Sitting of 29 October 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at Twelve of the clock.

FINANCE BILL.
As amended in Committee of the whole House, further considered.
Mr. H. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask your assistance, Sir, on a point of Order? I placed upon the Paper about a week ago notice of an Amendment to omit from the preamble of the Finance Bill the words "and advice" in order that it might read, that this House, whilst formally asking the assent or consent of another Place to the Bill, did not require its advice upon the financial proposals of the country. I find that by some authority which has not been divulged to me, the Amendment has been taken off the Paper. May I ask by whose authority it has been done?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think there has been a misunderstanding with regard to this. As a matter of fact, the Preamble, if any, on the Report stage comes first, and therefore it was, technically, disposed of nearly a fortnight ago. On the other hand, I have to point out that there is no Preamble. These words which the hon. Member wishes to omit are not a "Preamble" at all. I do not know what the technical name for them is. I think it is the "enacting words." The words which the hon. Member wishes to omit are the enacting words, which have been there I do not know how long—from time immemorial, I suppose, or, at all events, for 300 years. I think the hon. Member is only the second or third Member who has wished to amend them. One of my predecessors ruled that they could not be amended; and, if they could have been amended they ought to have been amended a fortnight ago.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: When I handed in my Amendment it was placed last upon the Paper by the authorities, who accepted my phrase "Preamble." I do not object to substituting the word "enaction"; but if as you say this House is bound by precedent of 300 years to ask the advice of another place on the Finance Bill I have nothing more to say.
Mr. SPEAKER: I will not commit myself to that. All I will commit myself to is the statement that a predecessor of
1318
mine ruled on a somewhat similar occasion that we could not alter the words: "That We the Commons have freely and voluntarily resolved to give and grant unto your Majesty the several duties hereinafter mentioned." The hon. Member then wished to omit the words "freely and voluntarily."
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Then I take it I must not move my Amendment, but that we must ask for the advice of another place.

FINANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 85.—(Duty on Motor Spirit.)
  (1) As from the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine there shall be charged, levied, and paid on motor spirit imported into Great Britain or Ireland a duty of Customs at the rate of threepence per gallon.
  (2) As from the first day of June nineteen hundred and nine there shall be charged, levied, and paid on motor spirit made in Great Britain or Ireland, an Excise Duty at the rate of threepence per gallon, and there shall be charged on a licence to be taken out annually by a manufacturer of motor spirit and by a dealer in motor spirit an Excise Duty of one pound and an Excise Duty of five shillings respectively.
  (3) Where a licence is taken out under this provision by a manufacturer of motor spirit, it shall not be necessary for him to obtain any further licence in respect of any still kept or used by him solely for the purpose of the manufacture or refinement of motor spirit.
  (4) The provisions of Section ninety-eight of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, which relate to the charging of duty at the time of the actual delivery of goods, shall apply to motor spirit as they apply to the specially excepted goods mentioned in that Section.
  (5) The Excise Duty on motor spirit may be charged in such manner and at such time during the process of the manufacture of motor spirit as the Commissioners may determine.
  (6) Where motor spirit or any article in the manufacture or preparation of which any motor spirit has been used is exported from Great Britain or Ireland as merchandise, or shipped for use as ship's stores, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the Excise Duty on motor spirit has been paid in respect of the motor spirit or in respect of the motor spirit used, as the case may be, a drawback shall be allowed equal to the amount

  1319
  of duty paid in respect of the motor spirit, or in the case of an article in the manufacture, or preparation of which motor spirit has been used, equal to the duty on the quantity of motor spirit which appears, to the Treasury, to have been used.
  (7) Sections eight and nine of the Finance Act, 1901, as amended by Section two of the Revenue Act, 1903, shall apply with respect to the manufacture of and dealing in motor spirit as they apply with respect to the manufacture of saccharin, and any provisions of the Spirit Act, 1880, or any Acts amending that Act, may be applied by regulations made in pursuance of this Sub-section to motor spirit.
  (8) In this Part of this Act, the expression "motor spirit" means any inflammable hydrocarbon (including any mixture of hydrocarbons and any liquid containing hydrocarbon) which is capable of being used for providing reasonably efficient motive power for a motor car, and the expression "manufacturer of motor spirit" includes a refiner of motor spirit and a person otherwise preparing motor spirit.
  (9) The Commissioners may by regulations prescribe tests for the purpose of determining whether any inflammable hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons, or liquid containing hydrocarbon, is motor spirit within the meaning of this provision.
  Mr. HAROLD PEARSON Mr. HAROLD PEARSON moved to leave out the Clause.
  During the last six months I have listened to various interests taking up cudgels on their own behalf. I have listened to landlords on both sides of the House speaking against the Land Clauses, and I have listened to brewers speaking against the Licensing Clauses of the Bill. Therefore I feel I have ample precedent for raising my voice, as one who is interested in the importation of motor spirit into this country, against the Clause in the Bill which imposes the duty on motor spirit. I hope, however, to show that I object to this Clause more as a taxpayer and as an owner of motor cars than as one who is interested in the importation of the spirit. I may say that I heartily support the principle of raising £600,000 for the purpose of the Development Bill, but I object most strongly to the extravagant way in which it is proposed to raise the money. Do hon. Members realise that this 3d. is going to be increased to at least 3½ per gallon, and possibly 4d.? I think the best way to realise that this is inevitable is to follow a cargo of spirit from the time it reaches this country. Take the case of an
  1320
  average sized cargo of 4,000 tons. At 3d. per gallon it works out at £15,000 as the tax which the importer has to pay. From the time the petrol is taken out of bond to the time the seller receives his money for it is a period of at least four months. Therefore interest on that sum during that period has to be reckoned, and, in addition to that, there is a loss on the handling of the spirit as it is moved from tank to tank till it is finally placed in selling cans. I think that could on an average be stated at about 5 per cent., so that there is 5 per cent. on £15,000 which the seller of the spirit has paid in taxes, but which evaporates and brings him in no return. To be added to that there is the additional loss he suffers by reason of bad debts which may be incurred. The total of these various items works out at at least ½d. per gallon, and in practice I should think it will probably be found to be nearer 1d. per gallon. Hon. Members may say that a ½d. per gallon on a 3d. tax is not a very serious matter.
  But this is not the worst part of the expense. The cost to the Excise authorities has still to be reckoned. In the figures I have already given I have been able to estimate fairly accurately what the cost is likely to be, but with regard to the burden which will be thrown on the Excise authorities I have no figures available, and it must therefore be a much rougher estimate. Bearing in mind what the Excise authorities will have to do, I do not think it is putting it at all too high to say that the cost will be 1d. per gallon at least. First, the duty has to be collected either at the port of entry or when the spirit is taken out of bond. That is quite easy, but in addition to that the shale refineries in Scotland will have to be visited, and where the chief expenditure will come in will be in visiting gas works throughout the country to ascertain how much, if any, benzol is produced. I think, therefore, in estimating the cost at 1d. per gallon I am not very far wrong. This means that while the taxpayer is going to pay 3½d. per gallon extra for his spirit, the revenue will receive only 2d.—the taxpayer will pay £350,000 and the Exchequer will receive only £200,000. I know that the answer to my estimate of 1d. may be that it is not intended that the Excise authorities should visit the gas works throughout the country, or take any notice of the manufacture of benzol. But I cannot believe that this Free Trade Government is going to protect the industry in so flagrant a manner. It must be remembered that benzol is an

  1321
  active competitor with petroleum spirit; it is nearly as efficient as ordinary motor spirit, and can be produced by any gas company which cares to instal a simple plant. Therefore, if this preferential treatment is given to it it will rapidly oust petroleum spirit from the market. Since the introduction of the Budget there have been many instances where regular customers have cancelled running orders for petroleum spirit in favour of benzol. In many parts of the country, I am told, during the last few months, the output of benzol has increased 30 per cent. Some months ago when the President of the Board of Trade, made some innocent remark about it not being inconceivable that in certain circumstances a retaliatory duty would not be inconsistent with Free Trade principles, he was hailed by hon. Gentlemen opposite as a convert to Tariff Reform. I should like to ask the Opposition why they have not paid the same compliment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he not merely theorises on ethics, but he absolutely materialises the principle of Tariff Reform in his Budget. The probable reason is, they feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have protected not merely some of his friends, who happen to be of a chemical turn of mind, but that he should have been logical and also protected the shale industries in Scotland. This, at any rate, would have had the advantage of making a saving in the cost of collection. I must add that I am surprised that hon. Members who represent Scotch constituencies have not risen in their wrath and condemned this threatened attack against their constituents and in favour of benzol.
  I said at the beginning of my speech that I was fully in favour of the collection of this £600,000. If, in conclusion, I may hazard an opinion, I believe that the whole of this money could easily be collected by a direct tax on motor cars, and in that connection I should like humbly to suggest that in determining the cost of a licence, not only the horse-power of cars be taken into consideration, but also the weight of the vehicle itself. The objection to the proposal I have made is that a man who uses his car a great deal is penalised no more heavily than the man who uses his car a little. It seems to me that this objection could to a large extent be obviated by issuing quarterly licences, so that the man who lays by his car during part of the year will effect a saving. The cost of collecting this tax would be practically nothing. Doctors and other favoured beings could
  1322
  be exempted without any difficulty. If the Government do not see their way to accept this, I think they could modify the evil of their proposed tax by only slightly raising the cost of licences and by having a flat rate of 1½d. on petrol, and in that case any rebates which they wish to give to motor cabs or 'buses could be given, not on the petrol, but in the cost of the licences. In the case of manufacturers who use spirit in their business it would be a comparatively simple matter to give them the full rebate, as they are few in number. I venture to think, nevertheless, that the scheme of putting the whole of the tax on the licence is the better one, and this, because, as I have said before, the cost of collection would be practically nil. The graduation for those to whom you want to give rebates would be easy, and the tax could be made to apply not only to petrol-driven vehicles, but to those forms of motor which now escape, namely, steam cars, electric cars, and that abomination which, for damage to roads and general nuisance, passes all the rest combined—namely, the heavy traction engine. To sum up, Sir, my objection to this tax is that either a flagrant form of Protection must be incurred, or out of the 3½d. collected 1½d. will disappear in the cost of collection.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I rise to second the proposal for the rejection of Clause 85. I do not propose to repeat the speeches I have given on previous occasions with regard to petrol. But I think I must make one final protest against the imposition of this new tax, not so much on the ground that it imposes a penalty on owners of pleasure motor cars, but on the ground that it is a tax upon the commerce of this country. You are dealing here in petrol with a spirit which to all intents and purposes is raw material. It is impossible to say that petrol, so far as Great Britain is concerned, is a manufactured article. You cannot eat or drink it; you can only consume it as the raw material of some other industry. The Government, by this Budget, proposes to put a tax on raw material amounting to 50 per cent. of the value of the raw material imported. It is quite true that the private owner pays 10d. or 1s. per gallon for petrol spirit, but the petrol spirit imported into this country in large quantities is bought by those who use it in large quantities at 5½d. or 6d. per gallon. That is admitted by previous Debates in this House, and therefore the Government is proposing to put a tax, and I want the

  1323
  House to realise it, of 50 per cent. upon the value of imported raw material which can only be utilised in the commerce of this country. Then, as the hon. Member who moved the omission of this Clause stated, in addition to that there is a tax of either a halfpenny or a penny—I am bound to say it must be a penny—which the importer charges in addition to the tax in order to cover loss in interest and expenses and so on, and which does not go into the Exchequer but amounts to one-third of the tax, or in any event at least to one-sixth. The Government are putting a tax of 50 per cent. on raw material and allowing the importer to put on another tax which does not go into the Exchequer of at least 15 per cent. upon material imported, and that under a Free Trade Government. A tax of this nature must seriously affect the motor industry and on behalf of it, although I have no interest in its financial side, as the House knows, I object to this impost as one which will tend more and more to prevent the using and buying of motor cars. I was very much struck on the occasion of the last Debate by a speech from the Labour Benches by a Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), who, speaking for the engineers, said that while he desired to support the Budget as far as he could he wanted to vote against this tax because it interfered with one of the branches of the engineers' work which is prosperous, and when it is realised that 12.1 per cent. of the Amalgamated Engineers are out of work I think it is a pity that the Government should put a duty upon one branch of that industry which must tend to decrease the use of motor cars in England and to increase unemployment among the engineers. I do not want to draw the red herring of Tariff Reform over this Debate, but I am bound on this, the last occasion on which we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Petrol Tax, to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer again that in regard to a tax for revenue and not for protective purposes, if it is fair to put a tax upon imported petrol it is fair to put a tax on imported motor cars. It was admitted that £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 worth of cars every year were imported, and for the purpose of revenue I suggest it would be far better and much less damaging to the trade of the country to put a tax of 10 per cent. on that sum and realise your £400,000 or £500,000 per annum on foreign bought cars rather than
  1324
  to put it upon petrol which is and cannot be otherwise than a tax upon the commerce of the country. It is said that this makes a preferential tax upon motor-cars as compared with steam cars, and that is perfectly true. The large number of steam lorries which one sees about the streets of commercial districts and about the country districts are to be untaxed, although they are referred to from time to time as doing damage to the roads of the country. I, for one, strongly object to the idea that the roads of the country are to be paid for by any particular class of traffic. That is nothing more nor less than a reversion to the old system of turnpikes. If you want to make those people who use the roads and damage thorn pay for them, then go back and admit that you are a Tory of Tories, and reintroduce, as I daresay the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London would reintroduce, the turnpike, and then the coach and four which he drives would undoubtedly contribute its share to the damage of the roads as well as the commercial and pleasure motor car.
  This money is not going to be raised for the general revenue of the country, but is to be used for the purpose of the Mew Roads Bill, and if it is really right that you should place a tax upon the motor car shod with rubber tyres which undoubtedly does less harm to the road than the heavy farm cart, you are logically bound to place a proportionate tax on every kind of vehicle and return to the old days of the turnpike and charge every kind of vehicle. But that is not what you are going to do, you are only going to charge pleasure and commercial motor cars. We do not want special roads, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given up largely the idea of special motor roads. We are entitled at this stage to consider the purpose to which the tax is going to be devoted. It was going to be devoted originally under the Development Bill to the provision of motor roads, but the Bill has gone through this House, and in the Committee upstairs it has been so modified that it is not now for the provision of motor roads, but for the development and improvement of all roads for all road traffic. That is perfectly clear, and I say it is absolutely wrong to use money obtained from a tax placed upon a commercial industry and commercial motor cars for the benefit of all road traffic. You are going to improve roads on a principle which is totally wrong, because I think the

  1325
  road user is himself a ratepayer. I do not propose, on this Motion, to deal with the question of the omnibus traffic, in which the House knows I am somewhat interested, and which I am bound to say a word on on another Amendment, but in regard to the ordinary road user and the commercial road user I do suggest that everyone of them are ratepayers. Shoolbreds, who have a fleet of motor vans, and other firms, are increasing the number of them, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that is unfair competition with the railways. The railways pay rates, and these men use vans, and are enabled to deliver goods more cheaply than the railways, and they ought to pay something for the roads; but after all it is a tax upon the consumer, who is a ratepayer. It is the consumer of the butter and eggs which is delivered who gets the benefit of the cheap transit. Messrs. Shoolbreds and other firms would be bound to lower their price if they get cheaper traction in any particular form, and so the cost of traction must come down to the consumer. In the old days a man who lived 20 miles from town had to pay for delivery of his goods, but now he gets them by motor van, and if you put a tax upon the van because it goes over the roads you put a tax upon the consumer, who will have to pay. This is a tax upon the consumer, who is himself a ratepayer, and pays for the upkeep of the roads of this country. I do not think the Chancellor's argument therefore is sound or holds water, and as this is the last occasion on which one will have an apportunity to enter a protest against this tax, I wish to say that it is on wrong lines and on a totally false basis, and one which sooner or later will come upon the commerce of the country, which certainly does not need at the present time any additional tax laid upon it.
  Mr. GEORGE RENWICK: I do not object on principle to a tax upon motor spirits or on motor cars. What I object to is the amount of the tax. It amounts practically to about 50 per cent. of the imported petrol spirit. I object to that because it brings out very forcibly another characteristic of the taxation of a Radical Government. Instead of spreading their taxation over a large number of articles they pick out three or four like tobacco, spirits, and this motor spirit, and place a very heavy duty upon them. That means driving the small men out of the industry and driving the trade more and more into
  1326
  the hands of great monopolies and trusts. And the result is that this imported trade is in the hands of two or three wealthy trusts, principally foreigners, who control the business. They are enormously wealthy. They have the oil fields, they have their own fleets of steamers and their own oil tanks at all the great ports, and they control the whole of this traffic. It simply means that they are enabled by the imposition of 3d. a gallon tax to charge the consumer, not 3d. but 4d. That is a very serious addition to a 3d. tax, and that penny practically goes into the hands of these already wealthy capitalists. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain away that point. It is a serious tax upon an industry, and while no one would have objected to a penny, which would have amounted to somewhere about a 15 per cent. tax, I most strongly object to this enormous amount of 3d. It is proposed, I understand, to hand over the proceeds of the tax to the local authorities for road development. I should like to know if the gross amount is going to be handed over or will it be handed over less the cost of collection. If the latter, instead of getting £350,000 they will only get some £200,000. This is undoubtedly a tax upon an industry in this country. It seriously affects the engineering industry, in which there are a large number of skilled mechanics already out of employment. If we place this enormous tax upon the power that drives the engine, what would have been the effect if in addition we had placed a similar tax upon the engine itself? I cannot imagine that that would have had such a serious effect upon the industry as simply placing this tax upon the fuel which drives the engine, and whether it be Tariff Reform or anything else, I think when the Government were taxing an industry of this description they might, at any rate, have protected the industry from the importation of some £4,000,000 worth of foreign motor cars.
  Then I want to know how the Government are going to deal with imported petrol in bond. It has enormous bulk. It is stored in enormous tanks, and hundreds of them have to be turned into bond. Tea, which is subject to a similar duty, is subjected to most stringent bond regulations. How are they going to prevent petrol being illicitly dealt with? I cannot understand, unless they turn all these great oil-yards and oil tanks into bond. I object, not to the principle of the tax altogether, but to the enormous

