|Beer (Beerhouse licence).||A duty equal to a third of the annual value of the licensed premises, subject to the minimum duty payable under Scale 3.|
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS
I beg to move to leave out the words in the second column, and to insert instead thereof "Duty specified in Scale 4."
In moving the Amendment I shall endeavour to act in the spirit of what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now. We on this side of the House will do our best, as we have done during the past few days, to promote business. Beerhouses stand on quite a different footing from fully-licensed houses. There are a large number of them in the country, and their case deserves certainly as much consideration from the Government as that of the fully-licensed houses. In the first place, there is a fixed duty of £3 10s. on all the beerhouses, whatever their annual value may be. That fact differentiates them from the fully-licensed houses which at present have Licence Duty fixed according to a scale of their annual value. Our case is this: We say that no further duty ought to be exacted on these beerhouses, but that, if there is to be a further duty, the duty proposed by the Government of one-third of the annual value is far too high. My scale, while moderate, does increase the £3 10s. to which they are at present liable; but, at the same time, it is very much more in their favour than that of the Government. May I give a few figures comparing the duty under the scale I am proposing with the duty they will have to pay under the scale in the Bill? The duty on a £20 house under my scale would be £4 a year as against £6 13s. 4d. under the scale in the Bill; on a £50 house £10, as against £16 13s. 4d.; on a £100 house £17 10s., as against £33 6s. 8d.; on a £150 house £22 10s., as against £50; on a £200 house £25, as against £66 13s. 4d.; on a £300 house £30, as against £100. I think my scale is a reasonable one. The number of beerhouses in England and Wales is 29,419, but of these 25,985, or 80 per cent., are pre-1869 beerhouses.
2007 I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to state shortly what the history of these old beerhouses is. They were created under an Act of Parliament which was passed in 1830. Up to that time for 300 years the policy of Parliament had always been that houses where beer was retailed should have a licence issued by the justices. A grievance had come to pass, the quality of the beer supplied by those engaged in the trade having deteriorated, while the price had risen very much indeed. The effect of this was that people had got into the habit of drinking spirits to an extent more than was considered desirable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1830, in moving for a Committee to inquire into the state of the law with respect to the sale of beer, said:—It had been shown by previous inquiries that the present system of licensing had given rise more or less to a degree of monopoly in the beer trade, which had produced two evils, one, a deterioration in the quality of beer; two, an enhancement of its price, both of which were, in effect, a severe tax on the poorer classes. Both these he hoped to remedy, but he begged to be understood as not at all yielding to the imputations thrown upon a wealthy and respectable class of individuals engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer; the fault, if fault there was, was the fault of the law. His view was that by opening the trade the means of consuming beer would be extended, and that no injury would be inflicted upon the brewer, while an important benefit would be conferred on the public; and he was convinced that the apprehensions felt by many persons interested in the present system, when any alteration was spoken of, would turn out to be unfounded.Under that provision any householder whose name was on the rate book was authorised to sell beer free from any control after obtaining a licence from the justices on the payment annually of an Excise Licence of two guineas. The preamble of the Bill of 1830 is in the following terms:—Whereas it is expedient for the better supplying the public with beer in England to give greater facilities for the sale thereof than are at present afforded by licences to keepers of inns, alehouses, and victualling-houses, be it therefore enacted…The immediate effect of the passing of that law was that no fewer than 24,342 persons paid £2 2s. and took out licences to sell beer. Fifty beer shops were opened in Liverpool alone every day of the week for several weeks. This went on for a considerable number of years, and by the year 1869 the number of beerhouses had reached about 50,000. In 1869 Parliament decided that the whole of these licences must come under the jurisdiction of the licensing justices. When doing that they admitted that these ante-1869 beerhouses had got a vested interest, because they had been created on the invitation 2008 of Parliament for a public policy, and therefore they were entitled to the consideration of Parliament. Therefore it was enacted that the licences should not be taken away from those old beerhouses unless in cases of misconduct, or of the houses not being proper. That was the position in 1869. The only alteration which now obtains is the alteration created under the Act of 1904 by my right hon. Friend and Leader (Mr. Balfour), in which they were brought under the general principle that if they were redundant licences the justices should be entitled to suppress them on payment of the whole compensation. That is the position of these beerhouses at present. Whatever their annual value may be they are all paying only £3 10s. per year. I am not able to tell the Committee exactly the numbers according to rateable value, because no statistics are shown, but I find that in the county of London alone there are nine of these beerhouses of upwards of £300 annual value, and there is one in the City of £800 annual value. In the former case these nine houses in London which now pay £3 10s. would have to pay a duty of £110, and the house in the City would have to pay £266 a year, and £12 more on account of taking out a wine licence, against £4 which it is paying at present. But the case of these beerhouses is very much accentuated by the minimum duty imposed by this Bill. The minimum duty is most oppressive in the large towns of over 100,000 inhabitants, namely, the limit of £23 10s., which is going to create a very great grievance. I have taken three cases to show the Committee the effect of the proposed increase. In Bristol the increase of duty will be from £1,737 to no less than £11,026, or six times the amount, owing to the minimum increase. In Birmingham the increase will be from £2,673 to £18,557, or seven times the amount. In Sheffield the increase is from £1,886 to £15,990, or 8½ times the number. These large increases will create no doubt the position that many of those houses must be closed, and must be closed without receiving a penny of compensation. They have done no wrong; they have simply gone on in the way in which they have been going on since they were created by Parliament in 1830, and they are doing their duty to the country as the country invited them to do. The right hon. Gentleman may say that we made an alteration in the year 1904, and that they have not now the vested interest which they had then. The difference is this: 2009 Under that Act of 1904 they are to receive ample market value for any licence which is taken away.
