mr. LUPTON: It would be very easy to abolish shot drill by 1910. That is admitted to be a form of cruelty to which no human being ought to be subjected. According to the hon. Member's own showing, the Act will come into force 18 months before the detention barracks

  987
  are built. Why, then, should he not begin at once with this alteration in the cruel and horrible forms of torture to which the men are now subjected?
  Mr. HAY: I really cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's answer as satisfactory. Will he pretend that it is necessary to spend £50,000 on buildings in order to abolish a system which cuts a man's hair short directly he is sentenced, or that you must spend £50,000 on buildings before you can allow a man to keep on the clothes he is wearing when sentence is pronounced upon him. Again, taking physical drill as an example, why cannot you put him through physical drill in the same yard in which he now carries out shot drill? If the Amendment is not accepted I shall have to take a Division.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I am anxious to avoid a Division on this Bill, which commands the assent of both sides of the House. I think there is some substance in the Amendment, and I would ask the hon. Member if he could not consider the possibility of bringing this change into operation at the beginning of next year in order to establish in existing naval prisons two divisions of prisoners, namely, those convicted of serious offences, who will undergo ordinary prison discipline, and those convicted of offences against naval discipline, who might be treated in the way they would be treated in the new barracks, which cannot be ready for 2½ years. I think it is really a point on which the hon. Gentleman might meet the views put forward, for it seems unnecessary that this beneficent reform should be put off altogether for over a year, when all that is really necessary is that these offenders should be accommodated somewhere else.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows Lewes Naval Prison? If he does, he will know that we have no room there. You would have to alter the whole character of the premises before you could bring into operation there the open air naval drill which I, and all of us, want to see substituted for the shot drill. With regard to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham (Mr. A. Lee), I do not know but what we might discuss this matter again at the Admiralty from the point of view of the possibility of bringing in the altered punishment earlier than now
  988
  arranged. I will make enquiry at the Admiralty.
  Mr. HAY: Can you not do it on Report?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I hope that we shall be able to get the third reading and report now.
  Mr. HAY: To all acquainted with the facts it is, I think, notorious that the naval prison at Lewes was a civil prison some time ago. It was condemned as such, and regarded as unfitted for murderers and felons. Notwithstanding that it is thought good enough to be a naval prison. As to the difficulty of giving facilities for physical drill, all I have to say is "that where there is a will there is a way." I am intimately acquainted with the civil prison at Lewes, and it is one of the best and healthiest in the country. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to pledge himself, but am I to understand that he will consult the Admiralty as to the propriety of either altering the present rules under the existing prison law or of expediting the enactment of this Bill in accordance with my Amendment?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No. All I want the hon. Gentleman to understand is that we will consider whether the suggestion is practicable.
  Mr. HAY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 added to the Bill.
  Bill reported without Amendments; read a third time, and passed.
  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes after Twelve o'clock.

  India Civil Service Examinations.
  India Civil Service Examinations.
  Opium Auction Sales, Calcutta.
  Opium Auction Sales, Calcutta.
  Exports of Indian Opium to China.
  Exports of Indian Opium to China.
  States of Jersey (Potatoes from United Kingdom).
  States of Jersey (Potatoes from United Kingdom).
  Tuberculosis Order (Fife County Council).
  Tuberculosis Order (Fife County Council).
  Motor Cars Imported into the United Kingdom.
  Motor Cars Imported into the United Kingdom.
  Strangford Bar Buoy.
  Strangford Bar Buoy.
  Old Age Pensions (Appeals).
  Old Age Pensions (Appeals).
  Experiments on Animals (Royal Commission).
  Experiments on Animals (Royal Commission).
  New Holdings, Highland Crofting Counties.
  New Holdings, Highland Crofting Counties.
  Migration of Cottars (Island of Lewis).
  Migration of Cottars (Island of Lewis).
  Imperial Pensions (Commission).
  Imperial Pensions (Commission).
  Female Telephone Staff (Edinburgh Post Office).
  Female Telephone Staff (Edinburgh Post Office).
  Mount Pleasant (Post Office) Factories.
  Mount Pleasant (Post Office) Factories.
  Teachers' Superannuation Allowances.
  Teachers' Superannuation Allowances.
INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS (AMEND MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889—Was presented by The Lord Braye; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 209.)

THE VIVISECTION COMMISSION.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl who represents the Home Office a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can give the House any information as to when the Vivisection Committee are likely to send in their Report.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP): I am afraid I am unable, in answer to the Question of the noble Earl, to fix any date. I understand that the draft of the Report is in an advanced stage of preparation, but the Chairman, Lord Selby, is unfortunately very unwell, and it is quite impossible to fix a definite date for the further proceedings of the Commission. I have no doubt, however, that the members of the Commission will take note of the Question of the noble Earl, and accept it as an indication on the part of the public of their wish for a speedy issue of the Report.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons' Amendments considered (according to order).
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I understand that there are no Amendments to the Commons' Amendments until we come to Clause D on page 3 of the Paper, and therefore I beg to move that the Commons' Amendments down to the words "the City of Westminster" on that page be agreed to.
Moved, That the Commons' Amendments down to the words "the City of Westminster," on page 3, be agreed to.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
The Commons' Amendments embraced in this Motion were—
Clause 2, page 2, line 9, after ("direct") insert ("to the local authority of the district in which the land is situate and")
Clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out ("those") and insert ("such local authority")
Clause 2, page 2, line 13, after ("thereto") insert ("This section shall not apply to any station for transforming, converting, or distributing electrical energy")
Clause 4, page 3, line 8, after ("tramway") insert ("Provided that a Provisional Order authorising the breaking up of roads outside the area of supply of the local authority or company by whom the supply is to be given shall not be granted by the Board of Trade, except with the consent of the local authority in whose district the road is situate, unless the Board of Trade, in any case in which the consent of any such local authority is refused, are of opinion that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, such consent ought to be dispensed with, and in that case they shall make a special report to Parliament, stating the ground on which they have dispensed with the consent")
Clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out ("authorise") and insert ("permit")
Clause 5, page 4, line 14, after ("laboratories") insert ("or observatories or laboratories now or hereafter erected, owned, or managed in pursuance of any present or future statutory enactment")
Clause 6, page 4, line 24, leave out from ("situate") to ("the") in line 28.
Clause 6, page 4, line 30, after ("situate") insert ("and the undertakers (if any) authorised to supply electricity to such premises"), and leave out ("authorise") and insert ("permit")
Clause 6, page 4, line 32, after ("fit") insert ("Provided that, if in the opinion of the Board of Trade, any consent required by this subsection is unreasonably withheld, the Board of Trade may proceed as if such consent had been given")
Clause 6, page 4, line 39, leave out ("authorised")
Clause 6, page 5, line 10, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection:
(4) Nothing in this section shall enable the Board of Trade, without the consent of the undertakers within whoso area of supply the premises are situate, to give such permission as aforesaid to any undertakers where the last-mentioned undertakers are by any Act of Parliament specifically prohibited from supplying electricity within the area of the first-mentioned undertakers.
Leave out clause 13 and insert the following new clause:
A. The Board of Trade shall from time to time make a return to Parliament giving such particulars as they may think proper with regard to the reports made by any auditors appointed by them to audit the accounts of any undertakers, and any action taken on such reports by the Board.
Leave out clause 16, and insert the following new clause:
B. All electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances let by any undertakers on hire or belonging to any undertakers, but being in or upon premises of which the undertakers are not in possession, shall, whether they be or be not fixed or fastened to any part of any premises in or upon

419
which they may be situate, or to the soil under any such premises, at all times continue to be the property of, and be removable by the undertakers, and sections twenty-four and twenty-five of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, shall extend and apply to all such electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances. Provided that such electric lines, fittings, apparatus, or appliances have upon them respectively a distinguishing metal plate affixed to a conspicuous part thereof, or a distinguishing brand or other mark conspicuously impressed or made thereon sufficiently indicating the undertakers as the actual owners thereof.
For the purposes of this section, electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances disposed of by the undertakers on terms of payment by instalments shall, until the whole of the instalments have been paid, be deemed to be electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances let on hire by the undertakers. Nothing in this section shall affect the amount of the assessment for rating of any premises upon which any electric lines, fittings, apparatus, or appliances are, or shall be, fixed.
After clause 20 insert the following new clause:
C. Money borrowed under the Electric Lighting Acts shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt of a local authority for the purpose of any limitation or borrowing under the enactments relating to borrowing by the local authority.
Clause 21, page 11, line 20, after ("arbitration") insert ("This section shall not apply to the station of the Westminster Electric Supply Corporation, Limited, at Horseferry Road, in the city of Westminster")
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE*THE EARL OF DUNMORE moved to amend the new Clause D which the Commons had inserted in the place of Clause 22. The Commons' Amendment ran—
Leave out clause 22, and insert the following new clause:
D. Where in any area a local authority, company, or person is authorised to supply electricity under Act of Parliament or under licence or Provisional Order granted under the Electric Lighting Acts, it shall not, after the passing of this Act, be lawful for any other local authority, company, or person to commence to supply, distribute, or transmit electricity within the same area unless such supply, distribution, or transmission is authorised by Act of Parliament, or by licence or Provisional Order granted in terms of the Electric Lighting Acts. Provided that this section shall not prevent any company or person from affording a supply of electrical energy to any other company or person where the business of the company or person affording the supply is not primarily that of the supply of electrical energy to consumers.
The noble Earl said: In moving the Amendment of which I have given notice may I say that I have cut out the words "transmit" and "transmission" in Clause D of the Commons' Amendments. Under this clause, as at present drafted, a company
420
may afford a supply of electrical energy to any other company subject to the provision at the end of the clause. There can be no reason why that same company should not be able by private arrangement to transmit electrical energy subject to the same provision. The question really is one of wayleaves. If any one else's land is in between it will be necessary to obtain power from Parliament, under the clause as at present drafted, in order to transmit the supply of electrical energy across that land. I do not think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will object to my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In new Clause D of the Commons' Amendments, line 6, after the word 'supply,' to insert the word 'or'; to leave out the words 'or transmit'; in line 7, after the word 'supply,' to insert the word 'or' and to leave out the words 'or transmission' in the same line."—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: There is no objection to the Amendment as regards the transmission of electricity.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELPER: The Amendment which I have to propose is also to Clause D, which was inserted in the House of Commons after the Committee stage had been concluded. The effect of the Amendment is to meet a difficulty with regard to a practical agreement which had been come to by the Midland Railway Company to have power supplied to them for some large new works at Derby. The difficulty arose in consequence of part of those works being within the town of Derby; and without wishing to strike out the whole of the Amendments in Clause D I have tried to arrange a reasonable means of meeting the difficulty by the insertion of words at the end of Clause D. The point is not a very large one, but I think it is only fair that some means should be found of meeting such a difficulty, and I think the Amendment that I propose will not only commend itself to your Lordships' House, but also to the other House of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
"At the end of new clause D of the Commons' Amendments to insert ' Provided also that this section shall not prevent any company who at the passing of this Act are empowered by their Memorandum of Association to generate electrical

421
energy from affording a supply to a railway company for purposes incidental to that company's undertaking other than the conveyance of public traffic.'"—(Lord Belper.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: This new Clause D was inserted in the other House of Parliament because certain established undertakers were afraid of an undertaking which had been set up in Scotland whereby certain unauthorised undertakers proposed to give a supply of electricity for commercial purposes. The fear of the authorised undertakers was that these people might take some of the plums of their business, that they might supply to their best customers, and they thought that this was not fair to them. I think the general feeling was that there was a good deal in that contention. However, the Government did not see their way to accept the clause which was originally proposed for the protection of the authorised undertakers, because it would have prevented a man who had a generating station at his residence or works from giving a supply to his neighbours by private arrangement, except with the consent of the authorised undertakers. The Government thought that that clause went rather too far; but eventually another clause was brought forward in the form in which it now appears on the Paper, and that clause the Government accepted. Your Lordships will observe that the prohibition to supply only exists in cases where there is an authorised undertaker in the district, and your Lordships will also observe that it does not apply where the unauthorised supply was commenced before the passing of this Act, I had hoped that this proviso would meet any complaint as to a hard case on account of interference with existing undertakings. Of course, your Lordships will see that it is desirable as a general rule that undertakings for the supply of electricity to customers should be under statutory authority, and we think that it is in the interests, not only of the consumers but of the local authority as well, that that should be so. I am very sorry that the case which the noble Lord has referred to does not come under that exemption, but our position is this, that as the Government accepted the clause in the other House I am not prepared to agree to the Amendment, which the promoters of the clause as it stands may think goes beyond the case aimed at, and it might, in their view, nullify the clause. I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment, but if he wishes
422
to press it I shall not put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing against it.
LORD BELPER: It is a very important clause to us, and I am certainly going to press it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: The Amendment which I now move provides that this section—Clause D—as amended by the House of Commons, shall not prevent any company from affording a supply of electrical energy to any other company or person who are shareholders, or other persons associated with the company affording the supply. The reason for this is that power companies have often failed to give the supply contemplated, and manufacturers and consumers of electricity have, therefore, not hitherto been able to benefit largely from supplies given by power companies. It is not infrequent for a manufacturer who has a large electrical plant to afford a supply to his friends and neighbours, the result being that through the better load factor and lower cost of supply the cost all round is reduced. Under Clause D of the Commons' Amendments this principle is recognised; but the principle has in certain instances been further developed, and it is not uncommon for a supply on co-operative lines to be arranged for—that is to say, instead of a manufacturer supplying other companies—which he can do under this clause as it stands, subject to the provision at the end of the clause—for those other companies to join in the cost of putting down the plant. To take a concrete case, assume that a colliery company is about to put down coking plant and proposes to adopt the German method of utilising the waste gases and heat for the purpose of driving electrical plant. As Clause D stands, so long as the colliery company finds the capital itself it could supply its neighbours with electrical energy, subject to that last provision in Clause D; but if the colliery company's neighbours join in putting down the plant, it becomes at once a question which is the primary and which is the subsidiary object—that is to say, whether the generation of electrical energy is the primary object and coke the by-product or vice versa. The neighbouring local authority would naturally contend the former and apply for an injunction. I see no objection myself to this