  1327
  amount of the tax which has been placed upon this particular industry. It is most unfair to single out an industry of this importance and place such an enormous tax upon it without any idea as to what the effect is going to be. One effect which I am sure will arise is that instead of helping the British motor industry we shall be directly helping the foreign motor industry.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): This, I think, is the fourth Debate we have had on this question, and I trust it will be disposed of without very much more discussion, I really am not quite sure what the point of view of the hon. Member (Mr. Renwick) is. He does not object to it on principle, but he objects to it in practice. His idea is that we ought to raise a smaller amount than this. That is a question which concerns the local authorities. The view they take is that the sum is quite inadequate to the amount of damage which is done by motor traffic, and I am perfectly certain it does not represent the addition to the highway rate which has been the result of the development of mechanical traction during the last few years. The Mover of the Amendment is in favour of raising the £600,000, and, therefore, he does not agree with the hon. Member opposite. The hon. Member opposite says the principle is sound, but the amount is wrong. My hon. Friend says the amount is right, but the principle is wrong. I do not complain of those inconsistent points of view. Very often people with completely conflicting arguments support or oppose the same proposition, and my hon. Friend is not responsible for the views of anyone but himself. But he says he is in favour of raising the £600,000, though, as I understand, he would double the licence. That is the only way in which he could raise it. I think he would get very few motorists to take that point of view, and he himself knows enough about it to know that there is a difficulty which you do not overcome by merely raising the licence. For instance, there is the case which he put of the motorist who uses the road very rarely although he has an expensive and heavy car. On the other hand, there is the case of the motorist who pays a very small licence, but does more damage to the road than ten 60-horse-power cars which are very seldom used. How
  1328
  are you to get at him? If you are going to get at any sort of criterion by which you are to get a contribution in proportion to the amount of damage done, you must introduce these two elements. It is not final by any means. Therefore the only way in which we can get at that man is to charge him on the amount of petrol he consumes. My hon. Friend suggests that you could get at him by charging a seasonal tax, but that would hardly be practicable. The only difference is that between the man who likes to "scorch" a thousand miles a day and the man who uses his car for going about town. The real difference is that one man uses his car every day in the week and another man may only use his car once a fortnight. There are very few people who could be described as seasonal motorists. There may be a few, I agree, but, as a rule, a man who has a motor car uses it summer and winter, autumn and spring, and you would not get at him in the way suggested. For the raising of £600,000 by means of taxation on the motorists of this country I cannot imagine a fairer way of doing it than that which we propose. We have arrived at this conclusion after a good deal of consultation with motorists themselves. They were strongly in favour of this method. I agree that a cheaper and more direct way would be to double your duty. My hon. Friend (Mr. Pearson) has presented his case with fairness and accuracy, and with a knowledge of the business, but when he says that the cost of collection is 1½d., he is very wide of the mark. The cost of collection is something like ¼d. That is not very high.
  Mr. HAROLD PEARSON: Does that include the cost with respect to benzol?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend means. The whole cost of collection is £30,000. That is the sum which will be added to the expenditure of the Revenue Department in consequence of this tax.
  Mr. RENWICK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the data on which he arrives at that £30,000?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: How could I give the data now? I would have been perfectly prepared to give the data if I had received notice of the question. My hon. Friend knows that that is a matter which would involve close examination. I am simply giving the information I got from the officials since the point was raised.
  Mr. ARTHUR FELL: Does that include the cost of repayment?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is the whole additional expenditure which will be involved and placed on the Revenue Department, in consequence of this tax on petrol. That is the estimate of the Department, and they see no reason to alter it. Therefore, it is not a very expensive tax to collect. I think it is a very fair tax. It is a tax which is to be devoted to the improvement of roads even for motor purposes, and I think it will encourage motor traffic. With respect to what the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) said, I think it is unfair that railway companies should be taxed heavily for the purpose of maintaining highways for the use of people who do not contribute a penny. If motor vans go down into the country 30 or 40 miles they tear up the roads, and while the railway companies pay 6d. or 1s. in the £ for highway rates, the owners of the vans do not contribute a penny. I think it is time that they should contribute something. It is fair to the local ratepayers and the railway companies, and it is not unfair to the owners of the vans.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: I desire to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the case of Civil servants who own their own motor cars. Considerable advantages accrue to the public service in Ireland by the use of privately owned motor cars by Civil servants in connection with their official duties, and a large saving of official time is effected. Officers are enabled to return home at night in numerous cases where they would otherwise have been obliged to sleep away from home, thereby saving the subsistence allowances payable out of the public funds. While the cost of hire of horse-drawn vehicles in rural districts varies from 8d. to 1s. a mile, the allowance for motor cars is only 6d. per mile; and in cases where there is railway communication the equivalent of railway fare only is allowed. The officials in Ireland who are interested in this question are: 8, Local Government Board, 8 National Education Office, 5 Land Commission, 3 Board of Works, 3 Department of Agriculture, and 2 county court officers. I do say that it is a distinct hardship to those Civil servants that they should have to incur additional expenditure in consequence of this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised, in answer to a question, to consider the matter. I was advised that he could not
  1330
  make any reduction on their behalf. He has made a reduction on behalf of medical men, and I would ask him to reconsider this question of officials. It is very desirable that they should be able to use their own motors when doing their official duties. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to make a concession to the officials, I would ask him to consider the question of increasing their grants, so that they will not lose by the imposition of this fresh tax. They do not desire to make any profit. Their incomes will be seriously diminished if they have to pay the tax.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I speak without having had time to go into this matter, but my own impression is that it will not make any difference to them. All those things will be Treasury allowances. That is my impression. If the expenditure for petrol goes up, surely that will be taken into account. May I also point out that the price of petrol has gone down very considerably. A very considerable contract has been entered into by a Government Department this year for the supply of petrol and the cost is ½d. less, even with the duty this year, than it was without the duty at all.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: I suppose we all recognise that the proposals in this Bill may be regarded as an indication of what may be proposed in future Budgets. I would like to reinforce, so far as I can, the arguments used on this side of the House in regard to petrol. Petrol is now used directly as a propelling power, but it was first introduced as an illuminant, I believe, then as fuel for raising steam. These sources of motive power are deserving of exceptional consideration and exceptional treatment. Coal is the most prominent of these. It is a producer of power which requires not national consideration but international consideration. Petrol is another, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been most unfortunate in imposing on this source of motive power what is a very serious tax, and not a nominal tax like 2s. 6d. a quarter on grain. We know how our industries depend on motive power, whether coal, petrol, or electricity.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No part of this duty is charged on petrol for motive power.
  Mr. R. DUNCAN: I speak of locomotive motive power. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that these engines going about the roads are doing commer-

  1331
  cial work. Surely he knows that. I can hardly believe that he is so shallow as not to know that. In some things he has been very shallow, but I hardly think that he possesses such a profundity of shallowness as that, or that his lack of business capacity goes quite so far as that. We have heard arguments from the Labour Benches pointing out how this affects engineering. I hope that as the representatives of the workers at engineering have been allowed to speak on this subject, a man who employs workers in engineering shops may be allowed to say something. A serious matter like a tax on our motive power should be looked at very carefully. I think that we should conserve our own motive power, and not send away our coal, at any rate, without some adequate consideration, and that we should watch carefully over the conservation of all these sources of our motive power.
  Mr. A. C. MORTON: My Constituency is interested in this question very strongly. I confess I do not like this tax because it does seem a tax on an industry that has come to stay, and that may be of great use. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer says "no tax on motor spirits, no repairs to roads," and as in some parts of the country, especially in the northern counties of Scotland, it is absolutely impossible to get the roads put into good order out of the rates, therefore it is absolutely necessary that Parliament and the Government should do something to assist the authorities to put the roads into a decent state so that they can be used safely by these vehicles, and I am sure that the Government has imposed this tax as the lesser of two evils. My Constituency is specially affected because we have got a very low rateable value, and 660 miles of main roads, which are affected by this traffic. It is possible that very little of this money will get as far as my Constituency, 700 miles away, yet I trust that now that the Government have come to the rescue of the authorities with a view to putting these roads in order we in the North of Scotland shall have a fair share.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of Sub-section (2), stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (2), to insert the words "But a person may sell motor spirit in a quantity not exceeding one pint at one time to one
  1332
  person without taking out a licence as a dealer in motor spirit."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  To leave out Sub-section (6).
  At the end of Sub-section (7), to insert the words: "and the regulations may provide for the sale and delivery by duly licensed persons of motor spirit from vans at the premises of persons who are dealers therein, and buy it to sell again."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]

  CLAUSE 86.—(Exemptions and Allowances in Respect of the Duty on Motor Spirit.)
  (1) Any person using motor spirit for purposes other than supplying motive power for motor cars shall be entitled to an allowance or repayment of the duty paid in respect of the motor spirit under this Act, and any person using motor spirit for any of the purposes mentioned in Part I. of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be entitled to an allowance or repayment of half the amount of the duty paid under this Act in respect of the spirit.
  (2) Motor spirit may be delivered without payment of duty or on the payment of half the amount of the full duty payable, in such cases as the Commissioners may approve, and subject to such conditions as to proof, security, and otherwise, as the Commissioners may impose for the purpose of protecting the revenue.
  (3) If any person proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that he has within the previous six months used any quantity exceeding five gallons of spirit which is motor spirit within the meaning of this Act for purposes other than supplying motive power for motor cars, he shall be entitled to obtain from the Commissioners a repayment of any duty which has been paid in respect of the spirit, and if any person proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that he has within the previous six months used any quantity exceeding five gallons of motor spirit for the purposes mentioned in Part I. of the Fifth Schedule to this Act, and that the full duty has been paid upon the spirit so used, he shall be entitled to obtain from the Commissioners a repayment of half the amount of duty so paid.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "entitled" ["entitled to an allowance"], to insert the words "in accordance with the provisions of this Section."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
  1.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "Provided that a person using motor spirit before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and ten, for the purpose of supplying motive power to a motor cab, motor omnibus, or other vehicle, being a hackney carriage within the meaning of Section four of the Customs and Revenue Act, 1889, while it is standing or plying for hire shall be entitled, in accordance with the provisions of this Section, to an allowance or repayment of the whole amount of any duty paid under this Act in respect of the spirit so used."
  Mr. ARTHUR STANLEY: I understand that this Amendment is to meet the case of owners of cars who, so to speak, are between two contracts; that is to say, on one side they have contracted to hire out their cars at a certain price for a year or a term of years, and on the other side they have contracted with the suppliers of petrol for the petrol required for these purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when the question was brought before him in Committee promised to give consideration to the matter, and thought that he might make a concession, if not for the whole year, at all events, for part of the year, upon the Report, in the case of the owners of commercial vehicles. The Amendment on the Paper only carries out part of that concession, because it only applies, as it stands on the Paper now, to motor cabs and omnibuses. The original words of the Clause in the Bill were: "For any of the purposes mentioned in Part I. of the Fifth Schedule to this Act." If those words were kept in they would have applied to all commercial vehicles. I understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to include all commercial vehicles, and I do not know whether he will see his way to alter it in that respect now. I would also urge that he should make the concession a little wider than it is, and that instead of the 1st day of January he should substitute the 31st day of March. My reason for asking is that the contracts are usually made from March for a year, and, while it would be giving the utmost benefit to those who have made those contracts, it would make very little difference to the amount of money actually coming in to the Road Board. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to altering his Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must say I am disposed to meet the case of the hon.
  1334
  Member. Here we meet the case of omnibuses and hackney carriages, and I think there is a good deal to be said for the case of contracts already entered into, and which have not yet been got through. I think we might very well meet that. I propose to leave out of my Amendment the words "to a motor cab, motor omnibus, or other vehicle," etc., down to "plying for hire," and to insert instead thereof, "for any purpose mentioned in Part I. of the Fifth Schedule of this Act." That covers all the cases, and it includes the doctor, by the way, and though that is not very serious, it may be very useful. I do not think I can say 31st March, as it would involve a much greater loss of revenue than I care to think of. I promised six months in Committee, and now I have got to eight or nine months, a long way beyond my promise.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (1), to insert the words: "Provided that a person using motor spirit before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and ten, for the purpose of supplying motive power for any purpose mentioned in Part I. of the Fifth Schedule of this Act shall be entitled, in accordance with the provisions of this Section, to an allowance or repayment of the whole amount of any duty paid under this Act in respect of the spirit so used."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  In Sub-section (3), after the word "cars" ["motive power for motor cars"], to insert the words "or in other circumstances entitling him to the repayment of the full amount of duty in respect of the spirit."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]

  CLAUSE 87.—(Duty on Licences for Motor Cars.)
  (1) The Excise Duty for carriages payable in respect of any motor car which is a carriage within the meaning of Section four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, shall on and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and ten, be at the rates specified in Part II. of the Fifth Schedule to this Act, and the duty so payable shall be charged throughout the United Kingdom, and the Acts relating to the payment of the duty shall extend accordingly.
  (2) The unit of horse power for the purpose of any rate of duty in the said Schedule shall be calculated in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury for the purpose.
  (3) Nothing in this Section shall be construed so as to increase or affect the duty now payable in respect of any motor cab, motor omnibus, or other vehicle being a hackney carriage within the meaning of Section four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, or to require a licence to be taken out for any motor car which is not a carriage within the meaning of that Section.
  (4) If a duly qualified medical practitioner proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners or council by whom the licence is granted that any motor car kept by him is kept for the purpose of his profession, he shall be entitled to an allowance in respect of the duty payable under this Section on the car equal to half the amount of duty so payable. If an officer of the Army Motor Reserve produces to the Commissioners or council by whom the licence is granted a certificate, granted in such manner and by such persons as the Army Council direct, that any motor car kept by him has been used for the purposes of the Army Motor Reserve under regulations made by the Army Council for at least six days in any year, he shall be entitled to an allowance in respect of the duty payable under this Section on the car bearing the same proportion to the whole amount of duty as the number of days for which the car has been so used bears to a full year.
  (5) No duty shall be payable in respect of any motor fire-engine or ambulance.
  (6) The expression "motor car" in this Part of this Act means any vehicle which is for the time being a light locomotive within the meaning of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, as amended by any other Act, and includes a motor bicycle and a motor tricycle, but does not include a vehicle drawn by a motor car.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I desire to make a final protest against the increase of these Motor Car Duties. I do not hope to alter them, however, and having made my final protest I do not move my Amendment to leave out the Clause.
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Further Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (5), to add: "(6) The Treasury may make regulations providing for the total or partial exemption for a limited period from the duty payable under this Section of any motor cars brought into the United Kingdom by persons making only a temporary stay in the United Kingdom."

  CLAUSE 89.—(Payments into Local Taxation Account in Respect of Liquor Licences and Provisions as to Duties on Motor Car Licences.)
  (1) For the purpose of Sub-section (3) of Section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1907 (which makes provision with respect to the method of calculating proceeds of duties in the event of any alteration of the rate of duties), the proceeds of the duties on the licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor and on licences for motor cars imposed by this Act shall, so far as respects the sums to be paid into any local taxation account out of the Consolidated Fund in respect thereof, be deemed notwithstanding anything in that Sub-section to be the amount of the proceeds of the duties on those licences during the year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and nine.
  (2) Notwithstanding the proviso to Subsection (4) of Section six of the Finance Act, 1908, the duties on licences for motor cars in England and Wales shall continue to be duties to which that Section applies, but any sum by which the proceeds of those duties levied in any financial year by the council of any county or county borough exceed the amount of the proceeds of those duties certified by the Local Government Board to have been collected in that county or county borough during the year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and nine shall be paid into the Exchequer, and a council shall be entitled to be paid any sum by which the proceeds of those duties levied by them in any year are less than that amount, and the sums so to be paid shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof.
  (3) Any reference in this Section to duties on licences for motor cars or to the proceeds of those duties shall be construed to be a reference only to the duties on the licences which are affected by this Act.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS Mr. WALTER GUINNESS moved to leave out Sub-section (1).
  This Sub-section makes provision under Section 17 of the Finance Act of 1907 for allocating the proceeds of the duties on the licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor and on licences for motor cars to the local taxation account. I bring this up because the local authorities have the right to expect that the pledge given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr.

  1337
  Asquith) in 1907 will be carried out. In his Budget statement the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Prime Minister, challenged the local authorities to hand over the revenue to the Exchequer——
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of Order. I understand the effect of this would be to increase the amount that would go to the local authorities. At the present moment the annual growth of the tax goes to this fund, and the effect of another Amendment which the hon. Member has on the Paper would be that it would pass to the local taxation account, and that undoubtedly would be a charge on the Exchequer.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I do not quite see that the charge is on the Exchequer. I understand that the proceeds of the Motor Duties are to go to another local taxation account, and are to be spent on road development, and are not going to the Exchequer. It is preventing money which is now being enjoyed by the local authorities who raise the tax from being transferred to the local taxation account.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The amount would have to be made up, and the Exchequer would have to impose fresh taxation in order to do it.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I understand the Road Development Grant would depend on this tax.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This Bill has nothing to do with road development. On this Bill we are simply raising the money for another Bill which is devoted to that purpose.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is clear that the Amendment might increase the charge on the Exchequer, and it would be out of Order. The next Amendment of the hon. Member is consequential?
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: Yes.

  CLAUSE 91.—(Payment of Duties on Motor Spirit and Motor Car Licences to Road Improvement Account.)
  (1) There shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof in every financial year a sum (in this Act referred to as the road improvement grant) equal to the net proceeds in each year of the duties on motor spirit and the net proceeds in each year of the duties on licences for motor cars which are affected by this Act.
  (2) The road improvement grant shall be carried to a separate account to be established under regulations made by the Treasury for the purpose, and, subject to such regulations as may be made by the Treasury with respect to accounts, audit, and accumulation of moneys standing to the account, be appropriated in such manner as Parliament may determine towards the development of roads in the United Kingdom.
  (3) The expression "the net proceeds of the duties" means the amount of those duties paid into the Exchequer, after deducting such sums as are certified by the Commissioners to be the cost of collecting the duties, and after deducting in the case of duties payable on licences for motor cars any sum which is payable to any local taxation account in respect of the proceeds of those duties, or to any council in respect of any deficiency in the proceeds of those duties.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "in every financial year."
  Sir F. BANBURY: As the Clause now stands, it provides that the proceeds of every financial year shall be allocated to certain purposes. The right hon. Gentleman moves the omission of those words. It may be all right, but I would like to know what words are to be put in.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: By the words as originally drafted, the result would be that we would have to wait until the end of the year before we could pay over the money that comes into the Exchequer. By the omission of these words, as the money comes into the Exchequer we will be able to pay it over month by month and week by week, and the local authorities will get the money at once, instead of having to wait until the end of the year.
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Drafting Amendments also made.

