moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 28, to leave out "one" and insert "two," so that 42 lbs. of malt or corn, instead of 41 Ibs., should be deemed the equivalent of a bushel of malt.

assented to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 29, to leave out "twenty-seven," and insert "twenty-eight," said, he was not able to adduce anything like absolute proof either on the one side or the other. It was a mere matter of estimate. He was only able to state, in moving the Amendment, that he had it on the very best authority that 27 lbs. of sugar were not adequate to a bushel of malt, and that 28 lbs. were not more than equivalent to a bushel of malt. He had no personal experience in the matter, and was only able to base the proposal upon the statements which had been made to him. He had, however, received a telegram from persons who called themselves makers of one-fourth of the sugar used for brewing purposes, and they said that they were in a position to support the Amendment that 28 lbs., and not 27 lbs., should be taken as the equivalent of a bushel of malt. It was notorious, they said, throughout the brewery trade, that that was the real equivalent, and that the equivalent of a quarter of malt was, at the least, 2 cwt. of sugar. He was further fortified in his request to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to accept the Amendment, by being able to say that the Inland Revenue Department was not unfavourable to the insertion of 28 lbs. instead of 27. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept the Amendment which he now begged to move?

said, this was strictly a question of detail, upon which it was impossible that he could have an original opinion. It was, therefore, necessary to leave it to be adjusted between the brewers of malt and those who desired to use sugar; for, no doubt, the question became one of importance when there was to be a larger selection of materials. The Board of Inland Revenue had no wish to make any fundamental objection to this Amendment. They would only feel a scruple about it if any objection were raised in any other quarter; otherwise, they had no objection to urge, and, therefore, he was willing to assent to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 29, after "sugar," to add "containing not more than five per centum of moisture, or its equivalent in moister sugar or syrup," said, its object was, in reality, to make a slight change in the present arrangements. Under the existing state of the law, he believed that sugar, in the shape of syrup and molasses, was not allowed to be used in the breweries. The consequence was that the sugar was converted from syrup into sugar in the refinery, and afterwards converted again, at the breweries, into syrup. The purpose of the Amendment was simply to save the cost of paying the refiner for converting syrup into sugar, and then having themselves to incur the expense, after the sugar got into their breweries, of re-converting it into syrup. There was no question of principle involved. If a brewer was allowed to use sugar in a moist state, he apprehended that there could not be any objection to the Amendment. He hoped he had made himself plain and clear, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to accept the Amendment.

said, he thought this was an entirely different case. As he understood it, in the clause they were making special provision by the Act, instead of trusting to the general operation of the law, for the use of different materials. They were, in this case, making provision in the case of sugar, on account of its peculiar position under the present law, a special mode of determining the equivalent. The limit in the Bill only applied to that special mode. If sugar was provided in any other form than was provided for by the Bill for brewing, it would have to be dealt with like other materials, unless an arrangement could be made in regard to it. Probably the case might be met, if past experience and knowledge could be brought upon it. This was not a prohibition against the use of sugar in other forms than those specified; but only a provision that it must be brought in that form into the breweries.

understood, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that there was no intention of excluding the use of syrup, but that it was to be dealt with on its own merits. In that case, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment , by leave, withdrawn.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 33, to leave out "not exceed" and insert "be equal to."

Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 33, to leave out after "malt" to the end of the clause. This was also a protective Amendment, and was merely a verbal alteration which removed every question about measurement. As the Government had decided to deal with the matter by weight, he presumed that they would accept the Amendment.

said, the opinion of the Department was that these words were useful as an indication, and would not be injurious. He was, therefore, disposed to retain the words; but they might be further considered, if the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney) would have the goodness to point out the evil that arose from them. They might then be dealt with on the Report; but, at present, his opinion was that they should be retained.

thought he had explained the objection to the use of the words to the authorities, and that they had agreed to his Amendment. As the Bill was orignally drawn, it was not 42 lbs. of malt, but 42 lbs. of grain of any description, leaving malt to be measured by the bushel; whereas the Government now proposed to take everything by weight.

said, he was informed that there was no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—( Mr. Gladstone. )

asked, if the changes effected in the clause would have any considerable financial effect?

replied, that they would not have any financial operation at all.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 13 (Regulation as to charge of duty).