I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this, that the vast majority of the houses at the present moment which are being suppressed under this Act are these ante-1869 beerhouses. If he looks at the list, he will see that these are the houses which the justices are suppressing all over the country. It is not necessary to repeat the argument as to the over-taxation of the trade, or that the consumption of beer is declining in this country; but I should like to draw the attention of the Government to this: Revenge may be sweet, but I believe that the heart of the country is sound, that it loves political honesty and justice more than revenge and that it still reverences the law that it is righteousness which exalteth the nation.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Herbert Samuel)
The hon. Member who has just spoken has entered in some detail into the history of these beerhouses prior to 1869. With that history I have no quarrel, but I would suggest that Parliament cannot be tied for all time by the undoubted blunder that was made by the ancestors of the present House 79 years ago. At that time, as the hon. Member has said, Parliament rashly threw open the whole of the trade in beer to any person who desired to engage in it on payment of a sum of £2 2s., no matter what sort of premises he might have for supplying the beer by retail, and, as a result, in the course of a few weeks, there were thousands of people who took out licences. The consequences were immediately disastrous. Sydney Smith, I remember reading, wrote at that time describing the consequences of that Act, "The sovereign people are in a beastly state," and, undoubtedly, the consequences of the opening of these innumerable beershops from one end of England to the other was an immediate and marked increase in the intemperance of a large part of the population. In 1869 Parliament did not create a privilege in these beerhouses but imposed a restriction. It brought them within the purview of the licensing justices, and enabled licences to be taken away on certain grounds. Shortly after that date—I think it was in 1872—a Committee of the House of Lords examined the whole question, and earnestly recommended that Parliament should place the whole of these beerhouses 2010 at once on the same footing as the other public-houses. I think men of all parties who have examined in this subject bitterly regretted the error which was made by Parliament in 1830, and the inadequacy of the restriction that was made in 1869, and they urged that these houses should be brought under the same rule as other public-houses. In no respect have these houses occupied a position of privilege more indefensible than with regard to their Licence Duty. Here these premises, no matter what their size, no matter what trade they are carrying on year by year, have to pay to the State only £3 10s. for so large a monopoly as they possess. Yet when these houses are brought forward for compensation it is found that the value of their trade justifies under the present law the payment of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of pounds in compensation, although many of them are small houses chosen by the magistrates for compensation frequently on the ground of their low value. The London County Council returns give some figures as to London which I should like to quote. Here is a beerhouse in Hammersmith, the rateable value of which is £63, and the compensation value £2,445, or 35½ years' purchase. Surely it is absurd to say that a house carrying on a business so large and worth compensation value to that amount is paying an adequate sum to the State when it pays only £3 10s. Under our proposal it would pay no exorbitant sum. It would have to pay the minimum, which would bring it up to £23 10s. for a house of that character. Another case is that of a beerhouse in Fulham, of £55 rateable value, and £2,300 compensation value, or 42 years' purchase. Another one in Lisson-grove, the annual value of which was £55, had a compensation value of £3,550, or 64½ years' purchase on the annual value. The duty on that house would again be £18, if it were not for the minimum, which brings it up to £23 10s. I suggest that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Samuel Roberts) is not entitled, because the new duty imposed is many times more than the present duty, to therefore say that the new duty is excessive. I have said before in these Debates that there are two conclusions to be drawn. One conclusion is that the new duty is excessive, and the other that the old duty is much too low. I think the Committee will admit that these houses, some of the smallest of which receive these enormous sums in compensation value, are at the present time paying a ludicrously small 2011 toll to the State by the present uniform charge throughout the country of £3 10s. Many of these houses are at the present time being kept open, not because they fulfil any real need of a neighbourhood, but in the hope that the compensation authorities, in looking about them for houses to be suppressed under the Act of 1904, may, in their goodness, choose those houses for suppression. It is not that the house is really valuable to the owner as a place of trade, but because it may become an exceedingly valuable possession for compensation.