  CLAUSE 92.—(Payment of Half the Proceeds of the Duties on Land Values for Benefit of Local Authorities.)
  (1) There shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof in every financial year a sum equal to one-half of the net proceeds in each year of the duties on land values under Part I. of this Act (including Mineral Rights Duties).
  (2) The sums so charged shall be carried to a separate account, to be established under regulations made by the Treasury for the purpose, and, subject to such regulations as may be made by the Treasury in respect of accounts, audit, and accumulation of moneys standing to the account, be appropriated for the benefit of local authorities in the United Kingdom in such manner as Parliament may hereafter determine.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "in every financial year."
  Mr. RENWICK: I have an Amendment to the next line, but I am afraid that by your previous ruling it would be out of order. Therefore, it is not my intention to move it, but I would like to ask the Financial Secretary for a little further explanation why he wishes to leave out "in every financial year." Under this Clause there is a proposal that half of the net proceeds of the Increment and Undeveloped Land and Reversion Duties shall be paid to the local authorities at the end of every financial year. If you leave out these words, it is very indefinite when the local authorities are going to get any of the proceeds. In the meantime the Exchequer is collecting the taxes of the areas of the local authorities. The local authorities have for many years looked upon these taxes as a source of revenue to them, and not to the State. They have been deprived of them by the State. Therefore it is a serious matter if it is to be left indefinitely as to when they will get any of the proceeds. I am quite aware the proceeds are not likely to be large, as the Government intend to spend more money in valuation than they will probably get; but still, if there is to be any surplus, I do think it ought to be divided every year.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member heard the explanation I gave the hon. Baronet he would understand that exactly the same applies to this, and I think it unnecessary to repeat it.
  Amendment made.
  Drafting Amendment also made.

PART VIII.
  NATIONAL DEBT.

    CLAUSE 93.—(Reduction of Permanent Annual Charge, 38 and 39 Vict. c. 45.)
    The amount of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt under Section
    1340
    one of the Sinking Fund Act, 1875, shall, during the current and every subsequent financial year, be the sum of twenty-five million instead of twenty-eight million pounds.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE (for Mr. Lloyd-George)Mr. HOBHOUSE (for Mr. Lloyd-George) moved to leave out the words "twenty-five" ["twenty-five millions"], and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-four and a-half."
    Sir F. BANBURY: This Amendment reduces the amount which is allocated to the Sinking Fund by half a million The Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago said that I had, though I opposed this reduction, voted on previous occasions for a similar reduction. It is quite correct that in 1899 I did vote for a similar reduction, but the circumstances at that time were very different from what they are now. I find, on referring to "Hansard," that I was careful to say when I supported the reduction made in that year that I did so only owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case. The words I used on 1st May, 1899, were these:—
    "He had met a good many financial authorities recently, and he had discussed this matter with them, and with hardly a single exception they agreed with him that a partial suspension of the Sinking Fund at the present moment, when the National Debt was reduced and when the national credit was good, was an advantageous circumstance and a good piece of finance on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer."
    The circumstances now are very different to the circumstances to which I was referring at that time. At that time the gross amount of the National Debt was 637 millions, whereas at the present moment the gross amount of the National Debt is 750 millions, which is a very different thing. At that time the expenditure of the country was 110 millions, whereas it is now 164 millions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, told us on 13th April, 1899, that the expenditure was £110,927,000, whereas our expenditure at the present moment is 162 millions. Therefore, the two important factors, of the gross amount of the National Debt and the amount of the expenditure, are very different now to what they were then. I may say that, of course, I voted during the war for the suspension of the Sinking Fund, but that was a very exceptional circumstance, and I do not think I need go into that. I find that there was a very interesting Debate upon that occasion in 1899, and that Sir Henry Fowler, the present Lord Wolverhampton, opposed in

    1341
    very forcible language the reduction of the Sinking Fund. He alluded to a speech made by Mr. Gladstone, and said that:—
    "There will be a temptation to some Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to some extravagant House of Commons, at some future date, to take this money and to appropriate it."
    No truer prophecy could have been made. Here is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the extravagant House of Commons, which "at some future date," which is the present day, are taking this money. Lord Wolverhampton went on to speak very strongly against the proposal. I find that the late Sir William Harcourt, speaking on that occasion, said:—
    "That the time of the largest revenue and the greatest revenue from a fiscal point of view which this country has probably ever known should be the occasion chosen for what I can only call a repudiation of the obligations under which this country has placed itself with regard to the extinction of the National Debt, is, I confess, one of the most serious, and I will call it one of the most disastrous, proposals which has ever been made."
    There is no doubt of the largest revenue ever imposed in this country, with the exception of war time, but from a fiscal point of view the prosperity of this country is so great. Those are strong words of Sir William Harcourt, and they come from a right hon. Gentleman who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer at a very recent date. Sir William Harcourt went on to say, in the course of a long speech, that
    "He had always held that this provision is one of the greatest sources of strength to the British nation. It gives credit at home and a character abroad."
    Could anyone have chosen a better opportunity than the present for doing something to support credit at home? At a time when Consols are at 82½ everything possible ought to be done to bring about that result; and yet this is the moment chosen to destroy what Sir W. Harcourt said was capable of "giving credit at home and character abroad."
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think the hon. Baronet said that Consols were considerably higher then than now. Could he give the figure?
    Sir F. BANBURY: 111.
    Sir CHARLES ROSE: At 2¾ per cent.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Some time after that date they were reduced to 2½ per cent., but the reduction had been discounted in the price. One of the reasons put forward for his proposal by Sir M. Hicks-Beach was that they had then to buy at a high price, namely, 111, whereas they could redeem them in 1923 at 100. The position now is
    1342
    quite the reverse, because you can buy them at a discount of 18 instead of at a premium, and the time to reduce the National Debt is when you can buy Consols at a discount. That is one of the reasons why I voted for the reduction of the Sinking Fund in 1899 and am strongly opposed to it now. On that occasion also the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joseph Pease) made a very eloquent protest, in which he said:—
    "I rise to protest against the tampering with the Sinking Fund which the Government proposes. It seems to me that supporters of the Government are driven to desperate straits when the hon. Member for Central Sheffield has to rise in his place and to contrast 'the bilking of the Bill' with the worst things that have happened in the past."
    Why does not the right hon. Gentleman rise now and protest against tampering with the Sinking Fund? The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sir W. Holland) also spoke against the proposal; while that great financial authority, Lord Swaythling, said:—
    "I am absolutely astonished that so eminent a financier as the right hon. Gentleman should have taken refuge in such means as these, which can only be justified in times of war or when we have incurred very heavy permanent expenditure."
    I think I have said enough to show that at that time all the financial authorities of the party opposite held the view that it was a fatal mistake to reduce the Sinking Fund. I have other striking quotations from a subsequent Debate, with which I will not trouble the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself voted against the reduction, though he did not speak in the Debate. I suppose he was not recognised as a great financial authority then.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: A cheap argument.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Not at all. The Members who spoke then were Members with commercial experience, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not possess. As when I last spoke the right hon. Gentleman called my attention to the fact that in 1899 I voted in favour of the reduction, I should like to point out that he then voted against it, although at that time there were sound financial reasons in its favour, whereas the very reasons which could be advanced in favour of the proposal then are reasons which can and ought to be advanced against the present proposal.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: I desire to speak because the business with which I am occupied comes within the broad domain of finance, and because the matter

    1343
    of the Sinking Fund has always interested me. Time brings strange changes, and there is nothing more striking than the way in which what is the cardinal principle of a school of politics one day is turned topsy-turvy the next. I have no history in the Division Lobby in connection with this matter. When the question came up in 1899 I had not the honour of a seat in Parliament; and when, since then, it has come up controversially, I do not think I have gone into the Lobby at all. I have recognised that there are arguments to be adduced on both sides, and I have desired to keep my mind open. If there has been one cardinal principle—and it is an honourable principle—of the Radical party for the last 50 years, it has been "No tampering with the Sinking Fund." In 1875 Sir Stafford Northcote first embodied in an Act of Parliament the principle and practice that every year £28,000,000 should be set aside to pay off the interest on Consols, floating debt, and so forth, leaving an ample margin which should go year by year to the reduction of the National Debt. But Sir Stafford Northcote did not initiate the practice. Long before then it had been the custom of all great statesmen to set aside year by year a proper sum for the reduction of the colossal indebtedness, the heritage of the great wars of the past, which we call the National Debt. It is well to look back to some of the dicta of the great men, especially of the Liberal Party, in regard to the matter. In 1871, on the question of the suspension of the Sinking Fund, Mr. Gladstone then let drop this remark:—
    "The reduction of the Sinking Fund is borrowing in the strictest sense of the word."
    I should like hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they have not recollected that dictum of that great statesman, to ponder for a moment what it means. Pay your way! The next occasion when the matter came up in the House was in 1885, the time of the Soudan War. There was a prospective deficit of nearly £15,000,000. Mr. Childers, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said this:—
    "We propose to intercept the action of the Sinking Fund, so as to produce something over £4,600,000."
    It is worth while making this observation upon Mr. Childers' action: that he really was not departing from the practice of the great Liberal financiers, because an exception to the general practice had always been allowed by them if there
    1344
    was a great emergency, such as a war. In that circumstance an interference with the Sinking Fund for the time being was held to be a justifiable operation. Because for a great war you borrow, and taking money out of the Sinking Fund is borrowing, and it is therefore as broad as long. In 1885 there was a strong Debate on the matter. The late Lord Randolph Churchill twice, I think, quoted Mr. Gladstone's great cardinal remark on the matter, not only that intercepting the operation of the Sinking Fund was borrowing, but also the remark of Mr. Gladstone about "paying your way." Lord Randolph Churchill quoted this remark of Mr. Gladstone:—
    "I say, if you wish to have honest and sound finance, you must pay your way."
    The next year there was a discussion upon the matter was in 1893. Sir William Harcourt was budgetting for a large deficit, and no doubt the temptation must have been great to him to put his hand into the Sinking Fund, instead of imposing further taxation. What did he say?
    "It is a fund not to be tampered with in ordinary times and nominal deficiencies; it is the keystone of sound and solid finance. We are not prepared further to weaken its foundation."
    Come to 1894. What did Sir William Harcourt say then? He was budgetting for a deficiency of £4,500,000. But he would not touch the Sinking Fund. He said:—
    "I will not get the money by abandoning the fixed and permanent provisions for the liquidation of the debt."
    Then we come to 1899, the year to which my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London referred to just now. In that year the controversy became fast and heated. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach proposed then in times of peace to reduce the Sinking Fund by £2,000,000. The reason was, I think, a very good one. The hon. Baronet referred to it just now, but I should like to repeat it. Consols then stood at something like 110, and there was no object in buying Consols at 110 which in 1931 the Government will have the option of redeeming at par. It did seem bad finance. As the hon. Baronet has observed, the whole conditions of national finance were entirely different. The National Debt was then at the lowest point in its history. That is a very important factor in the case. In 1899 the total national indebtedness was £635,000,000, as against £754,000,000 to-day. In that year

    1345
    there was a Division taken on the Second Reading of the Bill embodying the proposal of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach to reduce the Sinking Fund. Sir Henry Fowler moved a Vote which was really a Vote of Censure on the Government of the day. The whole of the Front Bench, even if they did not speak against the reduction, went into the Division Lobby against it. That was the action of the Radical party on that occasion. Therefore I am entitled to make this observation—that not only are hon. Gentlemen opposite making a cardinal departure from all the great Liberal tenets of the past in regard to the Sinking Fund, but they are eating their own words, going back upon what they did in 1899.
    On the other hand, I am struck by this argument: that the money must be got. On the whole, then, is it fair, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, in spite of the fact that the National Debt is something like £120,000,000 higher to-day than in 1899—are the Government entitled to put their hands into the Sinking Fund to take out this sum of three and a half millions? I should say "Yes," if the reduction of the Sinking Fund stood alone. But you have to look at this matter as a whole. You have to take first of all the fact that the National Debt, owing to the South African war, now stands at £120,000,000 higher than in 1899. Secondly, that the Death Duties, if if this Bill becomes law, will be at a point of severity absolutely unprecedented in the history of the country. Thirdly, take the Income Tax for the first time stands—in the case of certain incomes at any rate—at 1s. 8d. in the £. You have to take the whole story altogether. It is there that my mind—I speak not in the least as a party politician, but as a man who has taken a great interest in finance—is oppressed with doubt—it is there, when you take the whole of these considerations together, that I ask: Is it wise, in the interests of the State, to take so large a sum as this out of the Sinking Fund? And the further fear arises in my mind that appetite comes with eating, as Mr. Goschen said in 1899, when the Radical party were attacking the action of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. Mr. Goschen said: I should not be surprised if the Radical party themselves did it some time or other. Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did it when he introduced his Budget. What I mean when I use the expression, "Appetite comes with eating," is that the
    1346
    Chancellor finds it so easy to raid the Sinking Fund; he gives annoyance to no one, he treads on no one's toes, and so, when he wants this half-million he goes to the Sinking Fund again. He raided it in April, and, finding it such an easy process, he does the same thing again in November. How do we know he is going to stop at that? We know that the expenditure is enormous if the full "Dreadnought" programme is to be carried out by a particular date, and we know that the temptation is very great. That is why I feel alarmed, looking at the programme as a whole. The national financial situation is so grave, the demands are so heavy, that I fear the right hon. Gentleman may be further tempted to dip into the Sinking Fund.
    I am afraid that the Chancellor, now that he has got to the edge of the slippery slope, and, finding it so easy to put his hand into the national pocket, we may find ourselves in a few years with no fund for the reduction of the National Debt. That sums up my fears in the matter. I do not know whether or not we shall go to a Division. Looking at the reduction as it stood up to to-day—£3,000,000—I certainly should not have recorded my vote against it. I agree to that extent with what Lord Cromer said, although I do not go quite so far as he did when he said the right hon. Gentleman might well have taken out more than that sum. I think this matter rises far above party, and we ought to try and look at it entirely from the point of view of the good of the State. It is a matter of national duty and obligation to cut down that immense state of indebtedness called the National Debt. Once you make savage inroads, severe inroads, extreme inroads, upon the Sinking Fund, I do not think those who come after us—and statesmen must have regard for posterity—will find any reason to bless us, and unless we take care, they may have reason to heap imprecations upon our heads.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not desire to deal again with that aspect of the case dealt with so fully by the hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Banbury) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. G. D. Faber), but rather to say a few words upon another aspect of this matter. You were good enough Mr. Speaker to inform us on Friday last the reasons for making this Motion could be discussed when the matter came up again. Of course the main reason why the Motion has to be made is

    1347
    owing to the fact that the Government has discovered that the calculations upon which their original estimates for the Budget were made have turned out to be untrustworthy. The balance sheet which has been circulated shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of getting the £162,500,000, which he had hoped to get, will get a sum less than that by several hundreds of thousands of pounds. He has found that not only will he get less revenue than he expected, but also that the expenditure will be increased, and, therefore, he proposes to take another half a million, which the Government estimates will be enough to cover that error in calculation. If anyone looks at this new balance sheet for a moment he will see £500,000 is really a very moderate estimate of the miscalculation or error which has occurred, because there has been the exceptional increase in the Death Duties of £1,300,000, and I venture to submit that it would be most unsafe to build upon the theory that because you have had in these months an increase of the estimate of £1,300,000 in the Death Duties that, therefore, at the end of the year you are likely on the whole to have any increase at all.
    Therefore, as I shall submit to the House, the true error has not been £500,000, but £1,800,000. I do not think that any sound finance ought to take into account at all the increased yield of the Estate Duties of £1,300,000. When we come to examine how the diminution occurred we find that apart from the concessions that the Government have granted the two main causes are in the first place there has been a great diminution in the Spirit Duties of £800,000, and in the second place there has been an increase in the cost of valuation which has been raised from £50,000 to £250,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the observations he made on Friday last congratulated himself that it was only in portion of the liquor taxes that a diminution had taken place, and that beer was still doing very well. In any case you are not entitled to look at it in that way, and you must take the whole of the Liquor Taxes together. You cannot single out the Beer Duty and say that is doing well. If the Spirit Duty shows a falling off, that means that a certain number of persons who used to drink spirits are now drinking beer, and the normal consumption of beer but for that fact would have fallen off in the same way. I submit that the Liquor Taxes in these proposals
    1348
    are dealt with in a very unsound way. It is ridiculous to base so large a proportion of our revenue on this particular source of income unless you treat it in the same way as you treat all other taxable articles. To increase to an enormous extent the taxes on a falling industry—the profits of the trade are nothing like what they used to be, and the consumption is considerably less—is flying in the face of all the maxims of all the sound financiers that have ever existed in this country. That seems to me to be an absolutely indefensible proceeding from a financial point of view.
    2.0 P.M.
    With regard to the Land Taxes there is a great distinction between the four taxes. Two of them—the Mineral Rights Duty and the Reversion Duty—have nothing to do with the great valuation proposals which the Government have submitted to the House. I am doubtful whether you can consider the Mineral Rights Duty as a Land Tax, because it is really an additional Income Tax imposed upon a particular kind of income derived from a particular kind of industry, and I think it is quite plain that it has nothing whatever to do with the proposed valuation. It will not depend in any way upon that valuation, and its yield has no concern with it. The same applies to the Reversion Duty, which depends upon a comparison between the original value of the land when the lease was created—it may be as much as 70 or 80 years ago—and its value when the lease comes to an end. Therefore it has nothing to do with the great valuation proposals which are to be carried out in regard to the whole of the land of this country. I wish to put a question with regard to the Reversion Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated the yield of that duty originally as £100,000. I understand that he adheres to that estimate. Why has he made no change? Two modifications of some importance have been introduced. In the first place, agricultural land has been excluded. I agree that that will not make a very great difference, because there is comparatively only a small quantity of agricultural land which is held on leases of more than 21 years. But the other modification is a more important one. The right hon. Gentleman has excluded all reversions which originally had more than 40 years to run. That must have excluded a large number, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has made no modification in his original estimate in regard to these alterations.