, in moving as an Amendment, in page 6, line 35, after "brewer," insert "for sale," said, he had placed two Amendments upon the Paper. The first was necessary in preparing the way for the second, which he intended to propose in the 2nd sub-section of the clause. He proposed to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to consider the different position in which private brewers stood as compared with public brewers, and not only in regard to public brewers generally, but the position in which a considerable portion of the farmers of the country would be placed in their capacity of private brewers. If the right hon. Gentleman insisted on his present limitation in reference to private brewers, the great majority of the farms would come under the operation of the clause as private brewers. He thought it was unfair to them. as private brewers, that they should be placed in exactly the same category as public brewers, in relation to the quantity of beer they produced. It was well known that a small brewer, who only brewed upon a small scale, could not extract the same quantity of beer from the same quantity of malt as a large brewer. That, he believed, was an admitted fact. A small brewer was only able to get about 10 gallons of beer from a bushel of malt; but he put the quantity at 12 gallons per bushel, which, he was informed, was a fair and proper average. Twelve gallons per bushel was certainly quite as much as could be produced by any small brewer, unless he brewed merely small beer; but if he was to be charged the same amount of duty for producing 12 gallons of beer that the Bill proposed to charge a public brewer for brewing 18 gallons, then the private brewer would stand, as compared with the public brewer, in the position of having to pay 33 per cent more duty for every bushel of malt he used. He thought that that could hardly be intended. It was a well-known fact that the quantity of beer produced increased in proportion to the quantity of malt dealt with. He did not know why this was so; but he believed that it was a well-acknowledged fact, and, therefore, people who only brewed small quantities were placed at a great disadvantage, the difference amounted to about 30 or 33 per cent. He did not know what the exact figure was but; he took 30 per cent to represent the difference in the quantity brewed by a small brewer and a large brewer. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment he proposed, he would do much to lighten and alleviate the burden upon the private brewer, and would be making a very reasonable and sensible concession. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take the proposal into his serious consideration. Concessions seemed to be made to the public brewers, who had nothing like the same necessity for them. The public brewers generally were the owners of very fine businesses. He had been acquainted with several farmers who had been ruined by farming, but who took to brewing, and were doing exceedingly well. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that hardly any persons except farmers would brew privately under this section of the Bill, except in remote country districts; and many of the farmers bought their own beer now. They, and they alone, came under the head of private brewers, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take their case into consideration.

said, he was sorry to say that he could not accept the Amendment. He regretted to be compelled to disappoint the hopes of the hon. Gentleman; but he thought the hon. Gentleman must see himself that the Amendment could not be accepted. He looked at it from two points of view. In the first place, the hon. Member said that anybody could brew under the Bill; but he said that nobody would become private brewers, except the farmers. He (Mr. Gladstone) entirely declined to admit that to be the fact. They had provided for the case of the labourer, by exempting houses that were under £10 a-year in value; so far from its being true that nobody would brew except the farmers, there were two distinct classes who did brew already; one was a diminishing class, but the other was the case of the great houses, many of which would still remain private brewers. There was the Duke of Rutland, for instance, whose name he had mentioned before, and mentioned with much honour as a private brewer. He would remain a private brewer under this Bill, as also would Lord Devon, Lord Fitzwilliam, and many others, who would continue hereafter private brewers as they had been heretofore. The proposal of the hon. Member was deliberately to give them a premium of 33 per cent, by removing, in their case, one-third part of the duty if they only continued to brew as private brewers, instead of producing beer or ale in the way of trade. It was establishing a distinct premium or bounty to the extent of 33 per cent against the regular trader upon whom they depended for nearly the whole of the Revenue to be derived from the duty. The hon. Member was not satisfied with that, but took credit for his moderation in only asking 33 per cent. The hon. member admitted that the standard was 11 gallons of beer from a bushel of malt; and he proposed that in the case o, private brewers the quantity should be fixed at 12 gallons, taking credit for his moderation in not proposing to reduce it to 10 gallons, which, he said, ought to be the proper figure. There was another description, and that, he believed, was a growing class of brewers. He spoke of the large institutions—large institutions, such as the Hanwell Asylum, Middlesex, had recently practised brewing to a large extent, and it was only proper they should have the opportunity of doing so; but he did not consider that they ought to have any advantage in the shape of a bounty or protection at the expense of the Revenue and the private brewers. Those institutions were not entitled to more than fair play. The principle involved in the present Amendment was one he must object to, inasmuch as it was one of bounty.