§ Mr. J. F. REMNANT
Is it not a fact that the present Government refused to allow the magistrates to raise sufficient money to pay for these houses?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
No; what was done was that, when the Finance Bill was in prospect the compensation authorities were not allowed to forestall their future compensation levies by borrowing, seeing that the whole matter of compensation was to be put on another basis. No action was taken by the Government limiting by a single sixpence the amount annually levied on which those houses were able to draw from the trade for the purposes of compensation. The hon. Gentleman is not quite fair.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The present duty, as I was suggesting, is really so inadequate that I think it is indefensible in any quarter of the House, and the new duty which the hon. Member opposite proposes under the scale which is on the Paper is again very inadequate. A house of £200 rateable value, under the hon. Member's scale, would pay only £25 duty, although the trade done was exceedingly large. Two hundred pounds for a beerhouse is quite a large sum. In all the large towns of England and Wales put together there are only 230 beerhouses of over £200 annual value; only 83 of more than £300 annual value; so that a £200 house is exceptionally large. Yet the hon. 2012 Member would only charge £25 under this scale. One of the largest houses, of £400 annual value, would only pay £35 under this scale. Hon. Members opposite will urge that our scale of Public house Duties for fully-licensed houses is excessive. We all know their view that it is oppressive. The fact remains that the Committee yesterday sanctioned this new scale for fully-licensed houses, and I submit that, having sanctioned that scale, it cannot now accept the scale put forward by the hon. Member for beerhouses such as those to which he called attention, because the disproportion would be far too great. Take the £400 house of which I have been speaking; if it were a fully-licensed house it would be charged £200, and if it had a beerhouse licence, on the scale of the hon. Member, it would be charged only £35. Although it may be said that the charge on the £200 as a fully-licensed house is an excessive charge, yet I submit that you cannot charge a beerhouse, doing an equal amount of business, at so low a value as £35. These beerhouses have lighter duties to perform than the fully-licensed houses. In the first place, their valuation is lower. Houses which are smaller buildings are assessed at a lower rate, if they are only beerhouses, than if they had a full licence. Consequently the subject for taxation is less. Secondly, we propose to charge beerhouses taxation on one-third the lower valuation instead of one-half. I do submit that the charge proposed to be levied on these houses is not excessive in consideration of all the circumstances. The total number of these houses in England and Wales is 26,000, and we propose by this new duty to levy on them an increased revenue of £350,000. The increased charge per house will be £13 10s., on the average. There is always danger of fallacy in averages. Although it is no consolation to a man who occupies a highly-rated house, with his Licence Duty increased to a large extent, that the average is £13 10s., yet the fact remains that £13 10s. is the average. I think the figures which the hon. Member gave show that the increased amounts which will be charged in the cases which he cited, are very exceptional, and by no means represent the increased charge on beerhouses. The figures he gave only affect a small number of large houses in the bigger towns, which can well afford to pay the increased duty. If I may anticipate what the hon. Member for Louth is probably about to say, he would point out that the amount of the burden imposed in Ireland by this Licence Duty 2013 will ruin the trade and tend to the destruction of the economic prosperity of that country. I would point out to him that while England would be paying £350,000 additional under this scale, Scotland would pay £12,000 additional, and Ireland £5,000 additional.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I did not intend to rise, and would not have intervened but for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He stated that he was going to impose these duties as moral duties. May I ask if there is such a thing as Balmoral duties?
I think that the Chancellor of the Duchy, in attempting to deal by anticipation with anything that may fall from the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. T. M. Healy) is rather reckoning without his host. There is nobody about whom there is more risk in saying that he gets up knowing what he is going to say, and I think he might be more cautious in his anticipations as to what criticisms may be passed by so old and dexterous a Parliamentary hand as the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway. I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must frankly say I did not quite understand the character of the defence which he has made of the duties proposed to be imposed by this Schedule. My hon. Friend (Mr. S. Roberts) gave a very interesting and very succinct narrative of the history of these beerhouses from 1830 to the present day. How does the right hon. Gentleman deal with that case? He says that while it is perfectly true that these beerhouses have gone on for 79 years under the Act of 1830, Parliament cannot be bound for ever by its blunder. The legislature of 1830 having dealt with this vexed licensing question came to a decision which, in the opinion of the Government generally, and in the opinion of those interested in this subject, was a wrong decision.
§ 4.0 P.M.
At all events they came to a decision in 1830, which the Government say was a blunder. Of course our ancestors were not infallible, nor are we much more infallible than our ancestors. It is quite possible that long before 70 years from the present day our children may deem these blunders made by the present 2014 Government, or made in our time, with regard to the licensing question. Questions so difficult, so full of pitfalls as they are, touching so closely the life of the people, dealing with problems of such extraordinary complexity, are sure to be dealt with wrongly even by the best meaning people now and then. I am certainly no more concerned to defend the Parliament of 1830 than any other Parliament. Certainly I should not claim infallibility for the action of any Government, or any party with which I have been concerned, and still less for the prentice hands of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have no doubt many blunders have been made, and will be made so long as you choose to treat this particular trade in the abnormal and exceptional fashion which, rightly or wrongly, we have not been able to avoid. Among many blunders concerning legislation one was made in 1830, but how does that touch the question raised by my hon. Friend, and how does the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy answer the argument which he has advanced to the House? What the House of Commons did in 1830 was to invite the creation of a certain kind of premises and places in which intoxicating liquors could be sold. I do not imagine even the extremist partisanship at the present day will suggest that the Act of 1830 was due to political pressure by the trade, or that it was done with any motive whatever except the sincere desire to meet the social need.