    1349
    For the reasons which I have given I do not desire to examine the Minerals Rights Duty or the Reversion Duty at any length. With regard to the other Land Taxes, according to the original estimate, the Increment Duty was to produce £50,000 and the Undeveloped Land Tax £175,000. Each of these taxes it is now estimated will be reduced by £25,000, with the result that the Increment Duty will only realise £25,000 and the Undeveloped Land Duty £150,000. Therefore, instead of bringing in £225,000 together, these two duties are only estimated to bring in this year £175,000. What are we going to spend in order to have the pleasure of obtaining that £175,000? We are going to spend on the Government's own showing no less than £250,000. There is to be a net loss this year in respect of these taxes of £75,000 if you take the whole of the estimated yield. But there is another important point to be considered. Half the yield of these taxes has to go to the local authorities, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year is asking us to spend £250,000, and he will only receive in return for that expenditure under £90,000. That is the state of things for this year. What about the future? We have no information at all as to what the ultimate yield of these taxes will be. All we know from the statement made last Friday is that the changes introduced will make a very important difference in the Increment Duty. As to the cost of the proposed valuation, the estimate of the Government is £2,000,000, but we know that no single surveyor outside the Government will support that estimate for a moment. I know there is a certain gentleman employed by the Government whose advice has been taken on this matter, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will find a single surveyor of eminence who will support the estimate which he has given to the House. What security has the House in the face of these grave errors and the astonishing result of these duties this year, that they are ever going to prove to be a source of revenue to this country? We have no security whatever.
    On this point two answers were given by the Government in Committee. When we pointed out that the Mineral Rights Duty had nothing to do with the valuation we were told that we were wrong, and did not understand the question. I think we understand it now, and no Member of the Government will say that the Mineral Rights Duty has got anything to do with the valuation, and this duty could have
    1350
    been collected to the same extent whether there is a fresh valuation or not. What was the other answer made? The Prime Minister said, "Oh! yes. But you must not treat this valuation from that point of view only. It is also going to make an important difference in the yield of the Death Duties." That was an answer given in respect of the yield of these duties this year. I notice that that argument has absolutely disappeared both from the Paper which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now submitted to the House and from the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made last Friday. Therefore we may dismiss the argument in regard to the yield of the Death Duties as the last straw which a struggling Government clutched at in regard to the proposals which they originally made. That is the position which I desire to present for the careful consideration of the House. You are going to spend 250,000 this year, and you are going to get a gross return of £175,000, half of which has to go to the local authorities, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get £90,000 in return for that expenditure. This is being done in a year when we have to find a taxable deficit of some £14,000,000. I do say to the House of Commons that that is an absolutely outrageous financial proposal. I do not wish to discuss the details of the taxes which are being imposed with this astounding financial result beyond pointing out that they are undoubtedly causing unrest and disturbance throughout the whole length and breadth of the country. I do not care a bit what political privileges the present Government may have, they have no right to impose taxes which cause a general disturbance and a general feeling of insecurity in the country, and still less when the financial result of those taxes will not produce a profit but actually a loss to the Exchequer. I say that is a scandalous form of finance, and I am convinced that such popularity as these taxes have—and we are always told they have a certain amount of popularity—is based entirely upon a misconception of their financial nature in the country, and that, when the people thoroughly understand what is the real fiscal and financial proposals the Government put before them, they will reject them with the scorn which they deserve.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I should like to support my two hon. Friends with regard to the inadvisability of raiding the

    1351
    Sinking Fund. Some of us, when the Budget was introduced, objected to both the Chancellor's proposal to drop entirely the old Sinking Fund and to take as much as £3,000,000 out of the Fixed Charge. Public opinion has been too strong for him with regard to the old Sinking Fund. He has had to give that up, but we have the Chancellor now, owing to his estimates proving wrong, resorting again to the Fixed Charge, and taking out another half-million. We must remember that the first reserve of this country in case of necessity is the Sinking Fund, and it is most inadvisable for that reason to raid it. The second reserve is to keep a low Income Tax. Unfortunately, this reserve is being encroached upon very largely by the proposals of this Budget. The amount in 1875 was fixed by the late Sir Stafford Northcote at £28,000,000. It has varied a little from time to time since then, but Sir Stafford Northcote fixed it at that sum because, he said, previous to 1860 it had never been less than £28,000,000, and in that year the country was a good deal poorer than in 1875, and could therefore much more afford in 1875 to pay as much as in 1860. That was his argument. If the country could afford to pay £28,000,000 in 1875, I say, a fortiori, it can much more afford to pay £28,000,000 now, because, I believe, the estimate is that the national income has about doubled since 1875. For that reason alone I do urge upon the Chancellor the importance of adhering to the old principle of his party—it has been the strict policy of the Liberal party for the last 50 years—and to keep up the standard of the Sinking Fund. This is, I think, the first occasion on which we have ever had a Government coming down to this House and proposing to meet a deficit by raiding the Sinking Fund in this way. Of course, I quite recognise it is legitimate and proper to take the money from the Sinking Fund during a time of war. That has always been done, and, as I say, the Sinking Fund is our first national reserve. We have a gross National Debt of £754,000,000. Next to that of France it is the largest. The National Debt of France is larger on account of the German war, and I think they have not maintained their Sinking Fund as they ought to have done. In the United States the debt is only £2 per head of population, in Germany it is only £3, our National debt is £16, and in France I think it is £26. With Consols at the low price of 82½—and I am afraid they may go down
    1352
    to still less—and with the state of the finances of the country as they are at present, I do urge the Government to endeavour to keep up the National credit. We are very near the point when our national credit is not going to be the first in the world. I believe, if Consols dropped one more point, they would cease to be the first great security of the world. That is a very serious thing, and for these reasons I do urge the Chancellor to try and maintain the old principles of his own party, and to keep up the standard of the national credit.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did not intend under any circumstances to detain the House for long on the matter now before us, and it is less necessary that I should do so, because I find myself in very general agreement with the views expressed by my hon. Friends, and notably by the hon. Member for the City of York (Mr. G. D. Faber) on part of the subject and by the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil) on other aspects of it. We have before us at this moment three distinct and important matters. The first is the original proposal of the Government to reduce the Sinking Fund by £3,000,000 a year for the purpose of partially meeting the deficit they have created. The second is their recent proposal, now formally before us for the first time, to take an additional half-million in order to make good the gap which has arisen since the Budget statement, partly because the taxes which were proposed have not fulfilled their expectations and partly because of concessions they have felt it right to make and which they were right in making during the Committee stage. Lastly, we have, by common consent as the subject-matter of discussion on this occasion, the revised estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and any considerations to which that gives rise. Those are important matters, and I must say I regret that they should be discussed in a House which is composed mostly of empty benches. I think it after all marks, perhaps dramatically, the strain the Government has put upon the House and the inability of the House satisfactorily to resist that strain. When two of my hon. Friends were speaking I counted the Members present, and there were nine Members on the Government side, one on the benches below the Gangway, and about double that number on the benches behind. The fact of the matter is that, owing to the continuous strain of this prolonged Session and our

    1353
    prolonged sittings, the House is no longer in a position to give its attention to national affairs—such attention which those affairs demand. No one can approach this question without a sense of grave responsibility for themselves and of the serious nature of the proposals which we have to consider. Our taxes are high, compared with anything to which we have been accustomed, and we are making them still higher. Our debt is large. The demands which we foresee in the future are numerous. Our revenue has not shown much elasticity in recent years. And it is at this moment, in a time not of war or of national crisis in any sense, except the sense of an internal financial crisis, that we are asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his original Budget speech to make a very large raid on the Sinking Fund, and still further to increase that raid in order to meet the deficiency that has since arisen. I do not know how far I speak the opinion of those with whom I generally act when I express my own views upon this subject. I said, at an early stage of our discussion, that much as I regretted the necessity I could not find it in me to blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under the circumstances to which we have been brought, for making his original demand on the Sinking Fund, and I must add to that now, in the month of October, faced with a further deficit of half a million, I do not feel inclined to blame him for again having recourse to the Sinking Fund to meet that deficiency. I take it that, in his own mind—perhaps he will explain this matter to the House—whereas the original reduction in the Sinking Fund by three millions was intended for a permanency, as far as he sees at present, without prejudice to such changes of opinion as we are all of us liable to under altered circumstances, he does intend that the additional half million shall be merely an expedient for the present. If that is so, I am bound to say, having regard to the period of the year at which we have arrived, I think amongst a choice of evils open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer probably this is liable to as few objections as any other course which he could have pursued. In the month of October, to find an actual tax by means of which he can raise a sum of half a million is, I think, an operation from which any Chancellor of the Exchequer would shrink. And as I look over the list of taxes—the existing taxes—I do not see a single one which I could recommend to
    1354
    the right hon. Gentleman as an alternative resource for a purpose of this kind. Therefore, for myself, it may be said that under all the circumstances, much as I regret the necessity, I neither blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for taking the three millions originally from the Sinking Fund, under the circumstances of this year, nor for now taking the additional half million.
    But I do think the necessity for so doing causes us, as our French neighbours say, "curiously to think." High taxes and a low Sinking Fund—that is the very opposite of what any Finance Minister or any Government would wish to see. Whether you look to our situation at home or whether you have regard to the international outlook, no man can say that this is a time when he can view without regret this double result. It is a time when we are expound, and when we can see that we must be exposed, to increasing competition, both in commercial matters and in defensive preparations. We cannot afford to risk anything in matters of defence. We must provide whatever is necessary to maintain our forces at a relative standard to those of other countries which we have sought to establish. If that be true on the defence side, it is equally true that this is a time when commercial rivalry is becoming year by year keener, when the position of our manufacturers and producers is more and more threatened by the extraordinary peaceful developments of other countries, and when every additional burden, direct or indirect, upon the industry of this country is a thing deeply to be regretted in the interests of our commercial position. It is such a time as would have caused, in the mind of every man, an earnest desire, if it were possible, to lighten the burdens on industry in this country, instead of increasing them, and to lessen the weight of taxation instead of adding to it. I must say I think it is a very serious thing that in order to meet our current needs we should have, under these circumstances, in addition to the enormous burden of taxation which is being added by the present Budget, to make this attack upon the Sinking Fund, and to reduce by two or three millions a year the amount by which we are relieving the nation of its national obligations, and, pro tanto, the efforts that we are making to restore its old national credit. Nobody can look at the price of Consols now, and the state of the Money Market, without feeling that if one of the great crises to which nations are from time to time exposed fell upon us at the present

    1355
    moment we are, I will not say ill-equipped for the purpose of meeting it, but less well equipped than we have been at any recent period. I am not a pessimist. I believe the resources of this country, if the patriotism of the people is appealed to, will, and can be, made to yield whatever the necessities and the existence of the State requires. I do say that we have reached a point which, regarded in this light is less secure, and gives more reason for anxiety and for care than we have reached at any time in recent years—at any time for more than a generation. I know, as everyone who has filled the office which the right hon. Gentleman now occupies knows well how constant are the demands on the Exchequer for new expenditure. I know how irresistible are many of those demands by any Chancellor of the Exchequer who takes a broad view of his responsibility, and does not consider that a Finance Minister exists merely to say "No" to those demands, without considering or weighing their necessity and importance. I know how many are these demands. I look forward to the future and I see how urgent and how pressing they will be and how many new subjects of expenditure are constantly being pressed upon our attention; how much fresh effort, and consequently fresh cost, is demanded of Governments by the people of this country. I do not pretend that it is possible to call a halt; I do not pretend it is possible to say, "Thus far we will go and no further; such a sum will we spend upon national defence and no more; and such a sum will we allocate to social reforms in their widest sense and no more." Much of that growth is automatic, and no man can stop it, but I do say the time and the circumstances are such as call for restraint and moderation on the part not only of Members of this House but our countrymen outside, and I trust that in a state of matters so serious and in a situation which gives so much cause for reflection there will be present in all parties, I do not say a niggardly regard for economy as such, but a real desire not to overweight the State by assuming new burdens, and a real caution in making promises which involve fresh and largely increased expenditure. That is all I wish to say about the position of the Sinking Fund either in regard to the original demand or to the new demand which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made.
    1356
    I turn now to the other portion of the subject which we are permitted to debate this afternoon, namely, the revised estimates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the lessons which they have for the House, for the country, and not least for the Government. I said the other day, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement in language which I am not quite certain was sufficiently guarded, that I did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for certain errors of estimate which he had made. I spoke under circumstances of some fatigue, and I am not sure that I did not give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a better testimonial than he deserved. Let me state now what I mean. I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the error in the calculation in the Death Duties. The amazing increase in the Death Duties was due to an accident, or one or two accidents, which might have occurred last year or next year, but which happen to have occurred in the course of the last six months. They might have occurred in the next six months instead, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have dared to come forward, and he would have been in Queer-street at this moment. They were due to an accident which no one could foresee—a very fortunate accident for the Revenue and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not blame him for that or for having underestimated somewhat the returns from the Post Office, or for that underestimate, a more substantial and rather remarkable underestimate in regard to the revenue from stamps. I think that error is open to some criticism, but at the same time I recognise that stamps have been a very unsatisfactory revenue for several years, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was justified and even wise in taking a very conservative estimate at the beginning of the year. But there is another instance of error which is immense and for which blame does and must attach to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I refer, of course, to the yield which he expected from his new Whisky Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to that is that we were all as big fools as himself, or bigger. He may get all the comfort he can from that, but, after all, it is not our business to make these estimates, and we do not pretend to have the information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at his disposal, and he cannot clear himself by saying that we were wrong. The responsibility for his estimates rests not with

    1357
    us but with him, and it is an error of the gravest kind—such an error as I suppose is almost without parallel in Budget estimates. At any rate, I do not recollect one. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head, but I do not recollect a case where a Chancellor of the Exchequer in any considerable tax—I am not talking of trifling operations—in any considerable tax has found so disappointing a result as that which has occurred in the case of the Whisky Duty, where for every £100 the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he would get he will not get more than £50, so that in place of £1,600,000 he can only estimate for £800,000 in the course of the year.
    That I do conclude is a very grave error in estimating. It shows a very grave misapprehension as to the effects of the tax on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisors. As I am criticising his action, I will say on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer only, and I venture to say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to foresee at the beginning of the year that the result of this vast addition to the Spirit Duty would only have been £800,000 instead of £1,600,000, he never would have made the proposal which he did. I do not say that he would have made no proposal to raise the Spirit Duty, although I think it would have been wiser to let it alone, but I feel confident that no Chancellor of the Exchequer would have put on the enormous increase of 3s. 9d. to a duty which was already gigantic for so small a result and with so great a consequent disturbance of the trade immediately affected in the first place, and then of all the interests which are indirectly affected by it. The Chancellor is disappointed to the tune of £800,000. Can the House realise what that means to the trade? In the first place, the Chancellor expected a considerable reduction of consumption, and therefore of production. That in itself would, of course, be a serious matter to the trade, but over and above the reduction the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expected and allowed for comes the enormous further reduction indicated by this reduced return from the duty. That means something like a disaster for the trade itself, for all the people whose capital is invested in it, for all the workmen who are engaged in it, and for all the subsidiary and allied trades which are dependent upon it, and, in this particular case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen a trade the depression of which affects most adversely the manufacturing
    1358
    industries of particular districts where they have little else of a manufacturing character to turn to and where the agriculture of those districts is largely dependent on the prosperity of the manufactures. The right hon. Gentleman has struck a heavy blow at the growers of barley in Scotland and elsewhere, and the evil effects of his tax on the trade, which he cannot but regret as Minister of Finance, whatever view he may take as a politician or temperance reformer, must be doubly bitter when he considers all the subsidiary injury which he has done to agriculture and to other trades. In my opinion the revised estimate of the Whisky Tax is itself a condemnation of that tax. It proves that the foundation on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer builded was rotten, and that the assumptions he made were mistaken. It shows that instead of having selected an industry which could easily bear the increased demand that he put upon it, he has to tax an industry which was unable to support the extra burden. He has inflicted upon that industry an injury out of all proportion to the reduced benefit which he derives from the Exchequer, and even from the point of view of the Exchequer the results which he has obtained are most disappointing.
    I agree with every word that the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) has said upon the Land Taxes. They are not an assistance to the difficulties of the present financial year; they are a burden upon it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government still believe that at some future time, when we have laid out an enormous sum of money in valuation and collection, a sum of money which the Government are still ridiculously underestimating, even so far as it falls upon the Exchequer, and which in its cost to the country is far greater, because you have to add to that all the burden which falls on individuals, there will be a large revenue to be obtained from these taxes. I see no more reason to accept their prophecy in respect of the yield of the taxes than their estimate of the valuation. But be that as it may, whatever these taxes may or may not mean for the future, for the current year they mean not revenue but expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Friends keep repeating that this is the way rich people are being asked to pay for "Dreadnoughts" or to make their contribution to old age pensions. There is not a penny from those taxes which will go in the present year either to old age pensions or to "Dreadnoughts"