said, they were to discuss two Amendments. The first referred to the 1st sub-section of the clause, and the second Amendment—namely, that of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer)—referred to the 2nd sub-section of the clause. The first Amendment was to the effect that certain words be inserted, and it was necessary that these words should be inserted in order that they might discuss the second Amendment. The mere effect of the adoption of the words did not in any way prejudge the other question, or render it necessary that they should adopt the second Amendment. They proposed to insert words in the 1st sub-section which were to refer to public brewers. The 2nd sub-section referred to private brewers; and if the right hon. Gentleman would read the clause, he would see that the words proposed could be inserted without prejudging the question which was subsequently to come before them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

, who had placed upon the Paper an Amendment to leave out the words "fifty-seven" in page 6, line 36, and insert "sixty," said, that he did not feel justified in pressing the Amendment at the present stage; but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would give the matter his serious consideration. He hoped, too, that the right hon. Gentleman would make the collection of the duty by the Excise officers as little odious as possible. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish brewers looked with no little alarm upon the settling down of a cloud of Excise officers on their premises at every stage of the process of brewing; and he would take the liberty of suggesting that the mode of collecting the duty adopted in Bavaria, by automatic measurement of the raw material, which was in successful practice in the Isle of Man, might, with advantage, be resorted to.

observed, that if it should be found possible, as he had already stated, to adopt the method of taxing beer upon the finished article, Her Majesty's Government would be very glad to do it. If they could relieve the brewers of the expense of maintaining the Excise officer, it, too, would be a very great advantage.

said, he now had to propose an Amendment which was of very great importance to the private brewers of the country. He proposed, in the clause, in page 6, line 40, to leave out all after "charged," and insert "at the rate of 2 s. 8 ½ d. on every bushel of malt used by him in brewing." He fully admitted that, at the present time, the greater part of the private brewers were persons connected with the occupation of land in the country; and it was for their benefit, according to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, in introducing the Bill, that the measure was brought in. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the very great competition to which the agricultural interest had been exposed, and he said they had exposed it in every case to unrestrained competition, and he wished to improve the condition of the British agriculturist and secure for him, if they could, by perfectly just and equal treatment, the power of pursuing to advantage his ancient and noble industry. He (Mr. Hicks) thought he should be able to show to the Committee, in a very few words, that the clause as now worded would, instead of securing for the British agriculturist that just and equal treatment, really place him in a very much worse position than he occupied at the present time. He had taken the advice of gentlemen who knew more of the subject than he could possibly know—namely, the authorities at Somerset House; and, therefore, he thought he had sufficient ground to say that the statement he had to make was perfectly correct. If that were not so, no doubt the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench would put him right. At the present moment, with the one restriction that he must buy his malt from a person licensed to make matt, a private brewer could brew beer in any way he liked. He could brew his beer from half malt and half barley. He could mix it with sugar or with roots. As the law now stood potatoes could be used in brewing without paying any duty whatever. As long as a private brewer paid for his malt he could mix it and use it in any proportion in anything he liked. Without going into the question of roots, he believed it was well known to all hon. Members from the agricultural districts that it had been a very common practice for farmers brewing for harvest—a time when a beverage was required for immediate use—to mix the malt with barley, and so produce a cool, good beverage—a beverage which answered all the purposes of their labourers, without paying more than one-half of the Malt Duties. Under Clauses 12 and 13, a farmer had no power to pay upon the malt alone. He was not pay upon the material, but was to pay upon results. He had to be charged upon every simple ingredient which he introduced into his brewhouse. He wished to draw attention, without going into too minute details, to the fact that a farmer wanting to brew for quick consumption paid, at the present time, for a quarter of malt £1 1 s. 8 ½ d. That was the duty, as had been explained over and over again, not upon malt, but upon barley; and every quarter of barley would produce as many quarters of malt. Now, if he mixed that malt with eight bushels of barley, he could produce as much beer from 16 bushels of grain as he could from 16 bushels of malt, and he paid for 16 bushels of grain £1 1 s. 8 d. , or at the rate of 10 s. 10 d. per quarter. But under the present Bill, which was brought forward for the purpose of assisting the agricultural interest, that privilege was to be taken away from them; and if he used his own barley, he was to pay the same rate as if he used malt. Those farmers who had been in the habit of brewing beer in the way he had attempted to describe would have to pay just double the tax that they paid now. He did not ask any favour for the landed interest; but simply asked that they should be placed in the same position they occupied at the present moment. They paid now £1 1 s. 8 d. for their malt, and he wanted to know why that rate should not be maintained; and why for the future, as the private brewer was bound to make a return to the Excise of the quantity of the material used, he should not make a return of the malt he used, and be charged at the rate of 2 s. 8 ½ d. upon every bushel, which was the exact sum he paid now? He did not wish to be too particular. The right hon. Gentleman might, if he liked, make it 2 s. 9 d. , so that the Revenue might get the advantage. He did, however, hope that private brewers would not be placed in a worse position than they now held, and that they would not be subjected to inconveniences with which they did not know how to deal.