423
co-operative method of supplying electrical energy to two or three companies, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the words 'this section shall not prevent any company from affording a supply of electrical energy to any other company or person who are shareholders in or otherwise associated with the company affording the supply.'"—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I think I have some right to complain that I have only had notice of this Amendment five minutes before the sitting of the House. As the Commons' Amendments have been before your Lordships since the middle of August, I think I have some cause of complaint of the lateness of the notice given of this particular Amendment. But what I would say with regard to it is this. I explained to your Lordships the reason on account of which the Government accepted this new Clause D; it was because we wished to prevent any unauthorised persons from poaching in the areas of the authorised undertakers for the supply of electricity; but we do not wish to prevent a supply between neighbours; nor do we wish to interfere with arrangements which have been entered into before the passing of the Act. I think the suggestion of the noble Lord, however, really goes a good deal beyond that, because, as I understand, what he proposes amounts practically to a co-operative company for the supply of electricity within certainly a limited area, and as that goes very much further than was contemplated when the exception was agreed to I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: As regards the co-operative supply for the provision of electrical energy, they would be subject to the same provision as under Clause D of the Commons' Amendments. They would not be able to supply electrical energy to anybody if their business was primarily that of supplying electrical energy to consumers. It is a small point and it comes to this, whether one company can provide electricity to, say, two other companies for their own consumption, or whether those three companies may join together in putting down plant to provide themselves with electrical energy. That is the whole point of my contention. I do not wish to press my Amendment unless I receive some support from the House.
LORD BELPER: The difference between this Amendment and Clause D as it stands is, as my noble friend says, an extremely narrow one. It is very difficult to see how the Amendment as it stands can be defended, because, as it seems to me, if two of these companies agreed together they might easily have a private agreement for one of them to be the supplier and to supply the others. The line is so very narrow that I hardly see myself how you can defend an Amendment which allows a company to supply to three or four other companies but does not allow two of those companies to join together and each pay their share of supplying it to the two other individuals. It really comes down to a point of very small difference, and the only question is whether it will not be got round even if the clause is left to stand as it is.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Commons' Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I beg to move that your Lordships agree to the remaining Commons' Amendments—viz.
Clause 23, page 12, line 25, after ("gas") insert ("or water")
Clause 24, page 13, line 2, after ("electricity") insert ("to whom the Electric Lighting Acts apply")
Clause 24, page 13, line 6, leave out ("or works")
Clause 24, page 13, line 7, leave out from ("electricity") to the end of line 8.
Clause 24, page 13, line 18, leave out from ("places") to the end of the clause.
Clause 25, page 13, line 29, after ("June") insert ("Section ninety-nine of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as applied by section forty-four of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, shall be read as if the words ' subject to the provisions of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, or any Act or Acts amending or superseding the same 'were repealed")
In the Schedules, First Schedule, page 14, line 16, after ("Acts") insert ("and the expression 'company' in the Railways Act (Ireland), 1851, the Railways Act (Ireland), 1860, and the Railways Act (Ireland), 1864, means the undertakers under the Electric Lighting Acts")
Moved, That the remaining Commons' Amendments be agreed to.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and Bill returned to the Commons.

SMALL DWELLING HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said he desired to move the omission of Clause 12—
12. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of all Acts applicable within the respective burghs in which this Act may be in force with regard to the liability for and the imposition and recovery of any assessment shall subsist in full force and effect, subject to the following provisions (that is to say):—
In the burghs named in Schedule II of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892—

(a) Sections throe hundred and forty-five and three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and any corresponding provisions of any local Act shall not apply or be made applicable by adoption to small dwelling-houses of a rent or yearly value not exceeding ten pounds;

(b) Assessments which may by law be imposed or chargeable upon the occupier of a small dwelling-house may be made payable, should the assessing authority so determine, in such instalments as may be fixed by the assessing authority, and the occupier for the time being shall be liable to pay the instalments of such assessments corresponding with the period of his occupancy, although his name may not be entered as such occupier in the valuation roll: Provided that no occupier shall be liable for any instalment of such assessments for any portion of the year after he has ceased to be the occupier;

(c) Any such instalment of any assessment falling to be paid after the commencement of a financial year and before the date of the imposition of the assessment for that year shall be calculated, charged, and payable on the basis of the corresponding assessment for the preceding financial year, and it shall be lawful for an assessing authority to demand and enforce payment of any such instalment;

(d) The owner of every small dwelling-house shall, in addition to making the returns falling to be made by him in accordance with the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, intimate to the assessing authority every notice given or received by him in terms of the section of this Act the marginal note of which is "Notice to terminate tenancy" within three days of the giving or the receiving thereof, and shall also intimate the name of every new tenant, the rate of his rent, and the period of his tenancy within three days after the commencement of each new tenancy, and any owner wilfully failing to do so, or making or causing to be made any false intimation, shall be liable in a penalty not exceeding forty shillings,

426
and to substitute for it a long clause which their Lordships would see upon the Paper. It was an important Amendment, but it did not in any way go to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill had reference to letting houses, and it was, in the first place, that no agreement should be binding which was made two months before the entry took place; and, in the second place, power was given to any house-owner or tenant to terminate the tenancy, provided that sufficient notice was given, at the time of the next payment of rent. The third portion of the principle of the Bill was that which freed from the right of hypothec the goods of a tenant up to £10. The Amendment which he was going to propose affected only the manner in which rates were to be imposed and levied. That was a subsidiary matter altogether, although in this case a very important one. It was specially important in the case of Glasgow, and really the Bill was started by Glasgow and some of the large towns where the population was migratory, and it had comparatively little effect in and certainly was not taken much interest in by the other towns. They were all indifferent to the Bill, except in so far as they opposed it in its altered form. Their wishes, as he would show their Lordships presently, were met by his Amendment.
The effect of the Bill would be largely to increase the number of what were termed short lets—that was to say, lets which were for less than the term of one year—in the large towns, and it was because those lets would be increased that the whole question of the difficulty of the imposition and collection of rates arose. Under Section 343 of the Burgh Police Act, which had been adopted in most of the towns in Scotland and which it was in the power of all the remaining towns to adopt whenever they saw fit, the landlord was responsible for the rates of his tenant where the let was a short one. The demand for the rates was made upon the occupier and the rate was imposed upon the occupier, but if the occupier failed to meet his obligation then recourse was had to the owner, and their Lordships must bear in mind that that was the essential difference between the system of compounding and the system which was established under the Burgh Police Act. The question really was how ought the increased risk which would fall upon the owners under the Bill to be met.
Ever since the Second Reading of the Bill,

427
a number of their Lordships connected with Scotland who had taken great interest in the matter had had the point under consideration, and when the Bill went into Committee a proposal was made which he himself, he thought, moved, and which they hoped at that time would meet the case. That was taken exception to by the City of Glasgow, and ever since that time the Scottish Peers, with the very able and laborious assistance of Mr. Scott Dickson and Mr. Clyde, who had a very minute acquaintance, as their Lordships were all aware, as leading members of the Scottish Bar with Scottish rating law, had had the matter under almost continuous consideration. In the first place, when the City of Glasgow objected to the clause which now stood in the Bill the house-factors and house-owners also raised objections, and therefore it appeared that it would be useless to insist upon Clause 12 and that it was desirable to find some substitute. It was a very technical matter which could not be at all interesting to their Lordships, and he did not intend to go into the detail of it. They then considered the matter, and devised another clause which they hoped at one moment was agreed to, but unfortunately their expectations were falsified, because the house-owners and factors objected. He put down a clause which he believed embodied agreement and which he had hoped to move on Report, but when the Report stage was reached he found it was desirable not to move the clause. They had been considering the matter ever since, and after a fortnight of more trouble, owing to the change of mind which he thought was chiefly on the part of the house-owners and factors, they had come to the conclusion that their difference was really whittled down to a very small point.
Everybody was agreed, with respect to the additional risk to which house-owners would be exposed, that there ought to be a scale of deduction applicable to them in regard to their liability for the rates of their tenants; and the difficulty really only was with regard to the question whether the scale of deduction should be originated and started by the Sheriff under the Bill, or whether, on the other hand, the Bill should contain a fixed scale of rates of deduction which after a period should be subject to revision by the Sheriff if ten persons who were interested thought it desirable. To cut a long story short, they came to the conclusion that the latter was, upon the
428
whole, the more desirable way of proceeding, and, as their Lordships would see, that was embodied in the Amendment. There were other matters in the Amendment, but they were really matters of detail with which he did not think it necessary to trouble their Lordships at the moment, and therefore he proposed to explain very briefly the contents of the Amendment itself.
He proposed, in the first place, for the reasons which he had given to their Lordships, to leave out Clause 12. With regard to what he proposed to substitute, if their Lordships would turn to the Amendment, they would see in the first four lines the words, "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions with regard to the liability for and the imposition and recovery by an assessing authority of any assessment of all Acts applicable within the respective burghs in which this Act may be in operation shall subsist in full force and effect." The effect of those words was to preserve for all burghs except burghs with a population of above 50,000 their present modes of proceeding in the way of imposing and collecting rates. That was what the burghs originally asked for, and that was part of the clause which their Lordships would see was now in the Bill and which it was proposed to continue by his Amendment. That was all that the burghs asked for, and people ought to be content with obtaining all that they asked for.
If their Lordships read on, they would see that in the larger burghs, those above 50,000, there were certain provisions to apply and have effect. The first would be found in the proviso that where a small dwelling-house was let for a year or longer and the rent was payable more frequently than once in three months, that was to be deemed for the purposes of the section as a letting for less than a year. The object of that was that supposing any one were to let a house for twelve or even for fourteen months, and were to require the rent to be paid at monthly intervals, it would be possible then for him to entirely evade the provisions of Section 345 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act. It seemed to them that that was an undeniable fact, and therefore they thought it was desirable to insert this provision in the clause. The next thing he wished to call their Lordships' attention to was that they had departed so far from the provisions of Section 345 as to limit them to small dwellings instead