    1359
    or to anything else, and the Treasury would be the richer and not the poorer if the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon moved to recommit the Billl and cut out the whole of these taxes.
    What is the position in which we find ourselves? Of the new taxes the Land Tax produces nothing, on the balance, this year; the Whisky Tax produces only half of what was expected, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be face to face with a deficit of really serious and alarming proportions, especially occurring as it does in the month of October, were it not for what was for him a happy accident which produced an enormous increase in the Death Duties. It is rash to take full credit for that sum. The Death Duties are a very uncertain factor. They are liable to great fluctuations; they average themselves out on the whole less well than any other tax, and the Revenue authorities find them more difficult to estimate than any other tax. If the particular deaths which caused this great accession of income under this head in the first six months of this year had not occurred, the Chancellor would not have dared to take the credit for them in the expectation that they would occur in the next six months, and just as he has had a peculiarly fat six months in the past he may yet have a very lean six months in the future, and the new estimate which he makes may be falsified on the wrong side of the account just as easily as the old estimate was falsified on the right side. But assuming that his expectations are fulfilled and that owing to this happy accident he gets the increased revenue which he expects under this head, the facts remain that he is saved by the old taxes and he would have been ruined if he had trusted to his new ones, that his new proposals are condemned by results, as far as we have gone, that it is not the new departure which he has made which is enabling the country to pay its way, but the old resources which he inherited from his predecessors.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Government have no reason to complain of the tone of the criticism of their proposal to reduce the Sinking Fund. I will take the last criticism which the right hon. Gentleman directed against our proposal, that is the criticism which he made of our estimates. He suggested that the Government were forced to resort to this expedient of further reducing the Sinking Fund
    1360
    because their estimates had proved wrong. That is not the case at all. For the purpose of the estimate you have to treat the Budget as having been carried in its original form. Well, supposing we had made no alterations at all—and that is the only way you can check the accuracy of my original estimates—what would have been the position? I should have had increase from taxation of £1,800,000. I should have had a decrease on one item of £800,000, so that, so far from having over-estimated I would have under-estimated by £1,000,000. I would have been £1,000,000 to the good, instead of being £200,000 to £300,000 to the bad. Therefore, I am forced to the expedient to-day of asking that there should be a further reduction in the amount set aside for the Sinking Fund. It is not because the estimates were wrong. Quite the reverse. I should have had a balance of £1,000,000 had no alterations been made in the Budget, and I am driven to this purely and simply because of what took place in the course of the discussions on the Budget. The Government made concessions—very substantial concessions, and some of them I think very liberal concessions—to the criticisms which were directed to our proposals, not from one side of the House only, but from several quarters. It is purely and solely for that reason that I have been driven to-day to ask another £500,000, in addition to the million which the surplus provided. Besides, there are some supplementary estimates which were not foreseen at that time.
    It is not because our estimates were wrong that we are moving this reduction. I say so, not so much because of what has been said in this House, but because of the unfair criticism in some of the more responsible papers of the Opposition. They take the line of saying that the Government made a mistake in the estimates, and that we are now coming to the House of Commons and asking them to redress it, by taking this sum out of the Sinking Fund, whereas the fact is that we estimated for a surplus of a million. There would have been no necessity to have recourse to the Sinking Fund if we had not made substantial concessions. I foresaw that we might have to do so. I foresaw that we could not possibly get a Bill of this kind through with the many new proposals in it which would excite opposition, without making numerous concessions here and there. I do not mind admitting quite frankly that when I fixed the Sinking Fund at £3,000,000 I was under the impression that I would

    1361
    have to ask for another £1,000,000 in order to meet the criticisms in the House. That was my view at the time. I was saved the necessity of asking the £1,000,000 I originally estimated purely and simply because of what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) calls the happy accident of the increase in the Death Duties. The increase in the Death Duties, I may say, is not entirely attributable merely to the fact that one or two big estates have come in which might have come in any year. It is attributable partly to the very cause pointed out by the Prime Minister, namely, the improvement already effected in valuation. One of the first things we did this year was to reorganise the Valuation Department. It is part of the permanent staff, and has at its head a very able and experienced officer, who has re-organised this Department. And the mere fact that we have not accepted too freely some of the accounts submitted to us has had a very appreciable effect, and in the course of a single week it has added £100,000 to the duty. I do not say that it has added that amount every week. That fact shows that there is a great deal in the criticism of the Prime Minister, namely, that a revaluation would make a very substantial difference even in the Death Duties. Land which has been passed as agricultural land we have discovered is valuable building land, and that has made a difference in the Death Duties, and a very substantial portion of the £1,300,000 is attributable to the fact that we have got an efficient Valuation Department. I am not criticising the old Department, because it was inadequately staffed, and could not do its work properly. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) said, Are you quite safe in assuming that you are going to have £1,300,000 as well at the end of the year? The first period of six months of last year was a lean period. The remaining period of six months of the year was a fat period. The right hon. Gentleman says, and very properly, from his experience of this Department, "You may reverse the order. You may start with a fat six months and end with a lean six months." We have reckoned on that. What we have done is this: We have taken the remaining six months of this year at an average of the last five years, and in making the estimate of £1,300,000 we take it with the figures we already know, and we take for the next six months an estimate by striking an
    1362
    average of the last five years. I think on the whole that is a very sound principle on which to estimate. You may find yourself out of the reckoning either way. You may find yourself much better off or much worse off. You cannot reckon on what estates will come in. So much for the Death Duties.
    Now we come to the Post Office. We could not possibly estimate that the Post Office was going to do so much better. Trade was very bad at the time, and the fact that the Post Office has done so much better is due to an appreciable improvement in trade. After all, the Post Office is the first place that feels that swelling in trade. It is the very first place where it counts. During the last few years there have been in connection with the Post Office certain adventitious aids to the revenue. We have not had this year these adventitious aids which we had two or three years ago. It is a perfectly healthy revenue. It is revenue that depends on the increase of business, and to that extent it is very gratifying that I should be in a position to announce that I am expecting an increase of at least £200,000 in the Post Office revenue by the end of the year. The same thing applies to stamps. I did anticipate an increase from stamps, but I could not possibly foresee the increase which we have had. It is very largely due to a movement in some branches of Stock Exchange business. There has been a very exceptional run on certain securities. The increase has been very largely attributable to that. Then the right hon. Gentleman says: "Look at the very startling drop in whisky." The Noble Lord's theory of estimating is an extraordinary one, if I may say so. He says, "Had it not been for the fact that you have had this increase in the Death Duties you would have been £1,800,000 out of your reckoning." In reply to that I would say in the first place that we would not have been out of our reckoning at all. For this reason, the fact that we knew that this money was in hand enabled us to make larger concessions. We abated our taxes accordingly. He is reckoning the concessions as if they were part of the estimate which a Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to make when introducing his Budget. Surely that is a very preposterous thing to suggest. Apart from that, why should the Noble Lord simply say, "You have no right to take into account those branches of the revenue which have increased above your

    1363
    estimate?" A Chancellor of the Exchequer must get all the discredit from an over-estimate, but he is not to get any credit from an under-estimate.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then all I can say is that the Noble Lord is really very severe. I should like to know who escapes? Can he name any Chancellor of the Exchequer of modern or more remote times who escaped from that very severe, stern rule which he has laid down for the guidance of present and future Chancellors of the Exchequer? I think that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain hardly endorses that view. He might really like to take advantage of the more indulgent and more sensible rule that has applied to the question up to the present. After all, what happens is that in some branches of the revenue you will find that you were rather too sanguine, while in other branches of the revenue you will find that things have turned out better than you anticipated, and between them, somehow or other, the revenue balances. That is all you can hope for. It is the same in any branch of business you may go to. Take the law. The Noble Lord for years has been reckoning up his revenue. He says, "I think this year I will get so much from such and such cases, and the fees for such and such cases will be so much." He would find at the end of the year that probably the process had been reversed. Curiously enough, all barristers tell me that it is somewhat about the same at the end of the year. There is a gradual increase, it is true, but you cannot possibly estimate in any branch of business how it will be distributed. Take any branch of business, wholesale or retail, every man who is engaged in business will tell you that sometimes business is very much better in one branch than he ever expected, while another branch of the business, for some reason or other, does not do so well, but at the end of the year things are balanced—at least let us hope so. And that is really what has happened in my case. My grocers' licences have gone rather badly; I have not sold as much liquor as I anticipated. But the undertaking business has done very much better, and at the end of the year I find myself with a balance of about a million. That has really been the experience of every Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not think that it is right for the Noble Lord
    1364
    simply to take the £800,000 and to say that the other is purely an accident. That is not the case. Now I come to the question of the Whisky Duty. It is rather ominous that the year the Whisky Duty went down the Death Duty should have gone up. It is true that I overestimated the Whisky Duty. It is equally true that I stood almost alone, I think, in the estimate which I put forward. The right hon. Gentleman says that I had special information with all my officials and all the statistics at my command, and therefore I was in a better position to estimate than any other man in this House. I could estimate forestalments more accurately because I had information. I might perhaps be able to estimate what stocks there are, though not nearly so well as those in the trade, as they had much better information than I had on that point. But one thing I could not estimate better than anyone else was the effect on consumption. The whole point is: To what extent does the addition of a halfpenny in the £ operate as an inducement to people not to drink? I had no more means of estimating that than any other Member of this House. In estimating it is perfectly true that I made a very liberal allowance for decrease in consumption, so liberal that nobody, either in or out of the House, I believe, agreed with it. They said it was absurd. I remember a Member getting up and saying that it was perfectly grotesque. Even the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs——
    Mr. YOUNGER: I did think so. I stated in the House, I think, that my calculation was that there would be a drop of 14 per cent. in consumption, whereas the drop has been much greater.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, who has a better opportunity for judging than I have——
    Mr. YOUNGER: No, I have not.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: At any rate, he represents a constituency which has a great distillery, and to that extent he is more in touch with the trade than I am. There was only one Welsh distillery ever started, and it failed because nobody would drink its products; so, therefore, I have no special information on that point. That shows how difficult it is to estimate. The officials could not estimate, and no Minister could estimate it accurately; and the more you think of it the more remarkable it is. I might reckon that a working man had so much money to spend on liquor

    1365
    and that if you increase the cost by so much he would restrict his expenditure on it. But it has gone beyond that, and gone considerably beyond that, and I do not think that the great regrets which the Noble Lord indulged in——
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I look at it from the strictly financial point of view. It is nothing exceptional. It is what all the masters of finance have indicated—that if you impose large additional burdens on a falling industry you will not only not get more but you will get not quite so much as you got out of the lower tax.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think we will get more, but we will get more on a diminishing consumption, with the double result that you benefit the revenue and you benefit the country. I talk quite frankly about these things, because——
    Mr. BALFOUR: I was very anxious to hear what you meant by your interesting observations that it rather went further than the amount that you had expected to get from the halfpenny a glass.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I remember, in making my calculation, I assumed that the people who could afford it would not look at a halfpenny at all, and that they would buy exactly the same quantity of whisky, whether it was 3½d. or 6½d.—in quantity I mean. But the working classes, I assumed, would probably purchase a smaller quantity. If a man had half-a-crown a week to spend on liquor, he would not spend more, but would consume less. I made a rough calculation, with such information as I had at my disposal, as to how that would affect the consumption of whisky as a whole, but I find the diminution has gone beyond that, and my information is now that not merely that there are thousands of people drinking a percentage which, in proportion to the increase, is less, but some of them are dropping it altogether, and some of them are barely drinking half what they were drinking before. Altogether it is a most extraordinary effect on the habits of the people. I am not here to apologise for that at all. I have heard of some districts in Ireland where the drinking of spirits has gone down by 70 per cent. I am informed that there are districts in Scotland, again, where it has gone down by 50 per cent., and I have had a communication in regard to the distillers of Glasgow that the consumption there has fallen by 36 per cent. during the month of September.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can at this stage tell us the results of the inquiry which he promised to make some time back as to the extent to which people have taken to drinking other liquors in lieu of whisky, such as Hamburg port?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I quite agree that I did undertake to do that. I thought really that they would have been driven to substances of that kind, and that they might simply be driven from alcoholic liquor produced in this country to alcoholic liquor produced abroad. That was certainly not the object which anybody had in view, and it was decided to recommend the Government to submit, if necessary, proposals to Parliament to prevent such a result. But we find that it has not been appreciable. We find that the people have not even been driven to drinking beer. It is really almost unaccountable. It is not they are being driven from one kind of alcohol to another, but that they have been driven out of alcohol altogether. That is very extraordinary, and I do not mind saying that it has gone beyond anything I anticipated. We thought at first it might drive people to lighter alcoholic liquors like beer, but beer is going down.
    Mr. RENWICK: What about wines?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As far as wines are concerned there is no appreciable difference. We thought at first that they might be driven to some stuff called Hamburg port, but there is no appreciable difference at all. The House of Commons will see what it really means. This is a very interesting matter, quite apart from the fiscal effect. I trust the House will regard this, I will not say from a purely party point of view, because it is a bigger thing than really arises out of the mere controversial aspects of the question; but let us look at what will happen, as far as we can see. Our anticipations now are that the consumption of spirits, both of foreign and home manufacture, will go down by something between 20 and 25 per cent. That means that the decrease in the quantity of spirits consumed in this country will be reduced by eight or nine millions of gallons during this year. Anybody who considers what that means must realise that it involves an enormous improvement in the habits of the people. That is not made up by the fact that there may be an extra

    1367
    few gallons of Hamburg port; they are infinitesimal; they do not come into the reckoning compared with that enormous reduction. On the other hand, in regard to beer, they are drinking less than we anticipated. So the improvement all round is something gigantic.
    Mr. BALFOUR: You mean from the social point of view?
    Mr. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman says the drop in the consumption of spirits this year will be 9,000,000 gallons. Does he realise that the fall for this year is apparently going to equal the total drop during the last ten years?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is a very interesting fact. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's first consideration ought to be a financial one, but that is not strictly accurate so far as this tax on alcoholic liquor is concerned, and never has been. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will look at the whole history of the taxation on alcohol, they will find that every Minister has used the weapon of finance for the purpose of countering some excess in the drinking of some particular spirit. I think that was the way gin-drinking was destroyed in this country. Whenever it was found that there was an excess in some particular form of alcoholic indulgence, it was, through the Chancellor of the Exchequar for the time being, that legislation was introduced, and, what is more, legislation of that kind has always been more effective than purely restrictive legislation. I am only stating that as having been the fact up to the present. Somebody told me, I do not know whether it is true or not that Scotland is supposed to have been a whisky-drinking country from the days of the Deluge, but Scotland has only quite recently taken to drinking whisky, and that until modern times it used to be a beer-drinking country. It was driven from beer to whisky by taxation.
    Mr. YOUNGER: It really was a claret-drinking country.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: They were driven from strong ale to stronger whisky, and now they have been driven from whisky by the tax to lighter beer. It looks at present as though there might be no drinking of intoxicants at all—however, I am not quite so hopeful as that. That really has been the case with all Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past. They
    1368
    have not arranged their taxation upon alcoholic liquor merely from the revenue producing point of view. Why do you charge port wine and the heavier alcoholic wines more than the lighter clarets? It was done as a temperance measure, and not as a fiscal measure. Mr. Gladstone always claimed that as one of his objects. It is true that there was some dealing with regard to French wines, no doubt commercially, but Mr. Gladstone always managed to use high principles, and at the same time make them pay as he went along. Undoubtedly it had a good temperance effect, and did drive people out of drinking alcoholic wines into the lighter wines. At any rate there is no reason why whisky should be charged such a very heavy duty, apart from this 3s. 9d., eleven shillings on its alcohol, and beer on its alcohol an infinitesimal amount. That is not done for purely fiscal reasons, it is done because it is recognised on the whole if there is any discouragement to be introduced as an element of taxation it is rather better that you should encourage the drinking of lighter alcoholic beverages, rather than that they should drink whisky. I am sure it will appeal to everyone that it is much better if alcohol is to be indulged in that it should be indulged in in the lighter form rather than in the stronger form. That is the view taken by the Government. We are getting enormous taxation either "in malt or in morals." I have lost £800,000 of estimated revenue, but undoubtedly it has effected a very great improvement in the habits of the people. Whether it is going to be permanent or not is a totally different matter. I believe a very considerable part has come to stay, and that is the view of those who are engaged even in the trade, that probably as much as 20 per cent. of the reduction in the consumption of spirits in this country will be permanent so long as they are not driven to those expedients of drinking Hamburg port. If they are, then that has got to be dealt with, and must be. I think there is no danger of that. A right hon. Gentleman said last night that it was purely the moderate drinker that had given up drinking whisky. That is not the case, as anyone will see on looking at the results as far as arrests for drunkenness in Glasgow show Those are not moderate drinkers; on the contrary they are men who have done themselves well, and who have got to be taken care of by His Majesty's Ministers in Glasgow. The arrests for drunkenness

    1369
    have gone down by something like thousands in Glasgow alone. That shows that while the Whisky Tax falls short of the estimate by £800,000, as far as the revenue is concerned, it has given us something more infinitely valuable from the point of view of the improvement it has effected in the habits of a very large proportion of the people. That is bound to react on the revenue; I do not mean to say in tea drinking and sugar and other commodities, but generally in the improvement of the condition of the people. That counts to the revenue in the aggregate. The only other word I have to say is that I regret very much that any man should be thrown out of work. Whether it is in barley-growing or malt distilling it will cause a good deal of temporary distress, and one must regret it, but at the same time you must take into account what it all means. Eight or nine millions gallons less of whisky spirits consumed by the people may mean less work for a few thousands, I should say a few hundreds, of people, probably——
    Mr. YOUNGER: You are only talking of direct employment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Agriculturists, barley growers, and those working in the malt distillers; but it will increase enormously the comfort and the happiness of hundreds of thousands of homes; and from the point of view of employment the money that is saved in this, after all, goes into employment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Better employment."] If men do not spend their money on whisky they spend it on clothes and food, and all that means employment, and means more employment. From that point of view, although one really regrets that there are even a few hundreds of people out of their living, it will mean so much more employment to the rest that, although I quite recognise that I am £800,000 out of my reckoning, I cannot pretend that I really regret it.
    I apologise for detaining the House, but I thought they would like to know exactly the position as far as those taxes are concerned. With regard to the Land Taxes I have nothing to say except what I said before, that the money raised out of the Land Taxes, and that the Land Taxes are not raised merely for the sake of the £100,000 which we have as a surplus this year upon them, but they are raised, they are simply laying the foundation of a
    1370
    big future revenue. The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) seems to think that that is unparalleled, but every Succession Duty that you ever passed is not revenue for the current year, but revenue for the next years. When Mr. Gladstone brought in his Succession Duty Bill in 1853 it was not for raising the revenue for that year, but for five years. He thought it would get rid of the Income Tax, and it was part of a great five years' scheme. That is the principle of the Legacy Duties. Whenever you imposed them you imposed them not for the current year, but for the next year. I said when I was introducing my Budget that I had taken not merely the expenditure for this year, but the expenditure certainly for the next year. Even in the case of the "Dreadnoughts" which you are laying down this year the real expense will be next year, so that when the revenue comes in from the Land Taxes next year it will be revenue that will be used just as much for "Dreadnoughts" as for old age pensions. I think the revenue has turned out extraordinarily well, in spite of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. Whisky alone has disappointed us. All the other taxes, Income Tax, Tobacco, Stamps, Death Duties; all those other taxes, most of them taxes that show growing wealth and prosperity, those are doing well. Those are exceeding our anticipations, and had it not been for the fact that in the course of putting this Bill through the House of Commons that the Government had made concessions to various demands made upon them it would not be necessary for me at all to move this. On the contrary, I should be rejoicing now in the prospect of a very handsome surplus; but I do not regret that those concessions have been made. We have done our best to meet every case of hardship pressed upon us. We met a very considerable number of them, and for that reason I have no hesitation in saying that the House of Commons would do wisely at the present moment to reduce the sum from 25 millions to 24½ millions.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The House has just heard one of the most interesting statements that has ever been made in connection with the financial estimates. There are one or two points I should like to dwell upon. It has been said that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) has been indiscreet in some of his estimates.