Amendment proposed,

In page 6, line 40, to leave out all after "charged," and insert, "at the rate of two shillings and eight pence halfpennyon every bushel of malt used in brewing.—( Mr.Hicks. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

remarked, that the hon. Gentleman appeared to be labouring under a misapprehension. The hon. Gentleman had quoted words of his with the object of showing that the Government were said to be desirous of encouraging the agriculturist in his ancient and noble industry. He seemed to think he (Mr. Gladstone) meant the interest of brewing; but he meant the ploughing interest, which was a very different thing. The hon. Gentleman had contended that farmers occasionally used grain, and in so far as they used grain they did not pay duty; that was a contention that, if made good by adequate facts, might be considered by the Committee; but it certainly must be answered in a very different form than in that now proposed. The Government had no information that such a practice prevailed to any great extent. They did not believe that private brewers, as a rule, used anything instead of malt; and when he came to the further question raised by the hon. Gentleman—namely, that the farmer ought not to be liable to pay on the materials he used other than malt, he was confronted by another difficulty, because he had to consider the case, not merely of the farmer, but of the two classes whom he had spoken of recently—firstly, the manual labourer, who was a private brewer; and secondly, the great institutions. He must own that he hesitated to admit that those great institutions ought to be exempted from paying any duty upon materials other than malt. It appeared to him that the great institutions, and the owners of mansions, who had been accustomed to brew from malt, if they should hereafter, in consequence of the change of system which was being adopted, brew from material other than malt, they ought to pay according to the presumed yield upon that material.

said, that, in the Amendment proposed, the term "bushel of malt" was made use of, He saw, in Clause 12, which had just been passed, a special meaning given to this term. It meant not only "bushel of malt," but also the equivalent quantities of sugar and other grain. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried, the brewer would pay 2 s. 8 ½ d. , not only on the malt, but also on the corresponding quantities of other grain, &c. He did not know whether his right hon. Friend wished to make the duty much smaller in the case of the private than of the public brewer; and, for his part, he did not wish the Government to consent to that. The private brewer had only a right to be put on the same footing as the public brewer; and he would advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Hicks) not to do more than endeavour to place the two classes of brewers on the same footing. But the real effect of the change was to place a new tax on the private brewing of beer. The Government were anxious to appear in the position of the farmers' friends; and he thought it desirable that the farmers should see that, by the abolition of the Malt Duty, a new and strange tax was to be imposed on them. No doubt, they did pay a certain amount of duty at present; but, by that Bill, any person who brewed would have to pay duty, not only on the malt, but on sugar and other ingredients which had hitherto been duty free. That was the effect of the benevolent legislation that was now going forward.