Parliament animated, though we admit for the sake of argument, mistakenly animated, by this public motive, invites the creation of a certain class of property. Money is expended in it, rights are granted, and it becomes a species of property as deserving of the consideration of this House as any other kind of property. Nobody can contend, nobody has ever contended, that whatever rights the ordinary full-licence holder may have they are the same full kind as those created under the Act of 1830, and admitted to exist in the Act of 1869. That has never been claimed, so far as I know, by any representative of the trade, and it certainly has never been claimed by any responsible politician. But everybody admits while those rights were different they were superior. In other words, there was a fuller kind of property in the kind of licence created in 1830 than the kind of licences which are given to full-licensed premises. That was thoroughly understood and thoroughly anticipated by the Government which dealt with this 2015 problem in 1904. We admitted that under the Act of 1830 more of those beerhouses had been created than was necessary for the public good, and that a diminution in their number was probably a thing to be desired. We recognised they had a claim to the full market compensation of the premises, in which would be taken into account, of course, the special privileges granted under the Act of 1830. Therefore, I must honestly say that I do not understand on what principle the right hon. Gentleman tells us we ought not to be bound by the blunders of our forefathers, and that this is to remedy, as far as we can, the blunder.
We do not remedy an old blunder; we create a new crime when we absolutely ignore the rights which this House in a previous generation has deliberately, though mistakenly, created. If that be granted, and I think every impartial man will grant that particular proposition, and that it is one which the House will accept, the only additional point which has to be proved is that you are treating this particular kind of house, created under an Act of Parliament, and in obedience to an invitation of this House, that you are treating that particular kind of property very harshly and unfairly. Has the right hon. Gentleman met that contention of my hon. Friend? All he has done is to quote a few cases, in which he says, "Here are premises in which it is perfectly obvious that the licence holder can well afford the small toll which we desire by this Bill to exact from him." Yes, it is quite possible there are such houses—I have not exactly the cases which he gave—but that is not the point. The point is whether some of the people you are taxing can be taxed in justice. That is the point, and to which the right hon. Gentleman never addressed himself at all. Is it, or is it not, a fact that a large number of these beerhouses will practically be extinguished or threatened with extinction by this Bill? If that be the fact, and it is alleged by my hon. Friend—and I personally believe it is true—then I say your tax is oppressive and unjust. You have no right to impose a tax upon a particular section of the community which has the effect by the mere magnitude of the sum you take from their profits of extinguishing them altogether as part of the industrial system. That is not the use you ought to put taxation to, and that is the use to which you are putting taxation. Your fault is greatly aggravated in the case of these particular 2016 licence holders, because they certainly hold their premises on a tenure more complete, more full, and of a kind which more deserves the careful recognition of this House in all its legislation, even than the other licence holders, the full licence holders, whose tax we discussed yesterday.
The right hon. Gentleman said how impossible it would be to impose on beerhouses the small rate of duty suggested by my hon. Friend's Schedule when fully-licensed premises not far oil is taxed on a much higher scale. I make two answers to that argument. The first is, because you commit one injustice that is no reason for committing another; and in the second place, if your objection to putting too low a scale of duty on the beerhouses is founded on the fact that would submit fully-licensed houses to unfair competition, then I say why did you not think of that when you were dealing with clubs. That argument, whatever be its worth, is not one which lies in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to use. They have deliberately elected to throw an imposition upon the fully-licensed house which puts them into competition with clubs, and in a most difficult and unfair position, and therefore they are the last people who have the right to say that any modification we suggest in this particular Clause is one which ought not to be accepted, because it will be the cause, or may be the cause, of unfair competition with other existing houses. Therefore, for all those reasons I venture to say that the Government are extremely unwise in forcing this proposal. They are treating in very reckless fashion the practical pledges given by this House in times past, and in doing so they are teaching the public the worst of all morals, the moral, namely, that this House may make an invitation in one year which in another year it may withdraw on the plea that it has made a mistake. That is contrary to all sound public morality, and is most inimical to the position and credit of this House. In addition to that crime it appears to me they are committing an additional crime in throwing upon one very small class of the community a tax so heavy and so large in many cases in proportion to the total takings of the trade, that they will drive some perfectly innocent and deserving individuals out of a perfectly honourable, legal, and credit\able line of life which they have selected to live believing rashly in the State, and that it is the privilege of citizens of a free country to take any trade admitted by 2017 the law to be an honest trade, and that they might engage in that trade without the fear that they would be singled out for special ill-treatment or special exactions. Those two canons of legislation the Government have equally violated, and for that reason I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division, and receive a large measure of support from all sides of the House.
§ Mr. E. B. BARNARD
I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy has told me that so far as he is concerned if any local authority apply in the future for making a borrowing basis under the Compensation Act it will apparently meet with his sympathy. We have many of us like the hon. Member for Holborn been troubled by the idea that the Home Office did not encourage any such proceeding. There are just two points I want to touch upon, and it appears to me that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) has not made the very best out of them, although what he said was extremely interesting. It appears to me that whereas those people have these rights under the Act of 1830 the substantial position that ought never to be forgotten is that in 1869 it was laid down by Mr. Gladstone's Act that they had an absolutely clear interest unless they violated one of four well-known conditions.