429
of land and premises which were the words in that section. His Amendment was one which was distinctly in favour of the house-owners. Again, he had included on the next page, in Section 2 (1), Section 346. That, again, was another change which was asked for by the house-owners.
Then there followed a scale of deductions which was fixed at seven and a-half per cent. in one case, five per cent. in another, and three per cent. in the case of houses where the rental was above £10, but did not exceed £20. The three per cent. in the case of houses of a rental above £10 was also in favour of the house-owners. They had adopted those fixed figures in connection with another Amendment which came later, and which dealt with the question of empty houses. He need not explain it to their Lordships at length, but the result was that where the owner could show that the house was neither let nor occupied during a certain period of the year he would be able to reclaim the amount of his assessment which he might have paid in respect of that house for that period. Those three Amendments would all have to be taken together as part of one arrangement, and they understood that that arrangement, if taken as a joint one, would be looked upon as satisfactory. They had not proceeded, when fixing the amounts, on their own unaided judgment. They had actually been suggested by a gentleman in Glasgow who was very familiar with the house agency business, and on the whole they thought that they could hardly go wrong in adopting the figures which he had suggested. There were other matters in the clause which if their Lordships desired it he could explain, but he thought that he had explained the whole principle of the Amendment. He could only say that the noble Lords representing Scotland who took part in it, and also Mr. Clyde and Mr. Scott Dickson, bestowed an enormous amount of time and trouble upon the matter. It was necessary, of course, to put something into the Bill, and all he could say was that his Amendment represented a conclusion unanimously arrived at after a very long inquiry.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 12, and to insert the following new clause:
12. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions with regard to the liability for and the Imposition and recovery by an assessing authority of any assessment of all Acts applicable within
430
the respective burghs in which this Act may be in operation shall subsist in full force and effect, provided that in the application of section three hundred and forty-five of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, in any burgh which, at the date of the census of nineteen hundred and one, Contained a population of fifty thousand or upwards, the following provisions shall apply and have effect (that is to say):—
(1) Section three hundred and forty-five and three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, shall be read and construed as if the following provision were added thereto and contained therein (that is to say):—
Provided that where small dwelling-houses within the meaning of the Small Dwelling-Houses in Burghs Letting and Hating (Scotland) Act, are let for a year or longer and the rent is payable or paid more frequently or at shorter intervals than once in three months, such dwelling-houses shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to be let for less than a year.
(2)—(i) Every assessing authority shall, in respect of the occupancy of small dwelling-houses allow to owners from all occupiers' assessments levied on and paid by them in place of the occupiers, under and in terms of section three hundred and forty-five or section three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as amended by any subsequent Act, a deduction to cover cost of collection and risk of loss on the following scale (that is to say):—

(A) Where the yearly rent or value entered on the valuation roll exceeds four pounds but does not exceed seven pounds, seven and one-half per centum;

(B) Where the said yearly rent or value exceeds seven pounds but does not exceed ten pounds, five per centum; and

(C) Where the said yearly rent or value exceeds ten pounds but does not exceed the limit of rental fixed by this Act, three per centum:

Provided that, after such scale of deduction has been in operation in any such burgh for a period of not less than three years, it shall be competent for the assessing authority, or for any ten or more persons having an interest, to present a petition to the sheriff for reconsideration of such scale, and the decision of the sheriff, after such intimation by advertisement or in such other manner as he thinks fit, and after such inquiry, if any, as he may deem necessary, shall be final, but after the expiry of a period of not less than five years from the date of such decision, and thereafter at intervals of not less than five years from the date of the final interlocutor by the sheriff on the reconsideration of such scale, the scale may, subject to like procedure, be resubmitted to the sheriff for reconsideration.

(ii) Every such owner shall have relief against the occupiers for the full amount of such assessments without deduction.

(iii) Every such owner shall have the same claims and remedies for recovery from the occupiers of such assessments and rent as for the recovery of rent alone.

(3)—(i) Notwithstanding the payment by the owner of occupiers' assessments in respect of the occupancy of a small dwelling-house, if any small dwelling-house in respect of which such payment has been made shall not be let or occupied for the whole period for which assessments have been paid, the owner shall, upon lodging, on or before dates to be fixed by the respective assessing authorities, with the clerk to any such authority, or with such

431
other officer as such authority may appoint for the purpose, a claim therefor, which shall set forth the period or periods during which the small dwelling-house was not let or occupied and a declaration to the effect that no rent or other consideration was due or was or is to be paid or given for such period or periods, be entitled to repayment from such authority of the proportionate amount of such assessments for the said period or periods.

(ii) In the case of any small dwelling-house appearing in the valuation roll as unlet, the owner, on receipt of a requisition from an assessing authority, shall forthwith furnish such authority with a return containing particulars of any period or periods during which such small dwelling-house has been let or occupied, and the owner shall be liable to pay the proportionate amount of assessments for the said period or periods as if such small dwelling-house had not appeared in the valuation roll as unlet.

(iii) Any owner knowingly making or causing to be made any false statement in or in connection with any claim, declaration, or return under this section, or failing to make any such return, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, I have some observations of a general character to make, and I will postpone dealing with the Amendment of the noble Earl until the Motion that the Bill do pass.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN asked whether they might not at once have the opinion of His Majesty's Government upon the proposal of his noble friend below the Gangway. He spoke with great diffidence upon the subject of Scottish rating, but as far as he understood it the Amendment of his noble friend introduced a new system of compounding.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, not compounding. Compounding was where the owner was directly called upon to pay the rates. The system which was established under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, was that the occupier was rated and was called upon to pay the rate, and if he failed to pay then the owner in the case of a short let always became liable for the rate which the occupier had failed to pay, and the occupier, of course, was not eligible for the municipal register.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN asked if, when the owner became liable, he received the same kind of allowance as was given in England.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN replied in the affirmative.
LORD PENTLAND: No. I am obliged to the noble Viscount for raising that point. There is no allowance under the Burgh Police Act whatever, and the provisions for compounding, if we may so describe it, under the Burgh Police Act consequently have no operation.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN agreed that the noble Lord was perfectly correct with regard to the Burgh Police Act as it stood, but he thought they were speaking of the Burgh Police Act as affected by his clause.
LORD PENTLAND: I beg the noble Earl's pardon.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that his clause did institute certain rates of deduction.
LORD PENTLAND: I did not wish to occupy the time of your Lordships' House at this moment, because I desired to make some comments on the Bill as a whole as altered by your Lordships. The Amendments of the noble Earl who has just spoken are in some degree a reversion to the Bill as it came from the House of Commons, although with certain important differences and modifications which very largely nullify the value of the approximation to the Government proposals which the noble Earl now shows in his Amendment. Your Lordships have taken control of the Bill, and it is not possible for the Government to consider that the plan now proposed by the noble Earl is a substitute for the proposals which were laid before you when the Bill came to your Lordships' House from another place. Therefore I had not thought of animadverting upon the matter at any length.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The noble Lord agrees, however, that the Amendment is an improvement on the Bill as it now stands?
LORD PENTLAND: It is, to a very limited extent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to amend Clause 17—
17. Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect the provisions of section seventy two of the Waterworks Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1847,

433
by leaving out the word "Scotland." He said that his Amendment was purely a drafting one, and that the word "Scotland" appeared by mistake.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 13, to leave out 'Scotland.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN next moved to insert at the end of Clause 17 words providing that owners should not be entitled to any deduction from the water rates payable by them. The Clause stated that nothing in this Bill should prejudice or affect the provisions of Section 72 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847. He would have thought that that exempted Clause 72 of the Waterworks Clauses Act altogether, and it was quite clear that those who were under the provisions of that Act would not be affected. There was an Edinburgh company, however, which supplied water, and which was under an apprehension that unless the Amendment which stood in his name was inserted owners would be entitled to deduct from the water rates which they were now liable for under the Waterworks Act those deductions which had reference to the municipal rate. He himself would have thought it was quite clear that that was not so, but the persons in question were very persistent in the matter and seemed anxious about it, and he did not see that there could be any harm in inserting the words.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 13, after '1874,' to insert 'nor entitle the owners to any deduction from the water rates payable by them in virtue of the said section.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD PENTLAND: It is always objectionable I am informed, as a matter of drafting, to put in redundant or superfluous passages in legislation. That is my objection to the words. I am advised that they are not necessary; but if the noble Earl presses them I will say no more.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, in moving that the Bill do pass, I would like to be allowed to state to you as well as I am able exactly what has happened in regard to this Bill. The Bill came up to your Lordships'
434
House practically with the unanimous support of the Scottish Members—a non-party measure—after being thoroughly considered in Grand Committee and with an unusually large body of Scottish opinion behind it. Your Lordships in Committee amended it seriously at the instance of the noble Earl opposite, and you have now amended it again on his initiative. I well know the great trouble that he and others have been to in endeavouring to grapple with this question, but the result of this alteration of the Bill has not. I think, been a happy one, and I cannot believe that it has secured the support of those interested for the Bill; and from various directions I have indications that this cannot be at any rate considered as the last of the vicissitudes of this measure. In the first place the house-owners, to which the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, made frequent allusion, have, as he knows, protested strongly against the proposals which he has now put into the Bill. I have had communications by letter and by telegram, and I see reports in the papers of meetings which they have had, strongly protesting against this solution which has now been adopted by your Lordships' House.
Then I notice that in the Amendments which have been inserted the noble Earl has made three important changes. His solicitude for the ratepayer feeling the burden of the personal payment that he has to make in respect of rates is gone, because he does not re-introduce the Government provision which was intended to impress upon the ratepayer the amount of his personal share and contribution to I he rates. Then, again, the provision for more frequent collection of rates by municipalities is gone, and as the noble Earl himself pointed out he has been forced to accept some scale, although not considered by them satisfactory, of allowance to house-owners for the collection of rates. There are other grounds on which there is still serious opposition to this Bill. At the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, the limits of rental were introduced. I have a strong protest against that. Again at the instance of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, parish councils were cut out of the Bill. I endeavoured to call his attention, when that operation was being performed, to the fact that the rates collected by the parish councils in Scotland amount to something like thirty-eight per cent. of the total sum collected in rates in Scotland. By cutting the parish councils

435
out of this Bill, which purports to provide for more frequent removals and short lets, your Lordships are placing the parish councils at a considerable disadvantage. The scheme of the noble Earl is intended to meet the difficulties of the municipalities, but he does in no sense meet the difficulties of the parish councils. Parish councils can only recover their rates from the occupier whose name is on the valuation roll. That occupier has a right of recovery from subsequent occupiers, but that is a worthless power because the other occupiers may have gone east, west, north and south, and he cannot recover from them, so that the parish councils are left crippled. They have not the same security under the new system as they have at present for the collection of their rates, and obviously their whole influence will be thrown against the introduction of the system under this Bill. Your Lordships have cut away the security for the collection of their rates, and made no provision whatever for meeting their difficulties, whereas they as bodies all over Scotland are really responsible for nearly two-fifths of the total sum collected in rates. So that your Lordships have the house-owners dissatisfied, you have the working men dissatisfied, and you have the parish councils dissatisfied, the cumulative effect of the whole thing being that practically the scheme of the Bill has been entirely destroyed. Your Lordships have one perfectly clear motive, or rather the noble Earl has, in doing this—namely, the antipathy to compounding. The noble Earl has a strong aversion to compounding.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My aversion is to increasing compounding.
LORD PENTLAND: I will pass from that point. It is a small one. In theory I am perfectly prepared to admit that the practice of composition and compounding is open to grave objection; but, after all, you cannot say that in a world of change everything is to be subject to change except this one very limited question of composition for rates for small houses. The effect of such a proposition would be to lose all perspective; it is altogether too rigid and confined a view. Look at the experience in England under the Reform Act of 1867, by which the composition of rates was abolished. A very violent agitation sprang up throughout the country at the abolition of compounding, and in the following year, 1868, the Government had to appoint a Committee to consider the
436
whole question. So great was the confusion and difficulty throughout the country that they appointed a Committee, on which the noble Viscount opposite served, and also another noble Lord in this House, Lord Eversley. That Committee were divided in their recommendations, and the Government, the following year, when they passed the Bates Act applying to England, threw over the Committee and practically re-introduced the system of compounding for workmen's houses in England. When that is known it is impossible to deny that the claim of the Scottish workmen for a similar privilege is an extremely strong one, and it is impossible also to believe that their claim will ever be forgotten so long as the exigencies of their occupations oblige them to move from place to place, and so long as the limitations of their income make it an extremely important thing to them whether or not they are to have too large a house on their hands and are unable to make a change.
I am afraid that the whole mischief, if I may venture to say so, and the main substance of the antipathy to the system of compounding come from a fear of its indirect influence in possibly increasing the franchise. Some noble Lords who criticised this Bill really see nothing in it but a covert attempt to increase the franchise to these working men in Scotland. A noble Lord says "Hear, hear." If your Lordships would only believe me these working men cannot afford to look at this question from the point of view of political organisers. They are poor men, finding a great difficulty in making a living as it is, and this is a serious subtraction from their slender income which in times of depression of trade makes a substantial difference to them. This agitation draws none of its strength from any desire on the part of the working men to obtain votes. As I told your Lordships on the Second Reading, their habit is to pay for everything by instalments—food, clothes, furniture, everything. They are obliged by the circumstances of their income, which is also paid by instalments frequently, to pay for everything by instalments, and they want this system of house-letting to fit the conditions of their life and their labour.
There are two great classes who are affected by this Bill. In the first place, there is the class of working man who is obliged to follow his labour. He goes from Glasgow to the Tyne, or from the Tyne to Belfast, according as shipbuilding is in progress.