said, he had risen at the same time as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) to make a few remarks as to the benefit to the farmer. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister say that the words quoted by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) with reference to what the Prime Minister had said as regarded being in favour of a noble industry did not apply to brewing, but to ploughing. With regard to that question of benefit to the farmer, he was bound to say that it was not so important in many districts of the country as it was in others. He had received a letter on this point; but as he understood the Employers' Liability Bill was coming on, he had not brought it down with him. He could, however, state the substance of it. It was from one of the sub-Commissioners under the Agricultural Commission for Scotland. It was from a Mr. Hope, of Duddingstone, in Mid Lothian. He said that he was going about collecting statistics for the Agricultural Commission, and that in all the best barley districts the people were opposed to the measure of the Prime Minister.

Does the noble Lord intend to speak to the subject of the Amendment?

said, he should bring that in. The conclusion they had come to was that it would reduce the price of barley 3 s. a-quarter. In order to connect that with the subject of the Amendment he would say that, if that was the deliberate opinion of the barley growers, was not the Amendment a matter for consideration? Should they not do all in their power to improve the position of the farmer? He had also received a letter to the like effect from a constituent of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who, as he did not vote for him, was not represented, and had asked him (Lord Elcho) to speak for him. He trusted that the Government would give their favourable consideration to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, inasmuch as it had for its object the benefit of the farmers, and the Government were apparently desirous of showing themselves to be the farmers' friends.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would see that the change did actually place the farmer in a worse position. 2 s . 1 ½ d. on the bushel of malt was the rate under the old Malt Tax; and even if this rate were accepted, and the rate of 2 s. 8½ d. agreed to, it would still leave him the loser. He thought they were justified in asking, at all events, that the rate should not be greater than it was under the old duty, when the brewing was for private purposes. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the object of the Bill was to relieve the distress which lay heavily upon an ancient and noble industry, and he had not then referred to brewing, but ploughing. So far as he could see, that relief would not be forthcoming at all. They thought that the Bill, so far as it went, was a step in the right direction; but it did not go far enough. To place a tax upon the brewing of beer in a labourer's own house was nothing else than placing him in a worse position than he occupied previously. For those reasons he was in favour of the Amendment before the Committee.

said, that if exemption, or partial removal of restriction, should be extended, and private brewers generally were not debarred from using other materials, they would probably do so, and that would be neither to the interest or benefit of the farmer. The use of other materials, to a great extent, he was inclined to think, would be the effect of the direct operation of the Amendment; and if private brewers were to resort to that course, the growers of barley and the maltsters would necessarily suffer in consequence.

said, he thought, upon consideration, that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was quite right. The words proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) would refer also to other kinds of corn, inasmuch as they were clearly included in the equivalents specified in the preceding clause. With regard to the testimony of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), he would ask whether or not he had omitted the word "not."

said, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Earp), it appeared to him that there was another strong objection to the duty being raised to 3 s. 1 ½ d. , if the effect was likely to be that materials other than malt would be largely employed. Such a course as that would go considerably against the farmer.

said, he did not wish for a moment that the Committee should misunderstand the object which he had in view. He maintained that that Bill imposed an entirely new tax on the private brewer. An hon. Member who had previously spoken said that he (Mr. Hicks) wished to liberate certain articles. He begged to say that he did not wish to liberate anything. He wished to have things as they were, and he objected to a misinterpretation being put on the words he had used. By the present Amendment there was nothing to prevent any brewer using any article he chose; but the Bill restricted that freedom. It might be a liberal measure; but it seemed to him to be very tyrannical. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister alluded to such institutions as the great houses of noblemen; but those were not the private brewers that his Amendment was intended to affect or could affect. The materials with which they were dealing were not materials that could be used for beer of strong quality intended to be kept a long time; but it could only be used for that description of beer intended for immediate use. Those materials were never used except for that purpose. [ Cries of "Agreed!"] He appealed to the Chairman. He stood there as the Representative of a great agricultural county very much interested in that question, and he claimed a fair hearing. It was very seldom that he trespassed upon the attention of that House. He did not profess to be capable of great oratory; but he wished to state that he came there to do his duty, and to state the facts of the case in the interest of those he represented. He might be mistaken in the conclusions at which he had arrived; but, at any rate, the subject was one of which he had a slight personal knowledge. He said that the usual beer ingredients were not likely to be used in the case of farmers and others who brewed for immediate consumption. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of putting that statement of his on one side, would take the trouble to inquire into the subject, he would find that the custom to which he had referred did prevail to a considerable extent. He hoped he was not mistaken in the figures given him by the right hon. Gentleman. He believed he had said on more than one occasion that the quantity of malt used by private brewers did not exceed 200,000 or 300,000 bushels. He believed he should be right in saying that that represented a duty of about £30,000 or £40,000. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, he would appeal to the whole Treasury Bench, whether it really was worth while to subject the private brewers of this country, the great majority of whom did not occupy large houses or great institutions, but were small tradesmen and agriculturists, to the annoyances prescribed by that Bill for the purpose of raising so small a revenue as that?

said, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) was entitled to the attention of the Committee, not only on account of the constituency which he represented, but also on account of the subject-matter of the observations he had addressed to the Committee. He thought there was little doubt that his hon. Friend had established a case, seeing that the effect of that Bill upon certain classes of private brewers was to put them in a less favourable position than they occupied at the present time. But where his hon. Friend failed in his argument was that he failed to perceive that that was a consequence of the exchange of a Malt Tax for a Beer Duty, which must necessarily happen, and that that was one of the reasons for the difficulty in making the change. Under the old system, it was comparatively easy to meet the case of a private brewer; but, under the new system, it was impossible to do what his hon. Friend had proposed—namely, to confine it to classes of persons, other than those for whose benefit the change was made. It was quite impossible that a distinction could be made between the private and public brewer with any fairness to the brewer. It was impossible in such cases as those referred to, still more in the case of large institutions, to introduce a system to put them upon a more favourable footing than the brewer for sale. No doubt, his hon. Friend failed to see the great benefit which, it was said, was going to result to the agricultural classes by the operation. However, the change must entail some inconvenience to private brewers; and he believed it would be impossible to accept the Amendment. At the same time, he thought that the hon. Member had stated his case exceedingly well, so far as the classes referred to were concerned.

said, he would venture to hope that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) would not press his Amendment to a division. The hon. Member had done good service in bringing the question forward in the way he had done; but he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was bound to say that, looking at the question all round, and having regard to the statements which were made before the Committee over which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had the honour to preside, he believed it was impossible to deal with the case of private brewers or large private brewing institutions in a different way from any others. At the same time, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put the figure too high; but that was not the point then under discussion. He thought it would be unwise to press the Amendment then, because they were more likely to get something from the right hon. Gentleman by-and-bye, when he found that he was going to raise a much larger income than he would admit at present. When that period arrived, he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would then take that question into consideration.

said, there was one point which he had omitted to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman wished to place brewers in the same position, practically, asthey were in before. Well, if that were the case, he supposed that the reason why the duty was 6 s. 3 d. was that that amount included the malster's profit under the old system. But private brewers were still subject to all the inconveniences and expenses of the malting as before; and yet their duty, instead of being at a fair figure, such as 2 s. 8 ½ d. , was raised to 3 s. 1 ½ d.

Question put, and agreed to.

, who had the following Amendment upon the Paper:—In page 6, line 61, after "materials," leave out "as aforesaid," and insert "so that he shall be deemed to have brewed twelve gallons for every bushel of malt," said, he begged to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept the Amendments which stood in his name. They were as follows:—In page 7, line 3, after "higher," insert "on the aggregate of a month's brewing; "and in the same page, line 5, after "materials," insert the same words again.

said, that their contention was that those words were unnecessary. He believed that it would be quite unnecessary, especially if the new clause which he had put upon the Notice Paper were inserted in the Bill.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

said, he had an Amendment to the same effect as that of the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. M. A. Bass). He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the words he intended to propose in a subsequent Amendment for a new clause would meet the case. But with regard to the next Amendment which stood in his (Mr. Watney's) name, he should ask the Committee to enter upon the question of the difference of yield between ale and porter worts. In the making of porter a good deal of brown malt was used, which did not yield so much extract. He should also ask them to insert in the next line an extra of 2 per cent when brown malt was used.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 5 after "gravity," insert "in the case of ale worts."—( Mr. Watney. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, that he could not accept the Amendment. If the hon. Member would refer to Clause 12, where it was shown that weight as well as measure would be taken into consideration, he believed he would see that the object that he had in view would be effected.