§ Mr. BARNARD
I do not consider you made enough of it. It appears to me that that position places them in a separate category altogether from all the other licensed premises in the country. I go a step further, and I take Mr. Justice Kennedy's decision and I believe I am right in saying he drew a different multiple between these houses and fully-licensed houses as to the measure of compensation. The Government, of course, recognise this, otherwise they would not propose a different scale of charge on these houses as against the fully-licensed houses. Going a step further, we come to the Act of 1904, which charges these houses compensation—for what? Absolutely to protect that which the law of 1869 had already protected. In my opinion, the Compensation Act gave these houses no additional security at all beyond that which they already possessed, except that if they were suppressed they were to receive money. Their position is a singularly powerful one, because the Compensation 2018 Act of a Conservative Government distinctly wronged them, and, therefore, coming to the present day, I think they deserve a great deal of consideration. The matter is one of degree. We have already seen that one charge is proposed to foe levied on fully-licensed houses and another on these beerhouses. The Chancellor of the Duchy says that, because we did something yesterday in regard to the fully-licensed houses, it would not be quite fair to treat these houses to-day in a more favourable manner. I do not pretend to know about the houses in the big cities, the statistics of which the right hon. Gentleman has given, but I know a great deal about the houses in country districts, and I am convinced that in many cases this proposition will press very unduly upon the beerhouses. It is a question not whether some blunder was made years ago, but of the position to-day. Parliament naturally cannot be bound by everything that occurred so long ago, but it can, and should, be bound by conditions which Parliament laid down, and which ordinary traders in a perfectly straightforward fashion imagined were to govern their line of business. It is under these conditions that, personally, I should have been very glad if the Government could have seen their way slightly to reduce the proposed scale, even if they could not go so far as the Amendment suggests.
Mr. G. D. FABER
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, realised that this enormous increase in the Licence Duties might work great hardship on the on-licensed trade, and he made the very pregnant remark that, as a set-off, the on-licensees could charge practically their increased Licence Duties on the whisky. Even if that anticipation were supported by the facts, which, so far as we can tell at present it is not likely to be, it could not be done in the case of the beerhouses, for the simple reason that they sell only beer and not whisky. Then one word on the monopoly value. From the time of the Licensing Bill of last year to the present day we have heard that the justification for the proposed treatment of on-licensed premises was that the monopoly value belonged to the State, and that therefore the State had a right to recover a part of that monopoly value. In the case of the beerhouse the argument becomes a mere waste of breath, because the beerhouses rest on the firm foundation of a statutory title. You may say that times change, and that what Parliament said 2019 40 years ago may not coincide with the facts of life to-day; but that is no ground for perpetrating an injustice. If beerhouses have a statutory title and on-licensed premises have not, the beerhouses should be given preferential treatment as against the others. You may say that you give them preferential treatment because on-licensed houses are to be charged half the gross annual value, and beerhouses only one-third, but that is not sufficient. Beerhouses at present pay only £3 10s., and if you jump up to one-third of the annual value the difference is too enormous. It is much greater than in the case of the on-licensed houses, because there, at any rate, you proceed from Mr. Gladstone's scale, and the difference, although great, is nothing like as great as the difference in the case of the beerhouses. One-third of the annual value does not coincide with any elementary principle of justice. No doubt you want money, but that is no reason for blinding your eyes to the justice of the case in your mad desire to wreak vengeance on a particular trade with which you are not in sympathy.
§ Mr. J. F. REMNANT
I wish to say how sorry I am that you, Sir, should have had to call upon me not to interrupt. I think, however, that the Committee, if they look impartially at these proposals of the Government, must admit that they are extremely unfair to the houses immediately under discussion. When interrupting the Chancellor of the Duchy, I said that the Home Office had refused to allow local authorities to borrow money in order to take up a larger number of houses, as they would have liked to have done, he practically replied that that was not so. Members will remember perfectly well that questions were put to the Home Secretary, who, I am sure, would be the last to deny that my statement was literally correct. His reason for refusing permission was that a Licensing Bill was coming on, and under the circumstances he thought they had better wait.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The Home Office never refused to allow any local authority to raise any sum by compensation levy that they liked. Indeed, the Home Office would not have power to do
§ so. What they refused was power to borrow—to forestall future compensation levies. As the matter stands, the local authorities would have a certain amount of money to spend; if they were allowed to borrow, they would have less to spend, because they would have to pay the interest on the money borrowed.