    1371
    May I point out that in no connection could there be more doubt in framing an estimate than there is in connection with protective taxation. It has been said by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that my right hon. Friend miscalculated the yield of the Death Duties, but a Chancellor of the Exchequer must always do that unless he takes luncheon with the millionaires, and puts pyrogallol in their tea. What is the position of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They tell the country that they have a scheme of taxation which will infallibly produce revenue. They have just won an election in which their chief promise has been to enact a leather duty. I should like the party opposite to tell us how they will estimate the yield of a leather duty, or, indeed, how they will frame one. For example, they will have to tell the House of Commons what they will decide as between foreign leather and Colonial leather; they will have to decide what sort of preference they will give to Indian leather, or whether they will shut out Indian leather altogether; and if they decide to shut it out, how they will persuade the Indian people to be content with that unless India is provided with a tariff to shut out British iron, British cotton goods, and the other manufactures which we pour into India. When they have settled these important points, they will have to decide by how much—whether 10, 15, or 20 per cent.—the consumption of leather in this country will fall; by how many pairs of boots the feet of the people will be ill-provided with leather after they have imposed their tax. Having decided all these things, they will put before the House of Commons an estimate of what they expect the tax to yield It is well known that in every protectionist country the uncertain items in the revenue are not those which correspond to our taxes—the Free Trade taxes. For example, in the German Imperial revenue, where the taxes correspond to our taxes, that is, the Free Trade taxes, the yield is comparatively clear. It is when the yield is dependent on protective influences, when there is all the grave doubt involved as to how much of a particular commodity will be consumed because of trade reasons and fluctuations in trade, that the German Imperial Government are in doubt as to the revenue they will receive. It comes to this, that hon. Members opposite, if
    1372
    they ever come to frame in this House a Tariff Reform Budget——
    Mr. J. F. REMNANT: They will keep out Chinese pork, at all events.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is a characteristic interruption. They will have to decide by how much the consumption of the articles will be decreased. They will have to decide not merely such interesting questions as those with which my right hon. Friend has dealt, but also by how much particular trades will be hit in the consumption of raw materials, and so forth. Therefore it certainly does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to reproach my right hon. Friend for the inaccuracy of his estimates. On the contrary, I think he is to be congratulated upon the yield of the taxes which he has framed. Statements have been made, not so much in this House as out of it, with regard to the expectation of the revenue generally by the end of the financial year. If anybody believes that we are likely to end the year with a revenue deficit, I think they will be agreeably, or disagreeably, as the case may be, disappointed. It is not only that the Death Duties have yielded more than was anticipated; I think it will be found that the Income Tax also will yield considerably more than was reckoned in the Budget statement. However that may be, there can be no question whatever that my right hon. Friend has, in the words of "The Times,"
    "Laid deep the foundations of revenue for future years."
    And that is, above all, what is necessary in the present condition of the finances of this country. We have to look forward to a time not merely of such expenditure as now obtains, but of an expenditure very much larger, whatever party may be in power. With regard to the Death Duties, between the new inter vivos arrangement to which the House has consented, and the fact that we shall in future have a reliable estimate of the value of the land of the country, there is little doubt that the yield of those duties will be considerably more in the future than it has been in the past. In other words, the House may confidently rely upon the yield of the Free Trade taxes, framed in the present Budget, meeting every reasonable requirement that they may be called upon to fulfil.
    Amendment made.

SCHEDULES.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—EXCISE LIQUOR LICENCES.
  A.—MANUFACTURES' LICENCES.

  Licence to be taken out annually.

  Duty.

  Corresponding existing Licence.

  1.

  Spirits:—

  (a) By a distiller of spirits.

  Duty specified in Scale 1

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

  (b) By a rectifier or compounder of spirits.

  £15 15s.

  2.

  Beer:—

  By a brewer of beer for sale.

  Duty specified in Scale 2

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

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

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

  Licence on which duty is payable under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 10; 44 & 45 Vict. c. 12, s. 14; or 48 & 49 Vict. c. 51, s. 5.

  In any other case, 4s.

  3.

  Sweets:—

  By a maker for sale of sweets.

  £5 5s

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

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

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding 50,000 gallons

  10

  0

  0

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

  10

  0

  0

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

  10

  0

  0

  SCALE 2.—LICENCE TO BREWER FOR SALE.
  Duty.

  Number of barrels brewed during the preceding year—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding 100 barrels Exceeding 100 barrels—

  1

  0

  0

  For the first 100 barrels

  1

  0

  0

  For every further 50 barrels or fraction of 50 barrels

  0

  12

  0

  For the purposes of this scale, barrels may be taken at the option of the brewer either to be bulk barrels or standard barrels, and a standard barrel shall be taken to be 36 gallons of beer of an original gravity of 1055 degrees.
  Provisions Applicable to Manufacturers' Licences.
  1. A manufacturer's licence, except in the case of a licence to a brewer not for sale, authorises not only the manufacture of the liquor to which it applies in accordance with the licence, but also wholesale
  1374
  dealing (subject in the case of a spirit manufacturer's licence to the provisions of the Spirits Act, 1880) in any such liquor which is the produce of the manufacture of the holder of the licence at the premises where the liquor is manufactured, and elsewhere by the manufacturer or a servant or agent of the manufacturer if the liquor is supplied direct from the premises where it is manufactured.
  2. The occupier of a house of an annual value not exceeding eight pounds may brew beer solely for his own domestic use without taking out a manufacturer's licence.
  3. The duty on a manufacturer's licence granted in respect of a distillery or brewery in respect of which such a licence has not been in force at any time during the preceding year or in respect of which a licence has been in force but no spirits have been distilled or beer brewed under the licence during the preceding year, as the case may be, shall be the minimum duty payable under Scales 1 or 2, as the case may be, and where a manufacturer's licence has not been in force for a full year, the number of proof gallons distilled or the number of barrels brewed during the preceding year shall, for the purpose of payment of duty in the following year, be deemed to be a number bearing the same proportion to the number actually distilled or brewed as the whole year bears to the time for which the licence has been in force.
  4. For the purpose of the duties under Scales 1 and 2 the preceding year shall be taken to be the year ending the thirtieth

  B.—WHOLESALE DEALERS' LICENCES.

  Licence to be taken out annually by a wholesale dealer in

  Duty.

  Corresponding existing Licence.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1.

  Spirits

  …

  …

  …

  15

  15

  0

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

  2.

  Beer

  …

  …

  …

  10

  10

  0

  3.

  Wine

  …

  …

  …

  10

  10

  0

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

  4.

  Sweets

  …

  …

  …

  5

  5

  0

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

  Provisions Applicable to Wholesale Dealers' Licences.
  1. A wholesale dealer's licence authorises sale at any one time to one person of liquor in the following quantities, namely:—

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

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

  but not in any less quantities.
  2. A wholesale dealer's licence need not be taken out by the holder of a manufacturer's licence so far as respects the sale of liquor being the produce of the manufacture of the holder of the manufacturer's licence at the premises where the liquor is manufactured, and elsewhere by the manufacturer

  C.—RETAILERS' LICENCES.

  I.—On Licences.

  Licence to be taken out annually by a retailer of

  Duty.

  Corresponding existing Licence.

  1.

  Spirits (Publican's licence).

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

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

  2.

  Beer (Beerhouse licence).

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

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

  3.

  Cider

  Half the duty specified in Scale 4

  4.

  Wine

  Duty specified in Scale 4

  5.

  Sweets

  Half the duty specified in Scale 4

  day of June or such other day as the Commissioners may fix either generally or as respects any particular manufacturer.
  or a servant or agent of the manufacturer, if the liquor is supplied direct from the premises where it is manufactured.
  3. A person holding the licence to be taken out by a wholesale dealer in wine may deal wholesale in sweets as well as wine without taking out any further wholesale dealer's licence.
  4. Where a wholesale dealer's licence for the sale of any liquor is taken out by a person who is the holder of a licence authorising him to sell the same liquor by retail, the duty payable on the wholesale dealer's licence shall be reduced by fifty per cent. Provided that this provision shall not operate so as to reduce the total amount payable for the wholesale dealer's licence and the retailer's licence for any liquor below that payable for the wholesale dealer's licence alone.

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

  Population.

  Minimum Duty.

  Publican's Licence.

  Beerhouse Licence.

  In Great Britain—

  £

  s.

  £

  s.

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

  5

  0

  3

  10

  In urban areas with a population of—

  2,000 and less than 5,000

  10

  0

  6

  10

  5,000 and less than 10,000

  15

  0

  10

  0

  10,000 and less than 50,000

  20

  0

  13

  0

  50,000 and less than 100,000

  30

  0

  20

  0

  100,000 or above

  35

  0

  23

  10

  In Ireland—

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

  5

  0

  3

  10

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

  7

  10

  4

  0

  For the purposes of this scale an urban area means any county borough, borough, or other urban district; and the administrative county of London shall be deemed to be a single urban area; and population shall be calculated according to the last published census for the time being. The boroughs of Burslem, Hanley, Longton, and Stoke-upon-Trent, and the urban districts of Fenton and Tunstall, which, in pursuance of the Borough of Stoke-on-Trent Order, 1908, as confirmed by the Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1908, are, as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten, to form (subject to certain provisions as to differential

  II.—Off-Licences.

  Licence to be taken out annually by retailer of

  Duty.

  Corresponding existing Licence.

  1.

  Spirits

  …

  Duty specified in Scale 5.

  As respects England, the additional retail licence on which duty is payable under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 21, s. 1.

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

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

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

  2.

  Beer

  …

  Duty specified in Scale 6.

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

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

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

  the following scale and where the annual value of any licensed premises is less than the annual value to which the minimum duty corresponds, duty shall be charged as if the premises were of that annual value.
  rating and other matters to have effect for a period of twenty years) one borough to be called the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that Order, continue for the period of twenty years from the said date to be separate urban areas for the purposes of this scale.

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

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Under £30

  …

  …

  4

  10

  0

  £30 and under £50

  …

  …

  6

  0

  0

  £50 and under £100

  …

  …

  9

  0

  0

  £100 and over

  …

  …

  12

  0

  0

  1379

  Licence to be taken out annually by retailer of

  Duty.

  Corresponding existing Licence.

  3.

  Cider

  …

  £2

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

  4.

  Wine

  …

  Duty specified in Scale 7.

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

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

  Licence as a dealer in wine, on which duty is payable under 6 Geo. 4, c. 81, s. 2, so far as such a licence authorises sale by retail.

  5.

  Sweets

  …

  £2

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

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

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding £10

  …

  10

  0

  0

  Exceeding £10 and not exceeding £20

  …

  11

  10

  0

  Exceeding £20 and not exceeding £30

  …

  14

  0

  0

  Exceeding £30 and not exceeding £50

  …

  15

  0

  0

  Exceeding £50 and not exceeding £75

  …

  16

  0

  0

  Exceeding £75 and not exceeding £100

  …

  17

  10

  0

  Exceeding £100 and not exceeding £250

  …

  19

  0

  0

  Exceeding £250 and not exceeding £500

  …

  30

  0

  0

  Exceeding £500

  …

  50

  0

  0

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

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding £10

  …

  1

  10

  0

  Exceeding £10 and not exceeding £20

  …

  2

  0

  0

  Exceeding £20and not exceeding £30

  …

  2

  10

  0

  Exceeding £30 and not exceeding £50

  …

  3

  0

  0

  Exceeding £50and not exceeding £75

  …

  3

  10

  0

  Exceeding £75 and not exceeding £100

  …

  4

  0

  0

  Exceeding £100 and not exceeding £250

  …

  4

  10

  0

  Exceeding £250 and not exceeding £500

  …

  7

  0

  0

  Exceeding £500

  …

  10

  0

  0

  SCALE 7.—WINE RETAILER'S OFF-LICENCES.
  Annual value of licensed premises—

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding £20

  2

  10

  0

  Exceeding £20 but not exceeding £30

  3

  0

  0

  Exceeding £30 but not exceeding £50

  3

  10

  0

  Exceeding £50 but not exceeding £75

  4

  0

  0

  Exceeding £75 but not exceeding £100

  4

  10

  0

  Exceeding £100 but not exceeding £250

  5

  0

  0

  Exceeding £250 but not exceeding £500

  7

  0

  0

  Exceeding £500

  10

  0

  0

  Provisions Applicable, to Retailers' Licence.
  GENERAL.
  1. A retailer's licence authorises sale at any one time to one person of liquor in the following quantities, namely:—

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

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

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

  1381
  the premises exceeds five hundred pounds, a retailer's on-licence may be granted at the option of the licence holder on payment of an amount equal to one-third of the annual compensation value as certified for the purposes of this Act, and where that amount has not been certified for the purpose of the register to be prepared under this Act, the licence holder may require that amount to be so certified:
  Provided that—

  (a) the duty payable in pursuance of this provision shall not be less than two hundred and fifty pounds; and

  (b) where the annual compensation value has not been certified, the licence shall be granted on a provisional payment of the minimum duty payable under this provision, or of one-fifth of the full duty, whichever is the higher, and, upon the annual compensation value being certified, the duty shall be adjusted by the return of any overpayment or by the recovery, as a debt to His Majesty, of any sum by which the amount paid falls short of the amount which is found to be payable.

  This provision shall apply to premises, whatever their annual value, if they are structurally adapted for use as an hotel and are bonâ fide so used, and it is shown to the Commissioners that it is impracticable to obtain a reduction of duty in respect of the premises under the provisions of this Act enabling such a reduction to be obtained for hotels in certain cases, owing to the fact that visitors resort to the place where the premises are situated only during certain seasons of the year.
  In such a case, the minimum amount of duty payable shall be fifty pounds instead of two hundred and fifty pounds.
  4. The maximum amount of duty payable in respect of a retailer's on-licence granted to the proprietor or occupier of premises adapted to be and bonâ fide used only for any of the following purposes, namely, for judicial or public administrative purposes or as a theatre or place of public or private entertainment, or as public gardens, picture galleries, or exhibitions, or for any similar purpose to which the holding of the licence is merely auxiliary, shall, in the case of a theatre the annual value of which does not exceed two thousand pounds, be twenty pounds, and in any other case fifty pounds, but it shall be a condition of any such licence that intoxicating liquor is not sold under the licence except while the premises are open and being
  1382
  used, and to persons bonâ fide using the premises, for the said purposes.
  5. The maximum amount of duty payable in respect of a retailer's on-licence granted to the proprietor or occupier of premises adapted to be and bonâ fide used as refreshment rooms at a railway station shall be fifty pounds.
  6. Where any premises include a music hall or other similiar place of public entertainment (hereinafter referred to as a place of entertainment), a retailer's on-licence may be granted, at the option of the licence holder, on payment of a duty of fifty pounds, together with such sum as would be payable as duty under this Act on the part of the premises not used as the place of the entertainment if that part were a separate set of premises, but it shall be a condition of any such licence that intoxicating liquor is not sold under the licence in the place of entertainment except whilst that place is open and being used, and to persons bonâ fide using that place, as a place of entertainment.
  Provisions Applicable to Retailers' Off-Licences.
  1. A retailer's off-licence authorises the sale by retail of the liquor to which the licence extends for consumption off the premises only.
  2. A person holding the off-licence to be taken out by a retailer of spirits may not sell spirits in open vessels, or in England in any quantity less than one reputed quart bottle.
  3. A person holding the off-licence to be taken out by a retailer of wine may not sell wine in open vessels or in England or Ireland in any quantity less than one reputed pint bottle.

  D.—PASSENGER VESSEL LICENCES.

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

  Corresponding existing licence.

  Duty of £10.

  —

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

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

  Duty of £2.

  Provisions Applicable to Passenger Vessel Licences.
  1. A passenger vessel licence granted in respect of any vessel authorises the sale by retail while the vessel is engaged in carrying passengers of any intoxicating liquor on the vessel to passengers for consumtion on the vessel.
  2. A passenger vessel licence authorises the sale of tobacco as well as the sale of intoxicating liquor.
  3. In the event of any person to whom a passenger vessel's licence has been granted ceasing to be master of the vessel or to belong to the vessel, the licence may transferred to any person who is for the time being master of the vessel or is for the time being a person belonging to the vessel and nominated by the owner of the vessel for the purpose.
  4. In the event of the transfer of the vessel to some other owner, the licence granted under this Section shall cease to have effect as respects that vessel, but may, in that event and in the event of the loss of the vessel, be transferred, on the application of the owner of the vessel, to the master of some other vessel belonging to him or to some person belonging to such other vessel and nominated by the owner for the purpose.
  5. For the purpose of giving jurisdiction, any sale of liquor on a passenger vessel shall be deemed to have taken place either where it has actually taken place or in any place in which the vessel may be found.
  E.—RAILWAY RESTAURANT CAR LICENCES.
  Licence to be taken out annually in respect of a railway restaurant car by the railway company or other person owning the car—Duty of £1.
  Provisions Applicable to Railway Restaurant Car Licences.
  1. A licence for a railway restaurant car may be granted without the production of a justice's licence or certificate.
  2. A railway restaurant car licence granted in respect of a car in which passengers can be supplied with meals authorises the sale by retail to passengers on the car of any intoxicating liquor for consumption on the car.
  F.—OCCASIONAL LICENCES.
  Occasional licences granted under Section thirteen of the Revenue Act, 1862 (25 and 26 Vict. c. 22), Section twenty of the Revenue Act, 1863 (26 and 27 Vict. c. 33), and Section five of the Revenue Act, 1864 (27 and 28 Vict. c. 18).
  Duties:—

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

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

  Provisions Applicable to Occasional Licences.
  An occasional licence may be granted under Section five of the Revenue Act, 1864, for the sale of beer only in Scotland and Ireland as well as in England, and for the sale of wine only in Scotland as well as in England and Ireland; and any provisions relating to occasional licences shall apply accordingly.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER moved (in A.—Manufacturers' Licences—Spirits) to leave out the words: "Duty specified in Scale 1," and to insert instead thereof "£10."
  This Amendment is moved in order to take a Division as a protest against the first part of the Schedule. I do not intend to make a speech. So far as my hon. Friends are concerned, the Division will be accepted as settling this particular question.
  Mr. G. D. FABER Mr. G. D. FABER seconded the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words 'Duty specified in Scale 1,' stand part of the Schedule."
  The House divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 60.