437
He is obliged to follow his work, and his home is broken up, we may say, every year, or at smaller intervals when he goes in search of his work. There is also a very large community of humble people who, either from an increase in their families, in which case they wish to have enlarged dwellings, or because of the death of the breadwinner of the family the widow wishes to limit her expenditure at once. Large classes of these people, who feel their circumstances keenly, wish a more elastic system of house letting, in order to fit their slender circumstances. I only wish I could have any hope that my words would be of the least avail in inducing your Lordships to believe that there is no political motive whatever in the minds of the Scottish working men in endeavouring to see this grievance remedied. The noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, in Committee, speaking with his experience as Lord Mayor of Belfast, said that they must have compounding there. Compounding is the universal experience in England, as I have related to your Lordships, and it is only Scotland which is denied this privilege.
Now, my Lords, may I say one word as to what this dread amounts to. In the first place, these men are all taxpayers, and as taxpayers they are contributing to the revenue of the country, and even as taxpayers their claim to a Parliamentary vote is not an inconsiderable one. But let us look at the considerations from the point of view of rates. Take any figure you like as the probable addition to the number of ratepayers of Glasgow by this Bill. The present system is that they pay their rates in a lump sum at the end of the year, and it may be quite true that they are not able in many instances to pay that lump sum, accustomed as they are to pay for everything else by instalments. It may be quite true that the exacting of that lump sum at the end of the year may cause them to default, and for that reason they may be struck off the Parliamentary roll. To my mind, my Lords, that of itself constitutes a considerable injustice—that the conditions of payment should not be better adjusted to the conditions of work and labour. But may I point out to your Lordships that this is a Bill for increasing short lets and therefore increasing removals, and in proportion as it increases removals it will militate against any extension of the franchise, because the franchise compels a considerable residence as a condition of qualifying for voting. Let
438
me also point out this. It is only when men pay their rates with their rents that they will be so qualified in future. The men who do not pay their rates will probably not pay their rents, and they will be turned out of their houses and will lose their votes. The men who do pay their rents will pay their rates, and they will be properly and fairly qualified, I think, to vote.
As a matter of fact, this is a Bill which would secure, if it were in its original form, results with which I am sure your Lordships would sympathise. It would secure a more regular and systematic collection and payment of rates, because it would make it easier for working men to pay rates than it is under the present system. That is really the source of the support which municipalities give to this Bill, that it would secure a more prompt and full payment of rates, because the conditions which it proposes to introduce would further that end. Incidentally it might increase the franchise. I have given reasons for thinking that that increase would not be considerable, but your Lordships will not allow the beneficent operation of this Bill simply because in your opinion it will increase the franchise to these working men.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Lord Pentland.)
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON was sorry that the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland should have charged them with taking the control of the Bill out of his hands, because he could assure him that they had really done nothing of the kind. They had not touched one part of the main principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was, as the noble Lord himself had said, to deal with short lets. Those clauses dealing with short lets remained in the Bill exactly as they were brought before their Lordships' House. The grievance which was complained of in Scotland had nothing whatever to do with the compounding of rates, which was the matter which the noble Lord had given his chief attention to. They had in Scotland, as their Lordships knew, a system of compounding which was different from the system prevailing in England. They only compounded up to £4 in yearly value, and by a clause or two in the Bill before them an enormous change was to be made in that system by raising the limit of compounding from £4 to £26 a year.
LORD PENTLAND: Can the noble Lord point to any place where short lets are current without compounding?
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON said that compounding was the rule in England in every case within certain limits of rental, not necessarily connected with short lets, although they might he the incidental cause of it. He knew that the noble Lord's argument was that they could not have short letting without compounding, but as he was able to tell the noble Lord during the debate on the Second Reading, that was not the opinion held by the Departmental Committee which sat on this very Bill. It was not the opinion either of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. Both those Committees said that compounding was not an essential corollary of short letting. He admitted that it was easier to carry out a system of short letting if they had compounding, but the two things did not necessarily go together. Everybody objected on principle to the system of compounding. The noble Lord himself objected to it, and the noble Earl who moved the Amendment had introduced a scheme which was an alternative to compounding, and one which it was quite possible to carry out in connection with compounding. That scheme was approved by all the burghs in Scotland, and they were responsible for the collection of rates in Scotland. The noble Lord shook his head, but he maintained that that was so.
LORD PENTLAND: I shook my head for this reason, that the Amendments put in on the Committee stage were put in on precisely the same authority. The one thing that all the burghs were united upon was in their opposition to the introduction of these Amendments, and I am afraid that the noble Lord will get no further towards settling this question by appealing to the burghs.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON pointed out that what the burghs really objected to was the whole thing, and they had proved themselves somewhat fickle people to deal with. The real objection was on the part of the house-owners, because the commission granted under the Bill for collecting the rates was not sufficient. That commission was intended to pay them for the additional loss which they might suffer under this new system of short letting. They were already responsible, their Lordships would recollect, for such arrears of rates as might occur under the system of short letting that now existed, and under the Amendment of the noble Earl they would in addition be
440
responsible for such houses as might be let for short periods and also for houses in which, even if they were let for a year, the rents were collected oftener than once in three months. What that additional loss would be no one in this country could tell. Even if it were left to the Sheriff to decide, as the house owners proposed, the Sheriff would have no data to go upon. No one could say what that additional loss would be, and they had thought it better—and they were very strongly of the opinion still—that the wisest course to adopt was the one they had adopted of putting in a covering figure, which they hoped at all events would be a sufficient commission to owners. At the end of three years from this date, they had provided that on the application of anybody the Sheriff himself would decide what the commission ought to be. At the end of that three years the Sheriff would have had sufficient experience, and there would be sufficient data on which he could fix the actual amount of commission. With the exception of the house-owners, he did not think they had any substantial objection to the commission. It might not be perfect, but he was glad to hear the noble Lord say that after all the present Amendment was an improvement upon the Bill, and he hoped it would work satisfactorily in Scotland.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland had addressed to their Lordships a speech which was really almost a repetition of the one which he made upon the Second Reading, and therefore if some of them intruded upon their Lordships a few words which might seem more appropriate to a debate on Second Reading they must not blame them because they were answering the arguments which the noble Lord had used. The noble Lord said, in the first place, that they had interfered with a Bill which was the result of long consideration in Grand Committee. Was the noble Lord aware that the Bill was entirely altered in Grand Committee? He was unable to tell them why it had been altered, or on what information; all he said was that further consideration had taught them more about their Bill. Their Lordships would remember that the noble Lord was absolutely ignorant of the complete transformation that took place in the Bill in Grand Committee, where it was opposed by every burgh of Scotland with the exception, he thought, of Glasgow; whereas the noble Lord, when he (Lord Camperdown) mentioned it to him, told the

441
House that he was not aware of any opposition of the kind.
Then the noble Lord said that in the Amendment he had just introduced he had done away with the personal payment of rates. He had done nothing of the kind, and he did not know what the noble Lord meant. What he had done was to provide that in burghs where at the present time the Burgh Police Act was in force it remained in force; and if any burgh hereafter adopted it—any of those who had not adopted it at present—subject to the scale of deduction it would come into force; and so far from doing away with personal payment of rates, what would happen would be that the occupier would be called upon to pay the rate. If he did not pay the rate and it was a short let the owner would undoubtedly be responsible. That was not doing away with the personal payment of rates. Then the noble Lord asked what was to happen to the parish councils? What had the parish councils to do with a Bill which had reference to letting? Nothing whatever. The parish councils had to do with the Poor Law, and if they wanted to alter the Poor Law let them do it directly and not in that, indirect manner. They were absolutely ignorant, even up to the present moment, of why the parish councils were ever introduced into the Bill at all. The noble Lord had said that there might be some indirect political effect on the register, although he had assured them more than once that no political consideration had anything to do with the matter. But supposing it was proved, as was clear, that the political result must be a very considerable addition to the register in the way of putting persons on the register who had not paid their rates and in respect of whose rates it was possible that no payment would be made even by the owners. If the noble Lord admitted, as he must, that that effect was produced
LORD PENTLAND: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but I do not admit anything of the kind.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that the noble Lord did not admit it, but he wished the noble Lord would show them how it could be otherwise. If a man did not pay his poor rate and if the owner did not pay it either, the occupier's name would still be upon the political register. Then with regard to the increase in the
442
system of compounding, the noble Lord said that the addition which he proposed to make was merely a limited one. So far from being limited, if the Bill came into force in the form in which it entered their Lordships' House, out of 175,000 houses in Glasgow nearly 160,000 would be compounded for. The noble Lord's system of compounding would be almost general, and it would only remain to the authorities to collect the rates on something like 20,000 houses in the whole of Glasgow. The noble Lord alluded to the figure of £26 which the Grand Committee had placed in the Bill. With the exception of the Grand Committee, there was no authority whatever for that figure of £26. Mr. Cross, the Member of Parliament who had introduced seven or eight Bills on the subject, never suggested such a figure as £26, or ever thought of it. The highest figure he ever introduced was £20, and that was the figure which on Lord Clinton's motion was placed in the Bill with regard to Glasgow. As to parish councils they clearly had nothing to do with the Bill, and in his humble judgment it was a very great mistake to introduce them in a Bill with regard to letting—a Bill which altered the Poor Law, and which unquestionably, although the noble Lord said not, would have a considerable political effect. Another thing the noble Lord said was that under the Bill it would not be possible for working men to pay their rates by instalments. The reason why the clause relating to instalments had been dropped out was that in Glasgow at the present time they were just entering upon an experiment of collecting rates three times in the year at an interval of four months, and the burghs generally desired to see the result of that experiment before such a clause was introduced into the Bill. That was the chief reason why the clause did not find a place in his Amendment. He could say a good deal more on the subject, but he was unwilling to detain their Lordships further. A good deal of the discussion, he thought, would have been more appropriate to the Second Reading of the Bill; indeed they had had a great deal of it already on Second Reading, and he therefore did not propose to discuss it any further on that occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to,
Bill passed accordingly, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 210.)

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVE MENT FUNDS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): I have an Amendment to Clause 1, to leave out "or body corporate or incorporate" and to insert "corporate or unincorporated." I think in Committee I must have mumbled the words and they were wrongly inserted, because "unincorporate" is absolutely necessary.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, lines 11 and 12, to leave out 'or body corporate or incorporate,' and to insert ' corporate or unincorporated.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: I have another Amendment to leave out the words "or company." Those words are not wanted. The Amendment is consequential on Lord Derby's Amendment in Committee to leave out "or company" in Clause 1, page 1, line 11.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 22, to leave out 'or company.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving an Amendment in Clause 2, to leave out "the House of Commons" and to insert "Parliament," said that his Amendment had reference to the account and report certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General being laid before the House of Commons by the Treasury on or before January 31 in the following year if Parliament be then sitting. He would like to know whether there was any special reason why the account should not be laid before both Houses of Parliament. He was aware that in the Act of 1866 establishing the Comptroller and Auditor-General the House of Commons was mentioned by itself, but at the same time the information contained in the account would be of great interest to their Lordships' House, and unless there was some special reason to the contrary he did not see why it should not be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 31, to leave out 'the House of Commons,' and to insert 'Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: There is no special reason why the account should not be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and I offer no objection to the Amendment.
LORD WELBY LORD WELBY pointed out that one of the great reasons why the House of Commons should be mentioned was that it enabled the House of Commons to refer an account of the kind to the Committee of Public Accounts. Apart from that particular reason, which he ventured to think was one of the very first importance, he did not know of any reason why the account should not also be communicated to their Lordships' House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The Amendment I now move to Clause 3, to leave out "and his successors," is consequential upon an Amendment of the Duke of Devonshire whereby His Majesty the King was put in instead of the Treasury. The words "His Majesty" include his successors under the Interpretation Act, so that those words are not necessary.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 5, to leave out 'and his successors.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE had given notice to move the deletion of subsection (2)—
2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the term of office of a Commissioner shall be ten years. One Commissioner shall retire every second year, but a retiring Commissioner may be reappointed. The order in which the Commissioners first appointed are to retire shall be determined by the Treasury. On a casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation, or incapacity of a Commissioner, or otherwise, the person appointed by the Treasury to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the Commissioner in whose place he was appointed would have retired, and shall then retire,
and to insert the following new subsections—
(2) The Commissioners shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.
(3) Every vacancy occurring from time to time among the members of the Commission by reason of the death or resignation of a Commissioner or from other cause shall be filled up by His Majesty.
He said that his proposal was intended as an alternative to the suggestion of the Government that the term of office of the Commissions should only be for the limited period of ten years or less. As, however, he gathered that the feeling of the House was that the time should be strictly limited, he did not move his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved an Amendment to Clause 5 providing that an Order under the clause should not authorise the compulsory acquisition of mines or mineral rights. He said that in Committee he ventured to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill in what position coal and other minerals would be under the working of the Bill. As their Lordships were aware, certain classes of property were excluded from compulsory purchase under the clause—namely, any part of a park, garden, or pleasure ground, or a home farm, or land acquired by any corporation for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking. There was some uncertainty as to whether it would not be possible for the Commissioners under the Bill to acquire the surface rights and properties of companies or individuals connected with coal and other minerals. He did not think it was the intention of His Majesty's Government that property of that character should be acquired by the Commissioners, and he had only placed the Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of asking whether His Majesty's Government intended to allow coal and other mineral properties to be bought for the purposes of the Act, because it was not quite clear whether the Commissioners had or had not that power. If the noble Earl could give him an assurance that there was no such intention on the part of His Majesty's Government, he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 35, after 'dwelling-house' to insert 'or which is being used for the purpose of working minerals by the owner of the minerals, or which a lessee under a mining lease is entitled to use for such purposes'; in line 39, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection—
'(3) An Order under this section shall not authorise the compulsory acquisition of any mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals under any land in respect of which an Order under this section is made, except only such parts of any such mines as shall he necessary to be dug
446
or carried away or used in the construction of works for which an advance is made under this Part of this Act.' "—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I can assure the noble Duke that there is no intention of any kind on the part of His Majesty's Government to injure any property, and, least of all, such valuable property as includes mineral rights; but we see no reason why the same rule should not be enforced where land is acquired compulsorily under this Act as exists where compulsory powers are given in other cases. I think I ought to point out that if the proposed new subsection of the noble Duke is inserted it might prevent a light railway, which was desired and which would be of great service to a neighbourhood, from being constructed, because it might be absolutely necessary to acquire some small portion of the surface of land under which there were minerals. I do not think there would be any great danger in leaving the clause as it stands, because the amount of compensation to be paid would be a sufficient check to any unreasonable exercising of the compulsory powers. There is no intention at all on the part of the Government to seize any land under which there are minerals for the purpose of making money out of it or anything of that sort; the power is wanted in order that a scheme of great public benefit should not be prevented from being carried out simply and solely because there happened to be minerals under a particular piece of the land that was sought to be acquired.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE said that his Amendment related more to the surface rights which a colliery or other mineral company might be enjoying for the purpose of carrying on its operations, rather than to minerals under the ground. He did not see why a distinction should be drawn between a colliery company and a railway or dock company who acquired land for the purpose of their operations, but as the intentions of the Government appeared to be so excellent from his point of view and they did not intend that mineral rights should be acquired under the clause, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendment to Clause 8 agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved to omit from Clause 8 the words authorising the Board themselves to "construct and maintain"