§ Mr. REMNANT
The right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously mean that as an answer. The remaining houses would have enormously increased in value in years to come, and it would be more difficult to pay them off. Applications were made to the Home Office for authority to raise money to pay off these houses. That is the only contention I have made, and the right hon. Gentleman has practically admitted it to be correct. I wish to protest against the theory that a contract once entered into by Parliament is to be lightly departed from. The right hon. Gentleman referred to contracts made by legislation as far back as 1830. We do not need to go back further than 1904. The arrangement definitely made by the Government then was that if these beerhouses were suppressed they should be properly compensated, and now within five years the Government say that that contract is not binding, and that they are quite justified in going away from what was distinctly understood then and in placing on these houses further burdens which practically mean their annihilation. Even when milk vendors in St. James's Park were displaced, compensation was given. The whole of the legislation proposed by this Budget in reference to the licensed trade is the outcome of the determination of the Government, as exemplified in the statement made by the Chief Whip last December, that the people would expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cause the abolition of redundant licences by placing on them such taxation as would bring about that end. It is quite useless to appeal to the Government to treat these houses differently, but I strongly protest against the whole proceeding.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'subject,' stand part of the Schedule."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 61.2021
|Division No. 772.]||AYES.||[4.30 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Ash ton, Thomas Gair||Barker, Sir John|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Barnes, G. N.|
|Ainsworth John Stirling||Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Barran, Rowland Hirst|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Hart-Davies, T.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Beale, W. P.||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Hedges, A. Paget||Pointer, J.|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Helme, Norval Watson||Pollard, Dr. G. H.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Henry, Charles S.||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Higham, John Sharp||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Rees, J. D.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)|
|Brigg, John||Hodge, John||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)||Robinson, S.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Horniman, Emslie John||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Byles, William Pollard||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Illingworth, Percy H.||Rowlands, J.|
|Clough, William||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Jardine, Sir J.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jenkins, J.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Sears, J. E.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Seddon, J.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Kekewich, Sir George||Seely, Colonel|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Kelley, George D.||Shackleton, David James|
|Cowan, W. H.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Crossley, William J.||Laidlaw, Robert||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lamont, Norman||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Steadman, W. C.|
|Duckworth, Sir James||Lewis, John Herbert||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Summerbell, T.|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Erskine, David C.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Essex, R. W.||M'Callum, John M.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Ferens, T. R.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Toulmin, George|
|Findlay, Alexander||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Verney, F. W.|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Marnham, F. J.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Massie, J.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Middlebrook, William||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Gill, A. H.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Morrell, Philip||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Morse, L. L.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Myer, Horatio||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Napier, T. B.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Gulland, John W.||Nicholls, George||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nuttall, Harry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Norton and Sir E. Strachey|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Partington, Oswald|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Fell, Arthur||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Ratcliffe, Major R. F.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fletcher, J. S.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Renwick, George|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Heaton, John Henniker||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Helmsley, Viscount||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Stanier, Beville|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hill, Sir Clement||Starkey, John R.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hills, J. W.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Kimber, Sir Henry||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Clark, George Smith||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Winterton, Earl|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Young, Samuel|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Mcore, William|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Morrison-Bell, Captain||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Valentia and Mr. Pike Pease.|
|Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
§ Mr. E. B. BARNARD moved, in the same column, after the word "premises," to insert the words "as ascertained in the manner directed by Section thirty, Subsection one, and Section thirty-eight."
The object of this Amendment is to make perfectly clear the intimation which was given by the Solicitor-General on Clause 38, that if necessary it should be declared under the Schedule. The circumstances were these: Upon Clause 38 there was a discussion as to whether the intention was to limit the basis upon which the licence was to be charged to premises especially identified with the sale of alcoholic liquors. The words of the Solicitor-General were:—
I have promised certain words to make it perfectly clear that if any part of the premises is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be devoted to any trade or business separate or distinct from the business authorised by the licence, it shall be excluded from this annual valuation
§ The Solicitor-General promised that on Report stage he would make that right. I shall be satisfied if he tells me that if when he considers the question he finds it is necessary to add these words that he add them, I will not press the matter any further.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans)
Whatever is provided by Clause 30, Sub-section (1), and Clause 38 as a basis for ascertaining the annual value will be admitted to this Schedule as well. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is quite unnecessary to add the reference here to the Schedule. I may just remind him that he has put his Amendment in the wrong place. It only refers to beerhouses here, and it was no doubt intended to apply to both. I made a promise to bring up words on Report to deal with the matter, which he has mentioned more than once in the course of these Debates. The words will in due course be put down on the Paper, and some considerable time before we get to the Report stage.
§ Mr. J. M. CAMPBELL
If the Government propose to exclude under the valuation any portion of the premises not devoted to the licensing business, then there is no occasion for the concession they propose to give in the reduced scale to Ireland, which is based upon the assumption that there is a mixed trade. I want to know whether this new Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is going to put 2024 on the Paper for Report is to apply to the Irish valuation?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANS
The ground of the concession is not so narrow as that suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I will not discuss it now on a question of the exclusion of part of the premises. I will consider the point raised.
§ Mr. BARNARD
I am perfectly satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. G. D. FABER (for Mr. Gretton), moved in Beerhouse Licences 2, to omit the words "subject to the minimum duty payable under Scale 3." Last night we sought to strike out the minimum duty in regard to on-licences. This Amendment proposes to do the same for beerhouses. The general argument in both cases is practically the same. The last Amendment, unsuccessfully, sought to alleviate an enormous injustice in respect of beerhouses. Here you propose to intensify the situation. I pointed out yesterday that in the case of on-licences no less than 5,768 houses would practically be closed, or their existence would be grievously imperilled, by means of this scale of minimum duties. The injustice to the beerhouses, though not in quite so great a proportion, still is most significant. There are 29,300, and no less than 740 would be wiped out of existence under the operation of your minimum scale. The 740 is worked out in this way: There are 75 houses under £20 annual value in towns of between 10,000 and 50,000 population. Their minimum duty will be £13, whereas if they are treated under the scale of one-third of the annual value instead of £13 it would be about £6 10s. When you get to towns of between 50,000 and 100,000 inhabitants there are 200 houses of £25 annual value with a minimum duty of £20. The minimum would hit them badly, it would mean destruction.