  Division No. 866.]

  AYES.

  [3.35 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brooke, Stopford

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Barker, Sir John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Cross, Alexander

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

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clough, William

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Essex, R. W.

  Branch, James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Brigg, John

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roe, Sir Thomes

  Falconer, J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Maclean, Donald

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Seely, Colonel

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Shackleton, David James

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Massie, J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Mond, A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Toulmin, George

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Verney, F. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  Vivian, Henry

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hodge, John

  Myer, Horatio

  Walsh, Stephen

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Napier, T. B.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Waring, Walter

  Hudson, Walter

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pensonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rees, J. D.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Robinson, S.

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  NOES.

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

  Gretton, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Malley, William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Percy, Earl

  Boland, John

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Renwick, George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Keating, M.

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Ginnell, L.

  Mooney, J. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Younger and Mr. G. D. Faber.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Mr. YOUNGER Mr. YOUNGER had on the Paper an Amendment (in A.—Manufacturers' Licences—Beer), to leave out "Duty specified in Scale 2," and to insert instead thereof "£1."
  A number of similar Amendments stood upon the Paper.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The barrelage Amendments are out of order, as they would add to the charge on the Exchequer.
  Drafting Amendment made.
  Mr. GRETTON Mr. GRETTON moved (in B.—Wholesale Dealers' Licences—Beer), to leave out
  1386
  "£10 10s," and to insert instead thereof "£5 5s."
  This is a very important matter—to reduce the charge on wholesale beer dealers' licences. The subject has already been debated, and I do not propose to add to the arguments already used.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I second the Amendment.
  Question put, "That '£10 10s.' stand part of the Schedule."
  The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 59.

  Division No. 867.]

  AYES.

  [3.40 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nuttall, Harry

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hemmerdie, Edward George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Raring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff, Wald.)

  Barker, Sir John

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

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hodge, John

  Rees, J. D.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hooper, A. G.

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robinson, S.

  Branch, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Brigg, John

  Hudson, Walter

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brooke, Stopford

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Seely, Colonel

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Shackleton, David James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lamont, Norman

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Clough, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Seames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Maclean, Donald

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Verney, F. W.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Vivian, Henry

  Cross, Alexander

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Essex, R. W.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Waring, Walter

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Massie, J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Falconer, J.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wiles, Thomas

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Mond, A.

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Morrell, Philip

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Myer, Horatio

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Napier, T. B.

  NOES.

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Percy, Earl

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Boland, John

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Renwick, George

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Courthope, G. Lloyd

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

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Forster, Henry William

  Mooney, J. J.

  Younger, George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Amendment made: In Scale 2 (Provisions Applicable to Wholesale Dealers' Licences), paragraph 2, after the word "supplied"
  1388
  ["if the liquor is supplied"], to insert the words "to the purchaser."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (for Mr. Samuel Roberts)Mr. JAMES HOPE (for Mr. Samuel Roberts) moved, in Scale 2 (Retailers' On-Licences), to leave out the word's, "A duty equal to half the annual value of the licensed premises," and to insert instead thereof, "Duty specified in Scale 3."
  I desire, on behalf of my hon. Friend, to protest against the iniquitous proposals contained in these words. This is an example, if ever there was one, of giving a trade a bad name and then worrying it afterwards. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) tried to attenuate the injustice by pointing out that 84 per
  cent. of the licence holders would not feel this very acutely. Even on his own figures that means that on 16 per cent. this duty will press with extraordinary severity, and 16 per cent. means 19,000 persons in the licensed trade upon whom this excessive burden will fall. As many as 19,000 persons therefore will pay a taxation paid by no other class of the community.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 58.

  Division No. 868.]

  AYES.

  [3.52 p.m.

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Malley, William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

  Barker, Sir John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devenport)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Radford, G. H.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Hodge, John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rees, J. D.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Boland, John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robinson, S.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Branch, James

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Brooke, Stopford

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Seely, Colonel

  Byles, William Pollard

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Shackleton, David James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Clough, William

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Steadman, W. C.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Toulmin, George

  Crosfield, A. H.

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Cross, Alexander

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

  Vivian, Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Wadsworth, J.

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

  Mallet, Chas, E.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Essex, R. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Massie, J.

  Waring, Walter

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Falconer, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Mond, A.

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

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Myer, Horatio

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Napier, T. B.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Nuttall, Harry

  NOES.

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Carlile, E. Hildred

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

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renwick, George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Starkey, John R.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Younger, George

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Percy, Earl

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. Fell.

  Hills, J. W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. GRETTON Mr. GRETTON moved, in Scale 2 (C.—Retailers' On-Licences)—to leave out in the second column, relating to spirits (Publican's Licence) the words, "subject to the minimum duty payable under Scale 3."
  I do so because the Government have not been able to give any satisfactory explanation
  of this proposal which will bring about a most glaring injustice.
  Mr. CARLILE Mr. CARLILE seconded the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The House divided: Ayes. 168; Noes, 55.

  Division No. 869.]

  AYES.

  [4.0 p.m.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Massie, J.

  Barker, Sir John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Barnes, G. N.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mond, A.

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morrell, Philip

  Boland, John

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Branch, James

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Brigg, John

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Napier, T. B.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nussey, Sir Wilians

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hodge, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Malley, William

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Idris, T. H. W.

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

  Clough, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Radford, G. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rees, J. D.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

  Cross, Alexander

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Robinson, S.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Essex, R. W.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Falconer, J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Seely, Colonel

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Shackleton, David James

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Glendinning, R. G.

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Verney, F. W.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Vivian, Henry

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wadsworth, J.

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  Stewart Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Waring, Walter

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Toulmin, George

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

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  NOES.

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renwick, George

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Starkey, John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston-Manor)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Arthur, Charles

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gretton and Mr. G. D. Faber.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Mr. G. A. GIBBS (for Mr. S. Roberts)Mr. G. A. GIBBS (for Mr. S. Roberts) moved, in Scale 2 (C.—Retailers' On-Licences), to leave out in the second column relating to beer (beerhouse licence), the words: "A duty equal to a third of the annual value of the licensed premises, subject to the minimum duty payable under Scale 3," and to insert instead
  thereof the words "Duty specified in Scale 4."
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESS Mr. RUPERT GUINNESS seconded the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 57.

  Division No. 870.]

  AYES.

  [4.10 p.m.

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hodge, John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cross, Alexander

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barker, Sir John

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Essex, R. W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Falconer, J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Ferens, T. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Boland, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lamont, Norman

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Branch, James

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Brigg, John

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Lynch, H. B.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Mackarness, Frederick C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Maclean, Donald

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  M'Callum, John M.

  Clough, William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

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

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Massie, J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mond, A.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Toulmin, George

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rees, J. D.

  Verney, F. W.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Vivian, Henry

  Morrell, Philip

  Robinson, S.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen

  Myer, Horatio

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Waring, Walter

  Napier, T. B.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seely, Colonel

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shackleton, David James

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

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  O'Malley, William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  NOES.

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Renwick, George

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hills, J. W.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Kimber, Sir H.

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Forster, Henry William

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. A. Gibbs and Mr. Rupert Guinness.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Percy, Earl

  Mr. G. A. GIBBS Mr. G. A. GIBBS moved, in Scale 3, after "5,000 and not less than 10,000, £15, £10," to insert "10,000 and not less than 30,000, £17 10s., £11 10s."
  I moved this Amendment in Committee, and I understood from the Chancellor of the Duchy that he was going to consider this question before the Report stage. I have another Amendment in the next line to leave out the figures "10,000" and to insert "30,000," so as to make the next step from 30,000 to 50,000 instead of 10,000 to 50,000. The proposal is made with a view of making the scale more gradual and fairer in every way.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE Mr. JAMES HOPE seconded the Amendment.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The hon. Gentleman is quite under a misapprehension if he suggests that I held out any hope whatever that his Amendment would be accepted. On the contrary, I said it would cause anomaly in the scale and the
  1396
  introduction of a rise of £2 10s. would be quite inconsistent with the other portions of the scale.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. LUPTON Mr. LUPTON moved, at the end of Scale 2, to add the words "and, in the case of the borough of Wenlock, the sanitary divisions shall be the area upon which the population shall be calculated upon which the minimum duty shall be based instead of the borough as a whole."
  The borough of Wenlock is the largest in area in the United Kingdom. It is more than 20,000 acres, and the population is considerably less than one person per acre, and therefore there is very considerable reason for reducing the size of the borough for the purpose of the minimum scale.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I beg to second the Amendment. The borough is 10 miles long by 4 broad, and it is mostly agricultural, and very sparsely populated. The

  1397
  whole population is only 15,000. As the Bill now stands it will be as if the licensed houses were situated in a town of 49,000 inhabitants. There are four sanitary divisions in the borough. The exceptional nature of the borough was recognised by an exception in the Education Act of 1870 and in the Local Government Act of 1888. I was given to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to look into the matter as the injustice of it, as it is now, cannot possibly be denied.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: When the matter was discussed in Committee, I said at the time that as then advised I could not accept the Amendment, but that I would look into any additional facts or figures that any hon. Member might send me, and consider whether they would justify the wholly exceptional treatment for which this town asks. Some figures have been supplied to me, but in the opinion of the Government they quite fail to establish an exceptional case. Of course, every town which covers a considerable area, and there are many such, would wish to be assessed for the purpose of the minimum Licence Duty, as though its separate Divisions were separate towns. If we accepted the borough of Wenlock, immediately a claim would be raised on behalf of Merthyr Tydvil, which is eight miles long, and if that is accepted, the next place will ask to come in, and it would be found totally impossible to draw any line. The previous Acts to which the hon. Member referred have not dealt with analagous matters. The hon. Member said, although the population was 15,000, it would be dealt with as if it were 40,000. The population, being 15,000, comes in the part of the scale which covers all towns between 10,000 and 50,000. The difference it would make is not very considerable. In the case of beerhouses it would make £3 difference each and in the case of public-houses about £9 each. In the view of the Government there is no reason for this exception. The case of the pottery towns is quite different. There a differentiation in the finances is maintained for a period of 20 years. All through their finances—rates and debt—are treated separately. The difference which this would make to these places would be many thousands of pounds, and therefore we have inserted Amendments to the effect that as their accounts are treated separately for a period of 20 years so long should they be treated separately for the purpose of this scale. The same considerations do not apply in other cases.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. YOUNGER Mr. YOUNGER moved, in Scale 7 (Wine Retailers' Off-Licences—Provisions applicable to retailers' licences), at the end of paragraph 1, to leave out the words "but not in any larger quantities."
  I was not here myself at the time, but I understand that when this matter came before the Committee the right hon. Gentleman stated that he was not sure about the law. His impression was that while English licence holders could not sell larger quantities, the Scotch licence covered larger sales. In the north of Scotland in particular, where there is great competition between local traders, it would be rather hard upon them if they could not supply ordinary quantities of beer as in the past. If they could not do so, people would go to other establishments where they could get liquor and other supplies.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not recollect that I said anything about being in doubt as to the law when the Bill was in Committee. I have, however, made inquiries, and undoubtedly it is the intention of this Clause—it has always been the acknowledged intention of it—to restrict the Scotch grocer who does not take out a wholesale licence to retail trade. That has been the basis of all the negotiations which have taken place between the representatives of the Government and the representatives of the Scotch and Irish licensed grocers. One of the great virtues of this Schedule is that it does simplify the whole licensing system which has been entangled and complicated. One of the chief purposes is to draw a line between wholesale and retail licences, and to reduce to a minimum the overlapping which has hitherto prevailed. If these words were omitted from the Schedule, the whole of this part of the scheme would be spoiled. The Government cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. YOUNGER: This is a very important alteration in the law which the licenced grocers feel very keenly.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question of quantities has always been dealt with in Finance Bills.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The House divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 53.

  Division No. 871.]

  AYES.

  [4.30 p.m.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Malley, William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Barker, Sir John

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

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Hodge, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Boland, John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rees, J. D.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Branch, James

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robinson, S.

  Brigg, John

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Brooke, Stopford

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Byles, William Pollard

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Seely, Colonel

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lamont, Norman

  Shackleton, David James

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Clough, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Lynch, H. B.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Maclean, Donald

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cross, Alexander

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Verney, F. W.

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

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

  Vivian, Henry

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Elibank, Master of

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Essex, R. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Waring, Walter

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Massie, J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Falconer, J.

  Mond, A.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ferens, T. R.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Myer, Horatio

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Napier, T. B.

  Young, Samuel

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  NOES.

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Renton, Leslie

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hills, J. W.

  Renwick, George

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

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

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fell, Arthur

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Younger and Mr. G. D. Faber.

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Percy, Earl

  Mr. BARNARD Mr. BARNARD moved, in Scale 7 (Provisions Applicable to Retailers' On-Licences), paragraph 3, to leave out the words "where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the annual value of the premises exceeds five-hundred pounds."
  I understand that paragraph 3 of this Schedule is intended to apply to the bigger houses on a certain method which will enable them to pay, in the first instance, a portion of the amount required from them, and which subsequently will enable them to adjust the figure when it is discovered under the proposed method of calculating the licence value. I hope the Government will allow this to apply to all licensed houses, because I think the smaller ones will suffer very materially during the first year unless that is done. If this adjustment is permitted to apply to the bigger houses, the injustice to the smaller ones will be much greater. Those who own the larger houses are in possession of a greater amount of capital than the people who have the smaller houses, who would be in a particularly bad position. I am not attacking any principle; I am simply asking that these small people should not be made to pay a larger sum during the first year, but if under this method of adjustment they are called upon to do so, I think there should be an understanding
  that, when the adjustment is made, the money will be returned to them.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Mr. JOHN GRETTON (for Mr. Clavell Salter)Mr. JOHN GRETTON (for Mr. Clavell Salter) moved, in Scale 7 (Provisions Applicable to Retailers' On-Licences), paragraph 3, to leave out "one-third" ["amount equal to one-third"], and to insert instead thereof "one-fourth."
  The reason I move this is so that this may be made of some value as a concession. It has been shown over and over again that this concession is of no real value, and that in many cases it would result in a considerable loss. In some cases the option is very much higher than the amount proposed in the Bill. I move to reduce the amount from one-third to one-fourth, so that the Government may carry out what they expressed as their intention towards the large houses not only in London, but in the other parts of the country.
  Colonel WALKER Colonel WALKER seconded the Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government could not possibly accept this Amendment. It would mean an enormous reduction of revenue. It would reduce the revenue from the houses which took this option by 25 per cent.
  Question put, "That the words 'one-third' stand part of the Schedule."
  The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 50.

  Division No. 872.]

  AYES.

  [4.45 p.m.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hodge, John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Barker, Sir John

  Cross, Alexander

  Hooper, A. G.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hudson, Walter

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Elibank, Master of

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Essex, R. W.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Boland, John

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Branch, James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Brigg, John

  Falconer, J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Ferens, T. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lament, Norman

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Cheetham John Frederick

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Maclean, Donald

  Clough, William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Compton Rickett, Sir J.

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

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Massie, J.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rees, J. D.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Toulmin, George

  Mond, A.

  Robinson, S.

  Verney, F. W.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Vivian, Henry

  Morrell, Philip

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wadsworth, J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophes

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentwood)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Myer, Horatio

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

  Waring, Walter

  Napier, T. B.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Sears, J. E.

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seely, Colonel

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shackleton, David James

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  O'Malley, William

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Steadman, W. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Norton and Mr. Whitley.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  NOES.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Percy, Earl

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Renton, Leslie

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renwick, George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Starkey, John R.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kimber, Sir H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fell, Arthur

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gretton and Colonel Walker.

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Drafting Amendments made.
  Mr. GRETTON Mr. GRETTON moved, in Scale 7 (Provisions Applicable to Retailers' On-Licences), paragraph (a), after the word "pounds" ["less than two hundred and fifty pounds"], to insert the words, "in the case of fully-licensed premises, or in the case of a beerhouse one hundred and sixty-six pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence."
  I understand the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would like to explain that we accept this Amendment because it is right in principle, and some day may be useful. We are not aware of beerhouses which are of £500 value. There may be one or two.
  Amendment made.
  Mr. GRETTON Mr. GRETTON moved, in the same scale (Provisions Applicable to Retailers' On-Licences), paragraph 3, to leave out the word "only" ["are situated only during certain seasons"], and to insert instead thereof the word "mainly."
  I propose this alteration, which is only a drafting Amendment, because I am
  1404
  advised that if the word "only" stands part of the Bill the result will be that the hotel will have to close absolutely after the season in order to maintain the advantages of this reduction. If the word "mainly" is inserted you could keep premises open for occasional business. I do not think it is the intention of the Government to penalise hotels for keeping open for occasional visitors, who are certainly not any great source of profit.
  Colonel WALKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member describes this as a drafting Amendment, but it is one which if accepted would cost the Revenue thousands of pounds. If this Amendment were made the result would be that every hotel in every seaside resort would say, "We have more visitors at one period of the year than others, and our liquor sales are larger at one time than at another." They would at once apply for the benefit of this exemption, and the effect would be that a great number of houses which would not have one-third liquor receipts if they

  1405
  traded as genuine hotels, would receive the benefit of an exemption not intended to meet their case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL moved in Scale 7 (Provisions Applicable to Retailers' On-Licences) paragraph 4, to leave out the words "in any other case fifty pounds," and to insert instead thereof the the words "thirty pounds in the case of premises of an annual value not exceeding one hundred pounds, and in any other such case fifty pounds."
  There has been a suggestion made to the Government within the last few days that the minimum duty to be imposed upon these seasonal hotels of £50 is, in cases of the smallest of them, more than they could pay. These representations have been carefully considered, supported as they have been by details, and the consequence is that the Government, being anxious to avoid cases of hardship, propose this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment also made.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.
  TOBACCO.