said, that the weight did not affect his Amendment. He contended that 42 lbs. weight of brown malt was not equal to that of pale malt. He should not press his Amendment now; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question before Report. If they saw their way to make that a case with Somerset House, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would allow the words to be inserted on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, he had another Amendment to propose which did not appear on the Paper. It had reference to the place where, in sub-section 7 of that clause, a deduction of 6 per cent was allowed for waste in regard to the quantity of worts produced. On a division which was taken the previous night, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried his point about the "1,057 degrees" remaining in the Bill. He (Mr. Watney) had stated that he was satisfied that a large number of brewers produced 85 lbs. extract per quarter of malt; but the right hon. Gentleman had said that his calculations were based on their producing 82. He then asked for a concession of 2 per cent in the waste, which was equal to about one degree of gravity. They had carried their point, and the specific gravity stood at 1,057; and, therefore, he thought that that concession might be made. He could assure them that a great many brewers made more than 6 per cent waste, just as they got 85 instead of 82 extract. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to meeting them in that matter, at any rate. After the division that took place the previous night, of course, they knew that there was a majority in favour of the Government in regard to that subject; but, notwithstanding, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman might meet them part way.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 10, to leave out the word "six," in order to insert the word "eight."—( Mr. Watney. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."

said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Watney) had referred to the division of the previous night; but that division, they should recollect, was on a question whether the Bill should go forward or not. If the Amendment of the hon. Member had been carried, he (Mr. Gladstone) must have dropped the Bill; there was no other course open to them. Therefore, the Committee should understand that that was a serious matter. They had carried concession to the furthest point that he conceived to be wise. He had already shown that a rigid inquiry and calculation had been made by the most competent persons on the side of the Government; and he believed that the profit to be made by that change had been reduced to so low a figure that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Surrey were accepted that profit would be entirely lost. He was aware that his Estimate was not the same as that of the hon. Member; but he must decline to accede to the Amendment. He was bound to say that, with regard to the 6 per cent waste, they were obliged to take a fixed figure for the Bill. He dare say that some brewers made more than that, but he believed also, and he thought he knew, men who made less. He must, therefore, adhere to the figures already inserted in the clause.

said, that he would say this in reply. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to argue from what he thought a wrong point of view. He said he must adhere to what originally appeared in the Bill; but what he should say was that the Revenue officers now collected so much, and he would see whether, under that Bill, they would not collect more than they at present got; perhaps, then he would be inclined to meet them. He (Mr. Watney) would give them an illustration. The right hon. Gentleman practically asked them for an exchange. Suppose they went to the Government and asked them to change a sovereign. They first gave then 18 s. , and then 19 s , and said—"We have given a whole shilling away." That was just the position with respect to the duty. They contended that the Government were in error as to the amount they produced.

said, he could assure the hon. Member that in the calculations which he had gone into the previous night they had reduced the Revenue to the lowest possible point. With regard to the illustration of the hon. Member he must admit that originally they had only offered him 19 s. for his sovereign; but now he wanted them to give him 21 s. or 22 s. for it.

said, that that Bill placed brewers in an awkward position. They acknowledged the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman had made since the Bill was first considered, and fully appreciated the extraordinary care required in order to carry out the details of that most difficult measure. He (Mr. Coope) could not, however, help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman had hardly dealt out justice as regarded the duty to those particularly affected. In the discussion that took place on the previous night, it was clearly proved by the general consensus of opinion of all brewers, whether of London, Burton, Dublin, or the country, that the extract contained in a quarter of malt was 85 pounds of saccharine matter, or upwards. He could show that the extract was at least 84·6, which was very little different; and he maintained that they were right, and the experts of the right hon. Gentleman were wrong in founding their conclusions upon a basis of 82 only. Brewers were quite willing to bear some trifling loss, which the right hon Gentleman said he must require of them for the public; but he also said that he would, on the whole, make an equivalent duty on beer for that duty which he was about to remove from the malt. They contended that he was going to do a great deal more than that. It was very true that if the right hon. Gentleman had suffered defeat the previous night he must have withdrawn the Bill. That was a catastrophe which brewers would have borne with considerable equanimity. But whether they desired that the Bill should fall through or no, that ought not to stand in the way of what the Government thought to be a public advantage. All they desired was fair play. He thought the proposal of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney) a most moderate one; and after the division the previous night he thought it was a concession that might well be granted.