§ I then come to London. Ninety houses under £42 annual value will have their minimum duty fixed at £23 10s., as against a third of £42, which is £14. Then in towns of 100,000 population beside London there are 375 houses of an annual value of £25, and they will have actually to pay a minimum Licence Duty of £23 10s. Therefore in these cases the minimum duty will be almost as much as the annual value of the houses. That brings up the total I 2025 just gave of 740 beerhouses that would be in fact crushed out of existence under the operation of this minimum duty scale. In regard to Manchester, there are upwards of 1,000 beerhouses. Less than half that number are fully-licensed houses. The justices there steadily pursued a policy of forbidding anything to be done to enlarge or improve the structure of the premises. These beerhouses were all protected by the Act of 1869 from having their licences taken away for anything other than misconduct, but under the Act of 1904 they are liable to be taken away upon the payment of compensation. The imposition of this minimum duty upon them now must have the effect that the Prime Minister admitted it was intended to have, namely, to crush them out of existence without paying any compensation. The passage to which I am going to refer is from the Prime Minister's speech on 10th June, 1909. "The Chancellor of the Exchequer," the Prime Minister said, "is perfectly justified in regard to these Liquor and Licence Duties in considering whether the effect may not be to discourage the growth, and, indeed, the existence, of the worst class of houses."
§ It is the duty of the licensing justices in the case of the worst class of houses to suppress them, but supression of the worst class of house by the Excise certainly does not come into the matter at all. If by "the worst" is meant the smallest, I must say, with all respect to the Prime Minister, it seems to me to be grossly unfair. The small houses require quite as much consideration upon the ground of fairness and equity as the larger licensed houses in the country. I think I have said quite sufficient to emphasise my point that the total effect of your legislation in regard to the beerhouses as now accentuated by your minimum scale will have the effect of doing most colossal injustice and crushing out of existence very many licensed houses that have done no wrong whatever, and have only pursued an honest calling under the law.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I do not complain of the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech, nor, indeed, of any of his speeches except that I think in presenting his case ha has been guilty of what appears to be some exaggeration of statement as to the probable consequences of these duties. I rapidly worked out what would be the increased burden on certain of these houses, which the hon. Member said were going to destroy them. He gave the figures of 2026 some hundreds of houses, which, he said, must necessarily close their doors in consequence of this minimum duty. He said that in certain cases certain houses would have to pay a heavier duty of £13 instead of a duty of £6 that they would otherwise be called on to pay, and that that meant destruction to a very large number of them. The increased duty per annum is £7. That per week amounts to 2s. 8d. The increased charge on these houses, which is to make a difference between prosperity and absolute ruin is 2s. 8d. per week, and as many of these houses are doing a very considerable trade, and in consequence of the low valuation a very profitable trade, it really cannot be accepted that the duty, equal to 2s. 8d. per week, can have these terrifying consequences. These houses have a very low valuation. They are lowly rented. Their standing charges consequently are very moderate, and they pay exceedingly little for the local rates compared with many of the larger public-houses, and they pay very little towards local taxation. And that is going on year after year. The local authorities are getting far less in the way of revenue from these public-houses than they are entitled to receive. Further, as regards the Licence Duty, the very low duty of £3 10s., which they pay now, is absurd. It has been paid by them for years and years, and so far from any complaint being made about the increased duty, complaint should come from the opposite direction of the very little which the community have been getting from this class of trader for years past—infinitely less than common justice would require from them. With regard to the effect of this duty on some houses I am inclined to agree. There may be some which in effect are kept open for the purposes of compensation in the hope that their licencesmay be taken away under the Act of 1904, and that large compensation may be paid; and in certain cases these people may not really think it worth their while to continue waiting if they are to pay the £16 or £18 a year required from them under the minimum scale. In consequence, here and there some licences may drop out, but I do not for a moment anticipate that the effect of this minimum scale is in the least degree likely to be such as the hon. Member in his rather gloomy speech suggested. As to the minimum scale, it is the same in the case of beerhouses and in fully-licensed houses, and the House having decided that this is to apply in the case of fully-licensed 2027 houses, is hardly likely to go back on that in regard to the beerhouses. Parliament has given us precedents for our action in this matter in the Act of 1884 and in the Act of 1872. In these circumstances, we cannot consent to the elimination from this part of the Bill of the scale in proportion of the scale of population.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON
The right hon. Gentleman made one very remarkable admission, which seemed certainly to establish and to emphasise what has already fallen from the Prime Minister. We all know, for the Prime Minister told us some weeks ago, that the intention of this Clause is none other than to reduce the number of beerhouses without compensation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy has not denied that the effect would be such as was anticipated by my hon. Friend behind me, and he actually said that the intention of the Government was and the design of the Government was that certain beerhouses which are now in existence, and which would be entitled to compensation, should be squeezed out of existence before compensation is paid.