447
new roads, and to insert other words confining the Board to enter into contracts for the construction and maintenance of such roads. He said that when the question was discussed in Committee the whole point taken on his side of the House was mainly in regard to whether the Road Board should or should not have the power of constructing roads, or should only be able to operate through the local authorities. Where the road was within the jurisdiction of several authorities, he saw no reason why the Board should not have the power, but if the Board in order to do that had to keep up a large and expensive staff of its own, and to have a regular works department such as they had heard a great deal about in connection with some of the large municipalities, he thought there would be a great objection to it. He did not think their Lordships could have failed to note the increase in the course of the last few weeks in the number of commissioners and boards and staffs connected with those boards which had been set up almost haphazard, and which would add tens of thousands of pounds a year to the public charge. If those boards were to be set up, they must have an adequate staff of officials and clerks in order to carry on the work, and he thought they certainly ought to guard against the additional setting up of another great department with a large technical staff empowered to employ its own labour, which he was advised it would be permissible for them to do under the words in the Bill at present. As their Lordships were aware, in a great number of cases highway authorities at present kept up their roads by contract, and there were contractors in almost every district capable of carrying out such work economically. He was convinced that nothing could be more uneconomical than for the Road Board to keep up a large and costly staff for which employment would certainly have to be found, and generally uneconomical employment, because it was always urged that public departments ought not to turn oft their workmen. He had had great experience of turning off workmen in arsenals, and the present Secretary of State for War had had a unique experience in that respect also. He hoped that both sides of the House would be unanimous with regard to his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 9, to leave out 'themselves to construct and maintain,' and to insert 'to enter into contract for the construction and maintenance of.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am sure the noble Viscount will not wish me at this stage of the Bill to enter into any discussion with him as to whether or not haphazard boards should be created, but I confess I was this morning a little puzzled to know what this entirely new Amendment meant. We all know the drastic and resolute policy, if I may call it so, of the noble Viscount opposite with regard to the Works Department of the London County Council which resulted in three thousand workmen being dismissed from their employment and the breaking up of the department. I do not say a word on that subject, but the noble Viscount has a natural horror of any municipality doing work entirely on its own behalf, and seems to think that it would be to the national benefit to throw the whole of this work into the hands of contractors, who might form themselves into a ring, and, of course, command their own prices, as happened some years ago in the case of a particular work given out to contract by the London County Council. I would ask the noble Viscount and the House whether it is wise—whether you are going to exercise it or not is another question—to throw away the only possible means you can have of coping with a combination or ring of contractors? Again, my Lords, it is all subject to the approval of the Treasury, and it would be unlikely, in fact impossible, that the Treasury would sanction any huge universal Works Department. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment and throw us all back again absolutely into the hands of contractors, but that he will allow to remain in the Bill this power, which would be a most salutary and excellent check against any future ring or combination amongst contractors.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY was sorry that the Government seemed unwilling to accept the Amendment, which he should have thought was a quite reasonable one. The noble Earl seemed to make it a matter of complaint that the Amendment had only appeared on the Paper that morning.
EARL CARRINGTON: Not of complaint, of wonder.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said no one knew better than the noble Earl that they had to perform their work very often under a certain amount of stress. In the Bill before them there had been very little

449
time between Committee and Report stage, and they had to make the best they could of the time at their disposal. He thought his noble friend had done very wisely in putting his Amendment in its present form, because it raised the point directly whether they were to have a repetition all over the country of the kind of scandals they had been familiar with in works departments nearer home. They on that side of the House were very averse to allowing the country to enter upon any such course. The noble Earl really had no argument to put forward against the Amendment of his noble friend except that he thought there might be a ring of contractors against the Road Board. He did not think there was the least likelihood of any such contingency arising. In many counties, as the noble Viscount had said, contract labour was employed to maintain the roads, and employed with the greatest possible satisfaction, no difficulty having arisen in the matter of rings; and the noble Earl, he thought, forgot that he took power in his own Bill for the Road Board to contract with county councils if they liked to do so. That would be quite a salutary check on any ring that might be formed. He hoped their Lordships would agree that he had completely demolished the one argument put forward by the noble Earl, and that they would accept the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL did not know whether the noble Marquess was really of the opinion that there was only one argument against the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY pointed out that what he had said was that it was the only argument which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had put forward.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL said that if the noble Marquess would allow him he would endeavour to put forward two or three others. Assuming that every contractor was perfectly honest and worked for the smallest fraction of profit, he really failed to see why it should be cheaper for the Road Board to do their work through a contractor than to do it themselves. If the Amendment was carried, the Road Board would be unable to lure a single road-sweeper or to direct a road foreman to go and inspect a particular piece of road and report upon its condition. The noble Marquess apparently thought that to insist upon a prohibition of that kind
450
would be a gain to the public. It was a matter of astonishment to him, and he was quite unable to appreciate the point of the noble Marquess's argument. The noble Marquess said that a great many authorities contracted at present for the maintenance of their roads. He was of opinion that the majority of the main roads in the country were now maintained by the county councils direct, and that they found it paid them to do the work themselves. Then they were given the bogey, which they had often heard of, of huge works departments. The noble Marquess had referred them without any details to the scandals which they had heard of nearer home. He did not know exactly what those scandals were; but was it not ordinary common sense to suppose that the Road Board would act precisely as a railway company did when they had large works of construction to carry out—namely, that in a case of that kind they would employ a contractor after proper specifications had been prepared and after tenders had been received, and let the contractor carry out the work in the ordinary way in which such work was done by a contractor. But did the noble Marquess consider it necessary that every single piece of road was to be put out to contract, and that the Road Board was not to be able to employ a foreman or repair a particular piece of road and put down stones where necessary except through the intervention of a contractor who was making a profit out of the business? If that was what the noble Marquess wanted, how could anybody conceive that that was going to be a saving to the public and to the Road Board? Directly they came to a question of the Road Board, it seemed to be considered that they were not to be credited even with the ordinary degree of common sense and business ability. Why should it be supposed that the Road Board would adopt the least efficient manner of doing their work? If their Lordships took away the power which the Amendment proposed to take away, it would leave them hampered in many ways quite apart from the operation of rings.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU was bound to support what the noble Lord opposite, Earl Russell, had said, especially on the question of dealing with the abatement of dust. If the money coming to the Road Board was to be used largely in