    PART I.—CUSTOMS DUTIES.
    Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.:—
    Containing 10 lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof:—

    s.

    d.

    Unstripped

    the lb.

    3

    8

    Stripped

    the lb.

    3

    8½

    Containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof—

    s.

    d.

    Unstripped

    the lb.

    4

    1

    Stripped

    the lb.

    4

    1½

    Upon tobacco manufactured, viz:—

    s.

    d.

    Cigars

    the lb.

    7

    0

    Cigarettes

    the lb.

    5

    8

    Cavendish or Negrohead

    the lb.

    5

    4

    Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond

    the lb.

    4

    8

    Other manufactured tobacco

    the lb.

    4

    8

    Snuff containing more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof

    the lb.

    4

    5

    Snuff not containing more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight there of

    the lb.

    5

    4

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

    s.

    d.

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

    the lb.

    3

    6

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

    the lb.

    3

    11

    Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.:—

    Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond

    the lb.

    4

    8

    PART III.—RATES OF DRAWBACK.
    s.

    d.

    Cigars

    the lb.

    4

    2

    Cigarettes

    the lb.

    4

    1

    Cut, roll, cake, or other manufactured tobacco

    the lb.

    4

    0

    Snuff (not being offal snuff)

    the lb.

    3

    10

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

    the lb.

    3

    9

    Mr. HUNT Mr. HUNT moved, in Part I. (Customs Duties), to leave out "3s. 8d.," and to insert instead thereof "3s. 0d."
    This increased duty on tobacco imposes another burden upon the working classes. There is not a particle of excuse for this proposition under a Free Trade system. Tobacco is just as much a raw material as either grain or meat, and it is used by the great majority of the working men of this country. The working people are paying this very heavy tax to the Government instead of being able to spend it on their food and clothes. In the case of tobacco I agree with hon. Members opposite that the consumers in this country practically pay the whole of the tax. This tax falls hard on the poor man, because, although he cannot afford to spend so much on tobacco as the rich man, under our system, he pays several times more in proportion to the value of the tobacco smoked than the rich man, and this tax will increase and make worse that inequality. The poor man pays from five to eight times as much duty as the rich man. When a working man buys an ounce of tobacco at 3½d he pays at least 2¾d. taxation. It is really more, because the manufacturers add water to the tobacco to make it heavier. This is a tax of 600 per cent. on what is practically a necessity to the working man. No doubt next week hon. Gentlemen will go all over the country and from hundreds of platforms tell the

    1407
    people that under a Liberal policy there are no taxes on raw material and food, but that is what some people would call an inexactitude. No one can get up and justify this tax of 600 per cent. on a raw material. We are told that the Liberals do not tax raw material, but we all know how heavily food grown in this country is taxed. I hope, at all events, that in future years we on this side of the House shall be able to reduce this taxation on tobacco.
    Mr. CHARLES M'ARTHUR Mr. CHARLES M'ARTHUR seconded the Amendment.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will not follow the hon. Member into the dissertation he has raised as to the merits or demerits of Free
    Trade, but I should like to point out that the mere differentiation which he proposes, if it is intended to stimulate the importation of unstripped tobacco, would have this effect that, inasmuch as unstripped tobacco contains a higher percentage of moisture than stripped tobacco, there would be much more paid on the water that comes into the country than at this moment. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman thinks that would be to the advantage of the trade, but that is the reason why the Government cannot accept this proposal.
    Question put, "That 6s. 8d. stand part of the Schedule."
    The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 56.

    Division No. 873.]

    AYES.

    [5.14 p.m.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Myer, Horatio

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Napier, T. B.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Beauchamp, E.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rees, J. D.

    Branch, James

    Hodge, John

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

    Brigg, John

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Robinson, S.

    Brodie, H. C.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Brooke, Stopford

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentwood)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jackson, R. S.

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

    Byles, William Pollard

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Seely, Colonel

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Shackleton, David James

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Clough, William

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Compton Rickett, Sir J.

    Lamont, Norman

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Stanger, H. Y.

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

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Steadman, W. C.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Lynch, H. S.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Verney, F. W.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Maclean, Donald

    Vivian, Henry

    Cross, Alexander

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Wadsworth, J.

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

    M'Callum, John M.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

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

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

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

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Essex, R. W.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Marnham, F. J.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Massie, J.

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Micklem, Nathaniel

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

    Falconer, J.

    Melteno, Percy Alport

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Ferens, T. R.

    Mond, A.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Morrell, Philip

    Norton and Mr. Whitley.

    NOES.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cave, George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Forster, Henry William

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Boland, John

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Fell, Arthur

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

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

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Starkey, John R.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Heaton, John Henniker

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Hills, J. W.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    O'Malley, William

    Younger, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Kimber, Sir H.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hunt and Mr. M'Arthur.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Renton, Leslie

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Mr. M'ARTHUR Mr. M'ARTHUR moved, after the words "Stripped—the lb.," to leave out the figures "3s. 8½d.," and to insert instead thereof "3s. 6½d."
    The Amendment is intended to deal with a point which is very important, and which has already been brought before the Government by the trade. As I understand it has been promised consideration, and I hope it will be favourably considered. I assume that the object is that the manufacturers and retailers shall be able to collect from the consumer what they have to pay to the revenue in the shape of increased duties. The manufacturer, when he gets his tobacco out of bond, pays 8½d., and the consumer pays the 8½d. in the in creased price of his tobacco. But that 8½d. does not find its way back whole into the pocket of the manufacturer, for this reason: that it becomes part of the price, and so becomes liable to the ordinary trade charges, and therefore it is subject to deduction, There is the customary trade discount, loss of interest on the capital which is locked up in the additional duty, and there is the manufacturer's profit, which is 10 per cent., and that makes the 2d. which forms the difference between the duty as proposed and the duty to which I seek to have it reduced. Unless that is done the manufacturer will be in this position—that he will have paid 8½d. and will only have got back 6½d.; or, putting it another way, if he has got back 8½d., he has foregone his ordinary profit and discount. The Secretary to the Treasury intimated last night that this would be made good to the manufacturer and retailer through the addition of moisture. Let me read one sentence from the report of the London Chamber of Commerce. They say:—
    "Moisture added to tobacco is a process of manufacture only applied to the very common grades. The better class tobacco, cigarettes and cigars do not contain any added moisture whatever, so it will be seen that the moisture question only affects a portion of the business and does not take into account the compensation for increase in the duty."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE Mr. JAMES HOPE seconded the Amendment.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman has explained that the principle involved was the same as that which underlay the Amendment which he moved this afternoon. The arguments which I could place before the House in refutation of his proposals would be exactly the same as those which I laid before the House before. He says it is impossible for the trade to recover the 8½d., and he says on the finer grades of tobacco and cigars no moisture is added on sale. I go further than that. I pointed out last night that in the case of cigars, not only is moisture not added, but moisture is taken away. The amount of money involved in this proposal is something like £500,000. I have only to say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to move, at the end of the Schedule, to add the following words: "Except in the case of tobacco grown in any part of the British Empire, which shall pay the same duty only as at present."
    I would point out that this exemption would benefit the tobacco industry in India and Borneo, but, above all, it would give assistance with respect to the tobacco cultivated in Nyassaland, Uganda, and the Transvaal. There is an increasing amount of tobacco grown in Nyassaland, and I believe it is considered very good. This is an industry that requires encouragement. Traders in this country find it very uphill work to push any new brand of tobacco. The men who are opening up Nyassaland should be encouraged by any means in our power in developing an industry which is one of the most profitable when carried out on a large scale. This Amendment would give them a small benefit.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. Member will not expect us to debate this again. We had a full Debate on it in Committee. We know his views on the matter. We cannot accept the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there added to the Schedule."

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—TOBACCO.

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

  s.

  d.

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

  Unstripped

  the lb.

  3

  8

  Stripped

  the lb.

  3

  8½

  The House divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 129.

  Division No. 874.]

  AYES.

  [5.30 p.m.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cave, George

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Renton, Leslie

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Younger, George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hunt and Mr. Fell.

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Napier, T. B.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

  Barnard, E. B.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Rees, J. D.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Robinson, S.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Branch, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hodge, John

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jackson, R. S.

  Seely, Colonel

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Clough, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Steadman, W. C.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Vivian, Henry

  Cox, Harold

  Lynch, H. B.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Cross, Alexander

  Maclean, Donald

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  M'Micking, Major G.

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

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wills, Arthur Waiters

  Elibank, Master of

  Massie, J.

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mond, A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Falconer, J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof—

  s.

  d.

  Unstripped

  the lb.

  4–1

  Stripped

  the lb.

  4

  1½

  Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.:—

  Cigars

  the lb.

  7

  0

  Cigarettes

  the lb.

  5

  8

  Cavendish or Negrohead

  the lb.

  5

  4

  s.

  d.

  Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond

  the lb.

  4

  8

  Other manufactured tobacco

  the lb.

  4

  8

  Snuff containing more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof

  the lb.

  4

  5

  Snuff not containing more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof

  the lb.

  5

  4

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

  s.

  d.

  Tobacco containing 10 lb. or more of moisture in every 100 lb. weight thereof

  the lb.

  3

  6

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

  the lb.

  3

  11

  Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.:—

  Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond

  the lb.

  4

  8

  PART III.—RATES OF DRAWBACK.
  s.

  d.

  Cigars

  the lb.

  4

  2

  Cigarettes

  the lb.

  4

  1

  Cut, roll, cake, or other manufactured tobacco

  the lb.

  4

  0

  Snuff (not being offal snuff)

  the lb.

  3

  10

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

  the lb.

  3

  9

  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN moved, in Part II. (Excise Duties) to leave out "3s. 6d." ["Tobacco containing 10 pounds or more of moisture in every 100 pounds' weight thereof, the pound 3s. 6d."], and to insert instead thereof "3s. 4d."
  I do not propose, unless it be necessary, to Divide on the Amendment. Irish tobacco is charged 3s. 6d. a pound as against other foreign tobacco, which is charged 3s. 8d. The difference of 2d. is a concession by the Treasury, but the Irish grower is under an admitted disability owing to the regulations which the Excise imposes for its own protection. My contention is that the 2d. does not cover the compensation that is due to the Irish grower or manufacturer, owing to these restrictions, and we say that it should be 3s. 4d. The Financial Secretary, in the course of the discussion, indicated that he
  1414
  was prepared to lessen the burden imposed by these complex restrictions. Of course, if that pledge were definitely made it might very largely meet our case. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us such a pledge, and if the Treasury can keep an open mind on the question of compensation where the growers can make out a case, then I do not think it would be necessary to go to a Division.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is true that last night I stated that if there were undue restrictions caused by any of the regulations, we should—without causing undue loss, or undue possibility of loss to the Exchequer—see whether those regulations could be relaxed. I am very glad to repeat that assurance this afternon. I do not think anything can be more explicit than that. But when the hon. Gentleman goes on to ask me to keep an open mind with respect to the 2d., which makes the difference between the Customs and the Excise revenues, and asks that the 2d. shall be increased to 4d., then I am afraid my mind is not open on that subject. I am afraid, however important we consider the relaxations we consider as still more important the proposed suggested alteration from twopence to fourpence. I reminded him previously that twopence in the case of the ordinary average acre produced in the average crop of tobacco something like £8 per acre. I do not think he would expect me to decrease the amount by that sum.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MORTON: I have an Amendment on the Paper to provide for the benefit of the rebate in the case where the motor is used for goods and for passengers. I am pleased to say the Government have met us in this matter in a subsequent Amendment. I desire to thank them, on behalf of those who use those motors in the poorer districts where they cannot afford to have separate motors for goods and passengers.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.

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

  (1) To a motor car which is constructed or adapted for use, and is used solely, for the conveyance of any goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry, and whereon the Christian name and surname and place of abode

  1415
  or place of business of the person, or the name or style and principal or only place of business of the company or firm keeping the same, shall be legibly and visibly painted in letters of not less than one inch in length.

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

  (3) To a motor car kept by a duly qualified medical practitioner while it is being used by him for the purposes of his profession.

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

  £

  s.

  d.

  Motor bicycles and motor tricycles, of whatever horse power

  1

  0

  0

SIXTH SCHEDULE.

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED.
  Amendment made: To insert

  36 Geo. 3, c. 52

  …

  …

  The Legacy Duty Act, 1796

  In Section fourteen, so far as it applies to objects which appear to the Treasury to be of national, scientific, historic, or artistic interest, the words from "and given to" to "persons in succession"; the word "so," where it secondly occurs; the words from "not having any power, to "property yielding an income"; the words from "or shall come" to "having an absolute interest therein"; the word "same," where it fifthly occurs; the words from "as if the same had been" to "or dispose thereof"; and the words from "or who shall have" to "an absolute interest therein."

  54 Geo. 3, c. 92

  …

  …

  The Probate and Legacy Duties (Ireland) Act, 1814

  In Section fifteen, so far as it applies to objects which appear to the Treasury to be of national, scientific, historic, or artistic interest, the words from "and given to" to "persons in succession"; the word "so," where it secondly occurs; the words from "not having any power" to "property yielding an income"; the words from "or shall come" to "having an absolute interest therein"; the word "same," where it fifthly occurs; the words from "as if the same had been" to "or dispose thereof"; and the words from "or who shall have" to "an absolute interest therein."—[Sir W. Robson.]

  Motor cars—

  Not exceeding 6½ horse power

  2

  2

  0

  Exceeding 6½, but not exceeding 12 h.p.

  3

  3

  0

  Exceeding 12 but not exceeding 16 h.p.

  4

  4

  0

  Exceeding 16 but not exceeding 26 h.p.

  6

  6

  0

  Exceeding 26 but not exceeding 33 h.p.

  8

  8

  0

  Exceeding 33 but not exceeding 40 h.p.

  10

  10

  0

  Exceeding 40 but not exceeding 60 h.p.

  21

  0

  0

  Exceeding 60

  42

  0

  0

  Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE moved, in Part I., after paragraph (2), to insert: "(3) To a, motor car which is constructed or adapted for use or is used partly for the conveyance of any goods or burden in the course of trade or industry, and partly as a motor cab, motor omnibus, or other vehicle being a hackney carriage within the meaning of Section 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, standing or plying for hire."
  Amendment made.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS Sir SAMUEL EVANS moved to leave out

  3 & 4 Vict. c. 61

  …

  The Beerhouse Act, 1840

  Section one, from "to any person" to "licensed nor shall any such licence be granted."

  I move this as it has been represented to me that this alteration is necessary having regard to a previous alteration.
  Mr. GEORGE CAVE: This is a rather serious Amendment to move at the last moment. I do not think anyone raised a point of Order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I raised a point of Order, on the ground that the repeal of this particular statute did not follow necessarily upon some enactment which

  16 & 17 Vict. c. 51

  …

  The Succession Duty Act, 1853

  Section twenty-three, except as respects persons dying before the passing of this Act.

  To leave out 57 & 58 Vict. c. 30.

  …

  The Finance Act, 1896

  Sub-section (5) of Section seven, from "Provided that" to the end of the Subsection, and paragraph 5 of the First Schedule, except as respects property passing on the death of persons dying before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine.

  To insert 59 & 60 Vict. c. 28

  …

  The Finance Act, 1896

  In Section twenty, the words from "and is settled" to "by different persons"; the words "by a person not competent to dispose of the same"; the words "or is in the possession of some person who is then competent to dispose of the same"; the words "and also the person being in possession and competent to dispose of the same"; and the words from "and in the case" to the end of the Section, except as respects persons dying before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine.—[Sir W. Robson.]

  To leave out 2 Edw. 7, c. 28

  …

  The Licensing Act, 1902

  Section twenty-two.—[Sir Samuel Evans.]

  Bill to be read the third time on Tuesday next (2nd November).

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL. [Lords.]
Considered in Committee. Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Eleven minutes before Six o'clock.
had gone before; and the Solicitor-General stated that he could not say that, however desirable this repeal might be, it actually and directly followed upon an enactment which had been passed in the Bill. Therefore I took exception to it, and the Solicitor-General has moved to strike it cut.
Amendment made.
Further Amendments made:
To insert

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week, and were ordered to lie on the Table:—
MONDAY.
Finance Bill—Petition from Aston, against.
WEDNESDAY.
Burial Places (Exemption from Rates) (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Dundee, in favour.
THURSDAY.
Finance Bill—Petition from Royston, against.
FRIDAY.
Finance Bill—Petition from Aldrington, Burgess Hill, Cardiff, Horsted Keynes, and Lindfield, against.
  Portsmouth Harbour Defences (Submerged Blocks).
  Portsmouth Harbour Defences (Submerged Blocks).
  Royal Navy (Manning Requirements).
  Royal Navy (Manning Requirements).
  Ordnance Survey (Dublin Office).
  Ordnance Survey (Dublin Office).
  Parliamentary Papers (Postal Re-direction).
  Parliamentary Papers (Postal Re-direction).
  British Guiana.
  British Guiana.
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Connell Cannon Estate, County Fermanagh
  Connell Cannon Estate, County Fermanagh
  Officials (Ireland).
  Officials (Ireland).
  National University, Ireland.
  National University, Ireland.
  Old Age Pensions (Proof of Age).
  Old Age Pensions (Proof of Age).
  Land Purchase Advances (Mr. E. Hardy, Cranna, Tynagh).
  Land Purchase Advances (Mr. E. Hardy, Cranna, Tynagh).