§ Mr. LYTTELTON
The right hon. Gentleman said "effect." The Prime. Minister supplied the intention and desire. Between the two it is perfectly clear that first the intention of the Government is that these houses should be squeezed out, and according to the Chancellor of the Duchy that actual result will follow. I can only say that I consider, as one of those responsible for the Act of 1904, which took away certain statutory rights, and gave them for those rights a certain definite compensation not payable by the public, but out of trade funds. It is a perfect outrage that within five years after the passing of that Act this Government should come forward and say, notwithstanding that your statutory position was taken away under the Act of 1904, and that compensation was to be given you, we will now set to work to extinguish you by legislation which will rob you of the compensation that was given you by the Act of 1904.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGH
I rise for the purpose of putting forward a point which has not been touched upon already. It is quite true the same intention applies 2028 with regard to the minimum duty for beerhouses as for fully-licensed houses. But I desire to say that I object entirely to this indirect way of abolishing the beerhouses of the country. There is no doubt that this minimum duty will have the effect of abolishing a great number of them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy said a great many of these houses are remaining open in the hope of getting the compensation. In a few cases perhaps that is correct, but these houses carry on their trade in an orderly, well-conducted manner, and they will be abolished by the effect of this legislation. I do not think it was contemplated by the people of this country that these houses should be abolished in that manner. This is a matter which I maintain will affect the constituency of the size of my own at Maidstone, which has a population of between 10,000 and 50,000. The beerhouses within the borough with a £15 annual value will be called upon to pay a duty of £13. It is quite possible that in the immediate neighbourhood there will be another beerhouse outside the borough boundary of an equal annual value, and this may be called upon to pay a duty of £5. Here are two houses to all intents and purposes of equal value, doing exactly the same trade, each having an annual value of £15, and one of them will have to pay a duty of £13 whilst the other will only pay £5. I put that case to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will enlighten me upon it.
§ Earl WINTERTON
The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the case of public-houses which will be required to pay, under the minimum duty, £23 10s. We have just heard the marvellous statement made that this only means 2s. 8d. per week extra. I am assured that in the vast majority of beerhouses the amount of profit which is made is equal to a halfpenny per pint, and in order to pay this extra 2s. 8d. per week they will have to serve an additional 64 pints. This is really a very enormous increase indeed. Take the case of other small traders, such as grocers, bakers, or butchers. Would the right hon. Gentleman maintain that an additional charge of 2s. 8d. per week on small businesses which are only showing a bare profit is a small tax? The statement which the right hon. Gentleman made in regard to beerhouses being kept open merely to obtain compensation has 2029 been made a good many times in the course of these Debates, and it was constantly made in the discussion on the Licensing Bill. May I point out that up to the present we have not had a tittle of evidence in proof of that statement. Where are these public-houses which are being kept open merely to obtain compensation? It is easy enough to make such a statement, but it ought not to be made without being substantiated. I do not think there are more than one dozen public-houses in the whole country being kept open for that reason. Many of them no doubt are being kept open in the hope that in the near future better trade conditions will exist, but that prospect will disappear if this Schedule is adopted.
§ I wish to enter my protest against the unwarrantable assumption by the Government that the owners of public-houses are keeping them open in order to make a mean and despicable attempt to obtain compensation from the Government to which they are not entitled. It is a most ridiculous assumption, and it would be just as sensible to say that other businesses are being kept open because under a future Socialist Government they hope to be taken over by the State.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 67.2031
|Division No. 773.]||AYES.||[5.6 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Fullerton, Hugh||Middlebrook, William|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Gill, A. H.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Alden, Percy||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Morse, L. L.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Glendinning, R. G.||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Myer, Horatio|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Napier T. B.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Gulland, John W.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Barker, Sir John||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Partington, Oswald|
|Barnard, E. B.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Pence, William (Limehouse)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Pointer, J.|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Hart-Davies, T.||Pollard, Dr. G. H.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hedges, A. Paget||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Helme, Norval Watson||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Rees, J. D.|
|Brigg, John||Henry, Charles S.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Higham, John Sharp||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Hobart, Sir Robert||Robinson, S.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hodge, John||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Horniman, Emslie John||Rowlands, J.|
|Clough, William||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Clynes, J. R.||Mutton, Alfred Eddison||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Illingworth, Percy H.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jardine, Sir J.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Jenkins, J.||Sears, J. E.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Seddon, J.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Seely, Colonel|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Kekewich, Sir George||Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Crossley, William J.||Kelley, George D.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Laidlaw, Robert||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lament, Norman||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Steadman, W. C.|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Duckworth, Sir James||Levy, Sir Maurice||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Lewis, John Herbert||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Summerbell, T.|
|Erskine, David C.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Essex, R. W.||Mackarness, Frederic C||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||M'Callum, John M.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Ferens, T. R.||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Findlay, Alexander||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Toulmin, George|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Waiter||Marnham, F. J.||Verney, F. W.|
|Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Weir, James Galloway||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Waterlow, D. S.||Wilkie, Alexander||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Norton and Sir E. Strachey.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Fletcher, J. S.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Forster, Henry William||Ratcliffe, Major R. F.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Renwick, George|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Heaton, John Henniker||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Helmsley, Viscount||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hill, Sir Clement||Stanier, Beville|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hills, J. W.||Starkey, John R.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Kimber, Sir Henry||Valentia, Viscount|
|Clark, George Smith||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Young, Samuel|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Moore, William|
|Faber, Capt W. V. (Hants, W.)||Morrison-Bell, Captain||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl|
|Fell, Arthur||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Winterton and Sir W. Bull.|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|