451
the abatement of dust, it seemed to him that nothing could be better than that there should be a trained squad of men in the employment and under the direction of the Road Board to carry out that work, and those men would be able to go about from county to county and perform their work—a work for which they must be specially trained. Surely they ought not to put it beyond the power of the Road Board to carry out their work in their own way without going to a county council or to a contractor? It seemed to him that that would be cutting out a valuable power in the Bill, the lack of which would take away a great deal from the useful character of the Board. He was sorry to find himself once more in opposition to noble Lords on his side of the House, but he trusted that their Lordships would not accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.
LORD BRASSEY LORD BRASSEY said that the question of frugality and economic working all depended upon the ability and integrity of the surveyors employed by the Road Board; it was the surveyors upon whom they must rely for prudent and careful administration.
THE EARL OF JERSEY*THE EARL OF JERSEY was rather disposed to think that it would be better to give full powers to the authority in a matter like this. He recollected that his own district council used to do the work by contract and then after a good deal of trouble they undertook the roads themselves with a very great saving to the ratepayers, and he believed the wisest course to pursue would be to give the Board as full powers as possible.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER thought the difficulty had arisen from the words in the clause "themselves to construct and maintain any new roads." What he took it a highway authority should have power to do should be to construct either themselves or through somebody else. If they were going to make a through road he quite agreed that the most convenient way in many cases would be for the Road Board to do it by contract with the local authorities for the part that went through their districts. They would have their staff on the spot and could do it perfectly well. He was not at all sure that doing it through contractors was always a satisfactory way of carrying work out. As far as maintaining roads was concerned, if the Road Board
452
was to be an authority at all they must have some officers under them, and it probably would be cheaper and more reasonable for them to maintain the roads themselves than to hand them over to a contractor. The discussion, he thought, had been very useful, but he was bound to say he rather agreed with his noble friend Lord Jersey that the Road Board should have the widest possible powers either to construct roads themselves or to do the work in any other way; but he would have liked to have seen some other words employed in the Bill to cover that, because the words "themselves to construct" seemed to suggest that they were to do everything themselves.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH thought the noble Viscount's Amendment went beyond what he intended, and in view of what had fallen from noble Lords opposite he thought it would be better to keep the words in as they stood in the Bill, because otherwise the Road Board would be practically powerless to employ a proper engineering staff and other necessary officials. It had been suggested that a, central body of the kind would be necessarily expensive, but he thought the example which had been set to them by France controverted that idea. The central body in Paris, which controlled the great national roads of France so well and so economically, had a staff of competent engineers, such as it would be almost absolutely necessary for the Road Board in this country to have, and if the power of constructing and maintaining roads was taken away from them they would be shut out from employing persons of that character. Perhaps it would be wise, however, to adopt the alternative of the noble Lord, Lord Belper, and to say "themselves to construct and maintain any new roads, or to enter into contracts for the construction and maintenance of such roads."
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON suggested that if the word "themselves" were left out it would meet his point, as that would leave it to the Road Board to maintain and construct by contract or otherwise. The words as they stood in the Bill, however, were almost a direction to the Board to themselves undertake the work.
EARL CARRINGTON: If the noble Viscount is content with that, I should be very glad to omit the word "themselves."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 9, to leave out the word themselves.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Lord opposite has met me so handsomely that I am very pleased to be able to say that I can meet the wishes of the noble Lord, Viscount St. Aldwyn, by the Amendment I now move to this clause. I propose to leave out the words "Provided that it shall not be the duty of the county councils and other local authorities to maintain any roads constructed by the Road Board."
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 11, to leave out from ' traffic ' to the end of subsection (1)."—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN agreed that this met his wishes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 14, to leave out 'in making advances,' and to insert' where advances have been made.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: With regard to the three Amendments standing in my name to Clause 9, might I be permitted to take them together, and to read the clause as it will stand when all the Amendments have been embodied in it? This is to ensure that the Road Board should be absolutely obliged to carry out the maintenance of any new roads. Clause 9, as amended, will read as follows—
"Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Part of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, except that every such road shall be maintainable by the Road Board, and for the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement and enlargement of or dealing with any such road, the Board shall have the same powers (except the power of levying a rate) and be subject to the same duties as a county council have and are subject to as respects main roads, and may further exercise any powers vested in a county council for the purposes of the maintenance and repair of bridges, and the Road Board shall have the same powers as a county council for the preventing and removing of obstructions."
454
I have been told that there is an objection on the part of noble Lords opposite to the word "maintainable," and with the permission of the House I would be willing to meet that point.
Amendments moved—
"In page 7, line 35, at the beginning of the clause, to insert 'Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Part of this. Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, except that every such road shall be maintainable by the Road Board, and'; in lines 36 and 37, to leave out 'road constructed by the Road Board,' and to insert 'such road'; in page 8, line 2, to leave out from 'bridges' to and in line 5."—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN suggested, in order to meet the point between "maintainable" and "maintain," the insertion of the words "except that the cost of the maintenance of every such road should be borne by the Road Board."
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL asked whether the noble Viscount had considered what the insertion of those words would mean. It would mean that the Road Board must pay the whole of the cost of the maintenance of all new roads, whereas, as he understood, the Road Board under the Bill would have power to make arrangements or bargains with local authorities as to maintenance, and he could conceive some bargains being made by which the Road Board would not have to pay the whole of the cost. The words suggested by the noble Viscount would prevent any such arrangement being come to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he wanted to protect local authorities from being squeezed into making contributions towards maintenance, and he therefore moved to insert the words he suggested.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
"To omit the words of the Amendment, 'except that every such road shall be maintainable by the Road Board,' in order to insert, 'except that the cost of the maintenance of every such road shall be borne by the Road Board.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL, in moving to insert in Clause 9 a new paragraph to the effect that the Road Board might make by-laws for regulating the traffic on roads constructed by them and impose a penalty for any breach thereof, said that, although he did not actually move his Amendment before, he recognised that it had been discussed in the House on a former occasion, and he should not have ventured to present it again except that he wanted to give the noble Earl in charge of the Bill an opportunity of reconsidering the question. He did not quite know how far the noble Earl had been able to carry that reconsideration, and he did not feel that he ought to trouble their Lordships by repeating the arguments he used before on the subject. There was only one point to which he wished to call attention, and that was that their Lordships had already given this power to the City of London; and if it was not inserted in the Bill now there would be no other opportunity of doing it. He therefore formally moved it, and would be glad to hear whether the noble Earl could accept it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 20, after 'authority,' to insert the following new paragraph—
'(c) The Road Board may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, make by-laws for regulating the traffic on roads constructed by them, and may by such by-laws impose a penalty not exceeding forty shillings enforceable on summary conviction for any breach thereof.'"—(Earl Russell.)
EARL CARRINGTON: This point has been carefully looked into, and I am very sorry to have to tell the noble Earl that I cannot modify my previous attitude of opposition to his proposal. We regret that we are not able to meet the noble Earl, and we hope he will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF JERSEY*THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to insert words in the same clause providing that the approval of the Treasury of the construction of a new road should not have effect until it was confirmed by Parliament by way of Provisional Order. He pointed out that under the Bill the right of absolute veto had been taken away from the local authority and quite rightly, because that right of veto had been the cause of a good deal of difficulty in the past. His Amendment would not in the least restore the right of veto but it would give the county councils
456
an opportunity of feeling quite sure that its objections had been entertained and considered by the Treasury. One knew when objections were sent in that it was common form on receiving them to say that they had been received and would be duly considered, whether they were considered or not was another matter. Under his Amendment, supposing there happened to be a difference of opinion between the Road Board and the county authority, the Treasury would have to decide between those two, and the Treasury might decide without giving the reasons for their decision. But if an opportunity were given of bringing in a Provisional Order in a case where there was a difference of opinion between the Road Board and a county council, he thought it was then quite certain that the Treasury, before they decided, would be very careful in considering the objections, and probably would see some representatives from the county council on the matter. He quite admitted he did not think as the Bill stood that anything very serious would happen, because they must assume that the road authority would be composed of sound practical men who were not likely to go and force roads upon a district where they were not wanted. At the same time, it was possible that there might be a clashing of opinion between the two bodies, and it would seem to be desirable that the county council, which, after all, did represent the public in the matter, should not be absolutely overruled by the Treasury in the circumstances he had mentioned.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 28, after 'authority,' to insert 'and if, notwithstanding an objection made by a county council within such area, the Treasury consider that the construction of the proposed road should be proceeded with, the approval of the Treasury shall not have effect unless and until, after submission to Parliament, by way of Provisional Order, it is confirmed by Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)
EARL CARRINGTON: At first sight there seems to be a great deal in the noble Earl's Amendment, but perhaps I might be permitted to read a portion of the clause. Subsection (2) runs, "Before the Treasury approve of the construction of a new road by the Road Board they shall consult with the Local Government Board and shall satisfy themselves that notice of the intention to construct the road has been sent by the Road Board to every highway authority in the area of which any part of the proposed

457
road will be situate, and shall consider any objections to the proposed road which they may receive." I think your Lordships will agree that this seems to be almost enough protection for everybody. The new proposal is, of course, to put the Road Board to the expense, which will be very considerable, as your Lordships know, and the delay of a Provisional Order. As the noble Earl opposite has pointed out, this would only be in a case where the Road Board and the county council disagreed, and where the. Treasury backed up the Road Board in opposition to the county council; but the noble Earl himself said that was a thing that would be very unlikely to happen, and I hope he will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH said it did seem to him desirable that the various authorities should be consulted where there was a proposal for a new road, more especially as regarded the expense which might be entailed on the rates in some form or another. He had himself an Amendment on the Paper a little further on very much on the same lines as that of the noble Earl's, which would give power to the various local authorities to lodge objections to a proposed road or to a proposed grant being made on the ground of a great additional burden being thrown upon the rates; and he was bound to say that if the present Amendment were carried, although it did not go quite so far as he was going to ask the House to go, it would meet a serious objection. A disagreement would not very often take place, but occasionally there might be considerable hardships put under the Bill upon local authorities, who might receive a gift in one hand and have to pay out more than they gained with the other. If there were power to have that objection, supposing it was a serious one, brought within the purview of Parliament, he thought that would be a fair way of settling what might in many cases be a very serious objection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY did not know what steps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had taken to ascertain the feeling of the great local authorities in respect to the particular provision. Here was a proposal, which in principle their Lordships' House had assented to, that the Road Board should have the right of making roads through any county in England without the consent of the county authority. He wanted their Lordships to recollect that the county
458
councils were very important bodies; they had proved themselves now for many years to be bodies upon whom the greatest reliance could be placed. They did not act obstinately or in any intemperate manner, and were very moderate, judicious, and conciliatory. Further, they were representative of their county; they fulfilled all the canons of democratic government, and were called upon by Parliament to be responsible for the good government and good administration of their counties. He did think, therefore, that they were entitled to a very emphatic voice in every proposed change in their counties, including the provision of roads. There were a certain number of persons who had a conception of great new roads being made in England like the French roads, going through the country from one end to the other. That might be a good thing or it might not be a good thing; but as to the route they were to take and the conditions attaching to them, surely the county councils should have an important voice? They might wish that the roads should pass through certain villages and the Road Board might think otherwise; they might think that there were certain amenities in their county—and some counties had great amenities—which would be destroyed and public feeling outraged if a particular route were selected. It seemed to him, therefore, that the county councils should have a great voice.
What had Parliament done in similar cases? Take the Housing Bill, which had just passed through their Lordships' House. The borough councils were not to be subject to any coercion with regard to town planning under that Bill, and a similar rule ought to apply in this case. In those circumstances some of their Lordships on that side of the House had thought it right to do what he did not think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had done, and that was to consult, so far as the limited time at their disposal enabled them to do so, the local authorities. Consequently a communication had been sent to the chairman of the highways committee of every county council throughout England and Wales asking him whether, in his opinion, the separate road making authority of the Road Board was a good thing; and, secondly, if he thought it a good thing that power should be given to the Road Board independently of the consent of the county council. Those who made that communication had received a great number of replies.

459
In twenty-seven cases—that was to say, from the chairman of the highways committee of twenty-seven English and Welsh counties—they had received a reply to the effect either that they objected to this power being vested in the Road Board at all, or that if it was vested in the Road Board it should only be exercised subject to the consent of the county council. In only eight cases—and that was the outside number because some of the answers were not absolutely clearly expressed—was the proposal as advocated by His Majesty's Government approved.
In those circumstances they had behind them a great body of public opinion on the point, and they submitted, therefore, that the Amendment of the noble Earl ought to be inserted. Even if it was granted that the county council were likely to prove unreasonable, the only power that was asked to be given to them, after all, was merely that they should have an opportunity of appealing from the Road Board to Parliament. That was the general policy which their Lordships pursued in the Amendments they inserted in the Housing and Town Planning Bill—namely, that when dealing with important authorities they should be given the power of an appeal to Parliament itself. That was all that the Amendment of the noble Earl proposed. Such a power was not in the least likely to be exercised unreasonably. It was only likely to be exercised in important cases, because the Road Board and the county council would probably be perfectly sensible bodies, and they would come to an agreement immediately. But in the very rare case where there was a decided difference of opinion, then, and then only, these important authorities in relation to this matter would have a right to come to their Lordships' House on an appeal from the Road Board.
EARL CARRINGTON: I must plead guilty to not having consulted the county councils, but I think the reason is not far to seek. It is because we have sitting amongst us the spokesman of all the county councils, Lord Belper. He speaks for all the county councils; so that that must be my excuse for not having troubled the county councils with any questions on the subject. I think I ought also to say that, after all, there will be no charge cast on the rates now that all the expense of these new roads and of the maintenance
460
of them is thrown on the Road Board.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU said that was the very point he would have made himself, if the noble Earl opposite had not already put it to the House. In addition he would point out that it was very unlikely that great trunk roads, say from London to Edinburgh, would be made in preference to short pieces of road round towns and villages, because, to begin with, the funds at the disposal of the Road Board were absolutely inadequate for any such purpose. Secondly, it would be the policy of the Road Board not to make any new roads out of funds provided by one small class of traffic only. He saw no reason whatever why the county councils should not be consulted in the matter; he thought that was the right thing to do, because they had done a great and good work in the past towards fitting the roads for the new traffic that was now in the habit of using them.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said he merely wished to disavow that he had any mandate or power to speak on behalf of the county councils. Of course, the whole matter had been before the County Councils Association, and he spoke as representing them, but on these matters of detail with regard to road management, everybody must be free. He did not for a moment pretend that his view expressed that of every county council, but he had endeavoured to express his opinion as far as he could in consonance with their general views.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL said he did not think the noble Lord could expect any other answer than the one he had received from the chairman of the County Councils Association. If they asked any authority whether they would like to have additional power conferred upon them, the chances were that the answer would be "Yes." Everyone must agree that local authorities and county councils must and should be consulted. It was also clear that the proposal, should it unfortunately happen that there was a difference of opinion, must necessarily add very largely to the expense. He did not know whether a county council would have a locus standi if it was proposed to place a railway track through their county.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL said he was not sure whether they would or not, but the case was very similar, because a road had to go through their county for the purposes of traffic. If a county council could compel the Road Board to go to Parliament, he did not know whether the Treasury would back up the Board or not. There was a good deal to be said against having appeals to Parliament in all these cases unless there was some real necessity. It they had a body in whom they had confidence—they had not got the names of the Commissioners yet, although the noble Marquess had asked for them—surely they ought to leave to them the arrangement of these concerns, subject to all the checks which already existed in the Bill.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND did not quite agree with the doctrine just laid down, that if they had confidence in the Board which would be appointed by His Majesty's Government, that Board was to be allowed to over-ride all representative governments on the particular question referred to it. Surely that was an extraordinary doctrine. They might have confidence in the Board without wishing to do away altogether with Parliamentary and local representation. As to railways, he, was under the impression, although he might be wrong, that a county council would have a locus standi, but whether they had or not, there was a great difference between the two cases. A county council was not the railway authority for a county, but it was the highway authority, and one of the strongest speeches in favour of the Amendment was that delivered by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, who pointed out that this sort of case would be very unlikely to arise. Therefore this proposition was, as had been said, almost academic; but the noble Earl also pointed out that when the Road Board had come to a decision there was under this Bill no appeal whatever against it. That was surely a very undesirable thing. He agreed that if they were asking that every urban district authority or parish council should be able to compel the Road Board to go for a Provisional Order, such a proposal might reasonably be objected to; but the case put in the Amendment was that of a whole county, as represented by the county council, rejecting the proposition of the Road Board. Surely they should have an opportunity of coming before Parliament. The fact that such a case would be rare
462
was, in his opinion, an argument rather in favour of the Amendment than against it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Verbal Amendment to Clause 10 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to amend subsection (1) of Clause 11, which was as follows, "(1) Where the Road Board propose to construct a new road under this Part of this Act the Board may acquire land for the purpose." He moved to alter the subsection to read, "Where the Treasury have approved a proposal by the Road Board to construct a new road under this Part of this Act the Board may acquire land for the purpose."
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 7, after the word 'the,' to insert the words 'Treasury have approved a proposal by the,' and to leave out the word 'propose.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH moved an Amendment in subsection (5) of Clause 11—
(5) Where the Road Board or any highway authority are unable to acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they consider necessary, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.
The noble Earl moved to leave out the words "which they consider," and after the word "necessary" to insert the words "for the construction of a new road." He said that this Amendment was in no sort of way one of those Bill-wrecking Amendments which they were supposed to be so fond of on that side of the House. His Amendment did not in any way affect the principle of the Bill, nor would it prevent the making of a road, but it drew a distinction between what was necessary and what might be considered necessary. It was obvious that in the making of a road they should only take what was really necessary for the purpose.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 28, to leave out the words 'which they consider,' and after the word 'necessary' to insert the words 'for the construction of a new road.'"—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am sorry I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment, though I do recognise that it is in no way a wrecking one. At the same time it would entirely prevent the compulsory purchase of land for improvement, and confine it to the construction of new roads. There would be no possibility of improvement in the widening of roads and the cutting off of corners. Even if you put in the word "improvement," it would be better to leave the Bill with the same language as in Clause 5, subclause (1), which defines the conditions under which an application for an order may be made. The Commissioners are clearly the proper persons to determine whether the land is absolutely necessary or not, and I hope that in the interests of the Bill my noble friend will not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN did not think this Amendment was as important as his noble friends seemed to imagine, because it did not matter what the Road Board considered. The question was what the Commissioners considered; it rested with them to make an order, and if they did not think the land necessary they would not make the order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved a drafting Amendment to subclause (5) to give the Commissioners power to make an order for the compulsory acquisition of land where the Road Board or any highway authority were unable to acquire it by agreement on reasonable terms. This Amendment was to meet a point raised in Committee by Lord Camperdown.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 31, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'and the Commissioners shall have power to make such an order.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert in Clause 11 a new subsection providing that where, by the approval of the Treasury of the construction of a new road, any property was increased in value the Road Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, "shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value such
464
proportion of the expenditure of the Road. Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, as failing agreement in the opinion of an arbitrator, such person should pay, having regard to the improvement in the value of such property."
Their Lordships would remember that when this Bill was last under consideration there was a discussion rather late at night over an Amendment relating to what they knew as the strips of land on either side of the road. It was proposed by His Majesty's Government that the Road Board should not only have authority to buy land compulsorily for a roadway, but also to buy strips of land on either side. When that part of the Government's proposal was under discussion and one of his noble friends moved to leave out the latter power, the noble Earl the Leader of the House taunted them with being most impracticable people, who would never agree to make provision for any form of betterment or recoupment in return for an expenditure of public money which was likely to improve the value of property. He could not compliment His Majesty's Government upon their efforts to solve this very difficult question. In the Housing Bill they made a proposal which nobody, not even themselves, could defend, by which the whole of the profit which might arise after an improvement was to go to the local authority. On the same principle, if one man made a road to another man's mine, and gave access to it, he ought to have the whole value of what was got from the mine handed over to him. That proposal of His Majesty's Government was, however, rejected.
When they came to deal with the Development Bill, the Government thought they would try their hand again, and they attempted a totally different proposal, which was called recoupment. They proposed that the Road Board should have power to purchase compulsorily these enormous strips of land. The Government did not seem to think that there was any objection to allowing the Road Board to be a land speculator on a large scale. They thought that the experience which local authorities had had from this device was so encouraging that they might follow it in this case. One of the most disastrous failures of this principle was to be seen in London. Their Lordships had only to walk down Kingsway to see what was the result of this effort to buy strips of

465
land on either side of a road for recoupment. It had cost the London ratepayers enormous sums annually, and the difficulty did not appear ever likely to be solved. Their Lordships very wisely refused to allow the Road Board to enter upon any such wild-cat speculation as buying these strips would have involved, and that was cut out of the Bill. But the noble Earl the Leader of the House complained that they had made no proposals to meet the difficulty. Here was public money being expended which might enhance the value of property, and they made no proposals, either by way of recoupment or betterment, to make good to the spending authorities the cost to which they had been put. That taunt he (Lord Salisbury) was now doing his best to meet.
The Amendment seemed rather formidable, but when he told their Lordships that it had already been discussed at very great length a few days ago in that House they would not be terrified. It was exactly the same proposal, mutatis mutandis, as that put into the Housing Bill—that was to say, they proposed that the expenditure of public money where it improved property should be met, as far as the out-of-pocket expenses of the Road Board were concerned, by contributions from the landowners whose property had been enhanced in value. That appeared to be a perfectly fair proposal, and it should be borne in mind that the public would be the gainers by the increased rateable value which would be caused by the improvement. Ex hypothesi the property was to be improved in value, otherwise there would be no betterment. The rateable value would rise, and therefore in exact proportion as the landowner benefited so the public would benefit. To use a common expression, the landowner and the rating authority would be in the same boat. If they added to that increased value the out-of-pocket expenses which the public authority was to be reimbursed to the extent to which it improved the land, then it appeared to him they had covered all the reasonable claims which the public might make in a matter of this kind. He did not pretend that in a matter so subtle and so difficult as betterment his humble effort was perfection. He was very diffident about it, and he knew it was open to a good deal of question. All he could say of it was that it was far better than either of the two plans which His Majesty's Government
466
had proposed. Neither of them would hold water, and therefore, to use an old phrase, the plan he submitted held the field. It had already been sanctioned by their Lordships' House in a very important Bill, and he thought that was sufficient ground for hoping it would be sanctioned a second time in the Development Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 2, after subsection (6), to insert the following new subsections—
'(7) Where, by the approval by the Treasury of the construction of a new road under this Part of this Act, any property is increased in value, the Road Board or the highway authority, in cases where a highway authority are authorised to construct a new road under this Part of this Act if the Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, make a claim for the purpose within three months of the approval by the Treasury of the construction of the road, or of an Order made by the Development Commissioners authorising the acquisition of land for the purpose of the road, whichever be the later, shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value, such proportion of the expenditure of the Road Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, as failing agreement, in the opinion of an, arbitrator, such person should pay having regard to the improvement in the value of such property.
(8) Any disputed question as to whether any property is increased in value within the meaning of this section or as to the amount and manner of payment, (whether by instalments or otherwise) of the sum which the Road Board or the highway authority is entitled to recover, shall be determined by arbitration under this Act in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I have heard the speech of the noble Marquess with the greatest possible pleasure and satisfaction, but I am sure he will not expect me to follow him in dealing with the details about other Bills. It is difficult enough to get one Bill through the House at a time. As regards Kingsway I do not want to argue that except to say that if the proposals of my friend Mr. John Lewis and other Progressives on the London County Council had been accepted by the Progressive Party, I do not think Kingsway would have been the horrible howling wilderness it is to-day. I am only sorry that my noble colleague the Leader of the House was not here to hear the noble Marquess's speech, because the respectful remonstrance which the noble Earl addressed to your Lordships opposite seems already to have borne most excellent fruit. The proposal of the noble Marquess is a distinct step in advance of the proposal

467
made the other night, which I must say filled me with consternation, and was to the effect that the landlords should have the entire unearned increment of these new roads. I cannot agree with the noble Marquess that his proposal at the present time holds the field, but I do congratulate him on the great advance which he has made. I do not for one moment wish to oppose the Amendment, though I should prefer, like everybody else would, to have my own way, and I still honestly think that our plan is the best means of securing to the public the value of these improvements. In the circumstances, however, I do not wish to oppose the proposal of the noble Marquess, of course reserving to myself and my colleagues all liberty of action at a later stage.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said that local authorities had never got anything out of betterment yet. He congratulated the noble Marquess upon having put forward some logical scheme by which a local authority might get a fair return. He thought that this clause was even better than the one which the noble Marquess had induced the House to include in the Housing and Town Planning Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he noticed that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had welcomed the proposal of the noble Marquess, but he did not think that the noble Earl had sufficiently considered how generous his noble friend had been. The Bill had proposed that 250 yards on each side of a road might be appropriated by the Road Board when they made the road. That was by way of betterment, or to prevent the landowners obtaining the benefit of the new Toad without paying anything for it. But there was no such provision with regard to roads made by highway authorities, and so far as they were concerned the landowners were allowed to take the whole benefit. The noble Marquess had suggested a great improvement in the Bill from the point of view of the Government by extending the betterment to the highway authorities as well. He thought when the Government had fairly considered this they would not only accept the Amendment but thank his noble friend for having improved their Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to amend Clause 12 (Expenses and Receipts of Road Board) so as to provide that the account of the receipts into and issues out of the Road Improvement Grant, with the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report, should be laid "before Parliament," instead of merely "before the House of Commons."
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 23, to leave out the words 'the House of Commons.' and to insert the word 'Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: I have an Amendment to Clause 16 which is not on the Paper and which has been sent in from the Scottish Office. It is only a drafting Amendment. The first part of the clause reads, "This Part of this Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications: The expression 'highway authority' means a county council or a town council, and the expression 'road' means any road or street maintainable at the cost of a highway authority." I propose to leave out the words "'road' means," and to insert the words "'roads and main roads' means."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH moved the insertion, after Clause 18, of a new clause with the object of giving power to rating authorities to offer objections to new schemes on the ground that those schemes would place a burden on their rates. He said that this Amendment to some extent covered the same ground as the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Jersey. It was difficult to sketch out in exact detail how this extra burden would always be laid upon the rates. Sometimes a burden might directly or indirectly be laid upon the rates. Clause 1 of the Bill contained very wide powers. It enabled advances to be made to "a public authority, university, college, school, or institution, or an association of persons," any of whom might be concerned with rates already levied by a county council or some other rating authority. It was quite possible that a gift of money might be made to an authority on the one hand, but

469
the authority might lose upon the other. The authority might have more expense in upkeep than they would gain in the way of improvement. He did not know whether His Majesty's Government thought the Amendment went too far in taking in all rating authorities, and whether they would consent to its being applied only to a county council area. He might give one instance where a burden might be placed upon the rates. A giant of money might be made to a new harbour upon the sea coast. That undertaking was of a speculative nature, and should the harbour turn out to be a failure, it might depreciate the rateable value of the area surrounding it. In that case the burden would fall upon the rates, and he thought the Amendment worthy of the consideration of their Lordships.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause—
'19.—(1) Before an advance under this Act which may involve a charge upon any local rate is made, notice of the proposal and of the intention to make an advance in connection therewith shall be sent by the Development Commissioners or the Road Board, as the case may be, to the rating authorities of the area concerned, and if an objection is lodged by those authorities or any of them to an advance being made for the purpose of the proposed undertaking on the ground that a charge would be thereby imposed upon a local rate for the raising of which the authority lodging the objection are responsible, such advance shall not be made unless or until the proposal has been so modified as to meet the objections of such local authority.
(2) The expression "local rate" means a rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property, and includes any sum which though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer is or can be ultimately raised out of a local rate as before defined.'"—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. It goes further than Lord Jersey's Amendment, and it means that if a county council applies for an advance the Development Commissioners or the Road Board would have to send a notice to every parish in the county. Has the noble Lord considered that?
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH explained that what he had in his mind was that advances could be made under Clause 1 without any question of a county
470
council being asked about it, quite independent of any consent being given, or whether they thought it a good scheme or not.
EARL CARRINGTON: Then I take it that the noble Lord does not press that part of the Amendment with regard to having notices sent to every parish in the county. The noble Lord said that a grant might be made for a new harbour, that the harbour might be a failure, and that in that way it would depreciate the rateable value of the locality. I honestly think that is rather far-fetched; and it would be almost legislating for rather far-fetched instances. I am afraid I cannot possibly accept this Amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it, because as notice would have to be sent to the overseer of every parish in the county any overseer by objecting might prevent an advance being made.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved an Amendment to Clause 19 (Provisions as to commons and open spaces), to exclude from the operation of the provision requiring an order of the acquisition of a part of any common or open space to be confirmed by Parliament before it had effect "any common land for the purpose of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road within a rural district."
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 6, after the word 'Parliament,' to insert the words ' but this provision shall not apply to the acquisition of any common land for the purpose of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road within a rural district.'"—(Lord Clinton.).
EARL CARRINGTON: I can accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said his noble friend Lord Meath, who took a great interest in this question, was not able to be present, but he was anxious that this Amendment should be fully considered before their Lordships accepted it. They would see by the early part of Clause 19 that it was prescribed that in the case of an order being made by the Development Commissioners for the acquisition of land that formed part of a common or open space, it should be provisional only, and was not

471
to have effect without an Order in Parliament. His noble friend Lord Meath was of opinion, and he agreed with him, that no change should be made in the policy of the Bill as set out in the earlier part of this clause because it was clearly an interference with commons. It might be interfering with the general use of a common by people who had heretofore used it and enjoyed it. Why should this particular method of interfering with commons be made an exception from the general rule laid down requiring Parliamentary sanction? It might be that the making of a new road would be a valuable improvement and might be a great convenience, but it required grave consideration, because it might interfere with the use and the amenity of commons.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN did not think that Lord Ashbourne or Lord Meath, whose opinion on this matter he would receive with every respect, had sufficiently considered the needs of a rural district. It would be absurd to require the Road Board or a county council or highway authority to go to Parliament to ask to be allowed to make a road or to improve a road that ran over a common which was within a rural district. The Amendment could not possibly hurt anybody, and could not interfere with the amenity of the commons. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved to delete from Clause 19 the following subsections—
(2) Before giving any such certificate of equality of exchange the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall give public notice of the proposed exchange, interested to make representations and objections in relation thereto, and shall, if necessary, hold a local inquiry on the subject.
(3) Where any order of the Development Commissioners authorises such an exchange the order shall provide for vesting the land given in exchange and shall afford opportunities to all persons in the persona in whom the common, open space, or allotment was vested, subject to the same rights, trusts, and incidents as attached to the common, open space, or allotment, and for discharging the part of the common, open space, or allotment acquired from all rights, trusts, and incidents to which it was previously subject.
The noble Earl said: This is a matter of drafting, and is consequential on Lord Monk Bretton's Amendment. I should like to be allowed to say, however, that I must
472
not be understood as agreeing with the principle of Lord Monk Bretton's Amendment to which this is consequential. I only move this to make the Bill read properly.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, lines 15 to 28, to leave out subsections (2) and (3)."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
In the Schedule,
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to Clause 1, which provided that where a Government Department, body, or persons proposed to purchase land compulsorily they might submit to the Development Commissioners "an order" putting in force the provisions of the Land Clauses Act. The noble Earl moved, instead of the word "an" after Commissioners, to substitute the words "a draft," so that the phrase would read "may submit to the Development Commissioners a draft order putting in force," etc.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 6, to leave out the word ' an ' and to insert the words 'a draft.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, on behalf of the DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, an Amendment to Clause 2 of the Schedule. The clause provided that Sections 77 to 85 of the Railways Clauses Consolidated Act, 1845, should be incorporated in the Bill. The Amendment proposed that "Section 78" should be substituted for "Section 77."
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 13, to leave out the words 'seventy-seven,' and to insert the words 'seventy-eight.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to paragraph (c) of Clause 2 in the Schedule. The paragraph provided that the arbitrator should have regard to the extent "to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited or injured by the proposed work or road," etc. The noble Earl moved to leave out the words "or injured." He said: Viscount St.

473
Aldwyn moved these words tentatively on the last occasion, and I explained then that we did not think that they were necessary, as the Land Clauses Act gave a right to compensation where land was injuriously affected. That is in Section 62 of the Act of 1845. The matter has been thoroughly considered, and I think I may say that this is absolutely correct.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 37, to leave out the words 'or injured.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I am quite content.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to Clause 3 of the Schedule with regard to the publication of the "order," etc. He moved that the words "the order" be altered to "the draft order."
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 1, after the first 'the,' to insert the word 'draft.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to provide that notice of such an order should also be given "in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries." He said: This is a new Amendment to give notice to the Board of Agriculture, which is charged with the duty of protecting commons. We think they should have notice of any application for a compulsory order in regard to any of the commons.
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 4, after the word 'prescribed,' to insert the words 'and in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment also to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved to insert words to provide that where land was acquired compulsorily the order might provide for the continuance of any easement or the creation of any new easement over the land. He said: This is a power that can be usefully exercised to diminish the damage
474
done to a landlord if his land happened to be compulsorily severed, and it has been found to be of great use in the Small Holdings Act.
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 16, at the end of the line to insert the following new paragraph:
'(5) An order may provide for the continuance of any existing easement or the creation of any new easement over the land authorised to be acquired.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HILL VISCOUNT HILL moved to add to the last Amendment words securing "the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniences theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired." The noble Viscount said they had had a long discussion over this in reference to the Small Holdings Act, and after considerable debate it was agreed to. It was most necessary in the case of tenant farmers, and also in the case of small holdings, that these easements should be granted.
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, to add to the previous Amendment, after the word 'acquired,' the following words: 'and every such order shall if so required by the owner of the land to be acquired provide for the creation of such new casements as are reasonably necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniences theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired.'"—(Viscount Hill.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am bound to say that these words are not considered necessary, and they might in some circumstances create difficulties; but I am not prepared to oppose the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment to Clause 6 of the Schedule to make it clear that "easements" should be defined in Scotland as "servitudes." He said that the word "servitude" was the Scottish equivalent to "easement."
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 32, after the word 'easements' to insert the words 'or in Scotland servitudes.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and dispensed with.
EARL CARRINGTON: I move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU appealed to the Government, before the Bill was read a third time, to give the House one bit of very important information. He quite saw that it might be difficult for them to give their Lordships the names of the whole of the Development Commissioners, but he thought they ought to have some information on the subject. The Development Commissioners and the Road Board were going to be very important bodies, and if their Lordships read this Bill a third time without ascertaining the names of the Commissioners, or, at any rate, the chairman and the vice-chairman of the Road Board, they would have no other opportunity of getting the information from the Government. He pleaded especially in the case of the Road Board to the Government to let them know whom they proposed to appoint chairman and vice-chairman. It was a matter of vital interest to a great many people to know that, and it was a piece of public information that the Government ought to give at this stage.
EARL CARRINGTON: I very much wish that I could meet my noble friend's desires on this point, but I have had no information given to me upon it, and therefore I am unable to say anything definite. But I hope my noble friend will not stop the Third Reading on that account. I am certain that the names of the Commissioners will be announced as soon as possible, but I must again urge that these Commissioners ought not to be appointed in a hurry, as if the wrong people were appointed through any insistence great damage to the Bill might ensue.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN thought their Lordships would be far from satisfied with the reply of the noble Earl. There had been no hurry in this matter on the part of His Majesty's Government. It was a long time since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made known to the public generally the provisions of this Bill in bringing in the Budget, and it was some time since the Development Bill was laid before the House of Commons.
476
They had asked more than once for some information with regard to the composition of these important bodies, and they had had nothing but the noble Earl's very courteous replies that he was afraid he could not say anything at the time, but that he hoped to be able to say something some time or other. This Bill would return to another place, and perhaps in a fortnight hence or more their Lordships might be asked to consider the provisions of the Bill again. Surely by that time, at any rate, His Majesty's Government would be able to put Parliament and the public in possession of the names of those whom they intended to appoint on these important boards.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, so far as the present and past actions of the Government are concerned, I think noble Lords have no just grounds of complaints. Noble Lords will remember what happened. It was suggested, and was strongly pressed by the noble Viscount opposite, that the Commission should assume an entirely different character from that which we intended it should assume, by having the Road Board amalgamated with it. That proposal, I am glad to think, was not adopted by your Lordships' House, but it might have been, and what would have happened afterwards when the matter came up for discussion as between the two Houses of Parliament it is impossible to say. But I think noble Lords will agree that in those circumstances it would have been difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to offer to certain gentlemen an appointment of the ultimate nature of which he could not himself be certain. As regards the further request of the noble Viscount, we will, of course, convey it to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I shall be glad myself if it is possible to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite, although I cannot profess to be sufficiently acquainted with all the circumstances of the case to say whether it may be possible by the time the Bill comes back to us for the names to be announced.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said, with regard to the Schedule, that the noble Earl had that evening inserted an Amendment providing that notice of an order should be given to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Surely a similar notice ought to be given to the Lord of the Manor and the copyholders, who were

477
interested in the commons. If it was difficult to get at the copyholders, as he believed it was sometimes, notice should be given to the steward of the manor. He did not know whether these would be included in the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the land, as mentioned in the Schedule; but, if not, he proposed an Amendment to the noble Earl's Amendment so that it would read as follows: "And in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment, also the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and to the Lord of the Manor and copyholders."
Amendment moved—
"After the words 'Board of Agriculture and Fisheries,' to insert the words 'and to the Lord of the Manor and copyholders.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The Board of Agriculture is a sort of god-father in respect of commons. We are in communication with the worthy persons mentioned by the noble Duke, and I do not think these words are necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CAERINGTON: I move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed accordingly, and returned to the Commons and to be printed as amended. (No. 211.)

LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I think a very few words of explanation will suffice to enable your Lordships to accord a Second Reading to this Bill. It settles a dispute which has been going on for some time with regard to the appointment of Clerks to the Crown and of the Peace in the county of Cork. I believe it is a Bill which is urgently wanted by legal authorities in Ireland, and I understand it has the approval of the noble and learned Lord
478
opposite, Lord Ashbourne, who is very well acquainted with the circumstances of the case. I move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 8th of November next.

OATHS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE drew attention to subclause (2) of Clause 2, dealing with the manner of administration of oaths. He said that it read, "Provided that in the case of a person who is not a Christian the oath shall be administered as nearly as may be in the form and manner aforesaid, but with such modifications of the words or ceremony as may make the same conformable to the religious faith, or binding on the conscience of such persons." How that was to be found out he really did not know. How was anybody in a County Court or any other Court to find out what was "conformable to the religious faith or binding on the conscience" of a Parsee or an Arab? He asked whether it would not be better to say that in the case of a non-Christian they should be allowed to administer the oath in the way it was now administered with regard to any Christian? They had the uplifted hand, and the Testament, and the use of the words "I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give to the Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." He moved to insert words to provide that the oath should be administered to a non-Christian witness "in any manner which is now lawful."
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 18, to leave out the words of the subclause after the word 'administered,' and to add the words ' in any manner which is now lawful.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have no objection to offer to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday the 8th of November next, and to be printed as amended (No. 212.)

POLICE BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order) and Bill to be read 3a on Monday the 8th of November next.
HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As we have read the Development Bill a third time I understand that the noble Earl the Leader of the House will not desire that we should sit to-morrow. Perhaps he will answer that question, and possibly also give us some idea of the business which will come before the House when we reassemble after the adjournment.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, as we have fortunately been able to finish the Development Bill to-day I am able, with the concurrence of noble Lords opposite, to carry out the plan which I indicated on a former occasion—namely, that we should adjourn for a few days at the close of this sitting. As regards the day on which we should resume and the business to be taken on that day, I desire to consult the convenience of noble Lords opposite. I should propose to take the London Elections Bill either on the first day of meeting or a day or two later, whichever would best suit noble Lords. By the end of next week the Amendments both to the Housing and Town Planning Bill and the Irish Land Bill will. I understand, have been considered in another place, so that we should be in a position to consider any Amendments in the course of the week when we meet. Perhaps the noble Marquess could give me some indication as to the date on which he thinks it would be most convenient for us to resume. On the former occasion
480
I mentioned the 8th. I do not know whether the noble Marquess would desire to adhere to that, or whether in his opinion the state of business would admit of our adjourning to as late as the 10th.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think we are, upon the whole, inclined to suggest that we should reassemble on the 8th, and we see no objection to the noble Earl's proposal that the London Elections Bill should be the first business to come before us after the adjournment. With regard to subsequent business, perhaps it would be hardly possible for us at this moment to give any opinion without knowing what the fate of the measures to which the noble Earl has referred is likely to be in the House of Commons. I understand from the noble Earl that he expects the Housing and Town Planning Bill and the Irish Land Bill to be taken by the House of Commons next week?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, I understand that the Housing and Town Planning Bill is likely to be taken on Monday. I am not quite certain about the Irish Land Bill, but I understand the Housing Bill is, at any rate, to be taken on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then I think it will be for His Majesty's Government to put those measures down upon whatever date they think suitable.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I shall be happy to fall in with the suggestion of the noble Marquess, and we will therefore, if noble Lords opposite agree, adjourn till Monday the 8th of November, and take the London Elections Bill on that day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope it will be understood that the judicial business of the House will not be adjourned.
Moved, That the House do adjourn until Monday, the 8th of November, except for judicial business.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock to Monday, the 8th of November, a quarter past Four o'clock.