said, that the hon. Gentlemen who had recently addressed the Committee seemed only to look at the matter from their point of view. He did not complain of that in any way; for, no doubt, brewers were entitled to have what they said in that House carefully considered, when a measure was before it which so much affected their interests. Still, he would remind hon. Gentlemen that there was a considerable class of people in that country who did not happen to be brewers. Looking at that Bill, not as a matter affecting brewers, it was, in his judgment, a proposal which would have a beneficial effect in the country; and, therefore, he should support the views of the Government in regard to it. It would be absurd in his case to express an opinion as to whether or no that was an exact equivalent for the old Malt Duty. Upon that he should express no opinion, for he had no means of forming one. After listening to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he had come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers in the Inland Revenue Department had given the subject the greatest possible care and attention, with a view of coming to a conclusion that would be fair to the brewer and many others interested. They appeared to be entirely in favour of an equivalent, exact as far as may be, being made in the case of the Beer Duty for that which was previously on the malt. He thought that in making a change of that kind in the public interest it was exceedingly desirable that the tax should not press more heavily than absolutely necessary, and he had gathered from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman that that was exactly his opinion. He wished to make the change as little undesirable to the parties affected as possible. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had spoken of it as a new and strange tax. Of course, it was a new tax; but he did not say that by it a tax had been removed that they were all anxious to get rid of. He ventured to think that, after the careful consideration which the Government had given to that matter, they might accept the conclusions of the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt, during the next 12 or 18 months, there would be sufficient opportunity of watching the actual incidents of that new tax, and the Government could then reconsider the matter. As far as they could see at present, everything was being done perfectly fair in the interests of the brewer; and, if it turned out not to be exactly as they expected, the brewing interest would, after some experience of the working of the Bill, no doubt, have a right to ask the Government to take the necessary steps to secure that justice should be meted out to them.

said, he could hardly imagine that his hon. Friend (Mr. Watney) would press his Amendment to a division. After the division of the previous night it was not likely to be of service. The case decided the previous night had arisen out of ex parte statements. They thought that their experience was sufficient to satisfy them that they were right; and, on the other side, the Board of Inland Revenue, no doubt, took care that the Revenue did not suffer. But, inasmuch as there was a conflict between those ex parte statements, the Committee would probably rely upon the statements made by the responsible Ministers. What he (Mr. Whitbread) felt was that the figures suggested by his hon. Friend and those adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer being at variance, the right course was to leave the matter in the hands of the responsible Ministers, inasmuch as there was no authority to which they could appeal. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for those Estimates; and if, after sufficient experience of the working of the Act, it turned out that their figures were right, and those of the Department were wrong, he thought that there could be no doubt that his right hon. Friend would see his way to meet their wishes in regard to that matter. He would probably come down to the House and state that he had been of a different opinion when the Bill was first introduced, but that he had, at all times, resolved to do what was just and fair; and, therefore, then saw his way to make the concession. He (Mr. Whitbread) had the utmost confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's sense of justice to be assured that he would take the earliest opportunity of putting the matter on a fairer footing, if it were necessary to do so.

said, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, he wished to move the next Amendment which stood in his name—namely, in page 7, line 9, he proposed to leave out "may arise" and insert "arises."

said, he had no objection to accept the Amendment. He would take that opportunity to say one word in answer to his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Whitbread). His appeal was marked in his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion by a sense of equity and moderation which, he thought he might say without exaggeration, distinguished all the declarations of his hon. Friend in that House, and which contributed largely to give his remarks great weight, as well as the personal respect which he enjoyed. The statement of his hon. Friend was a perfectly fair one. With reference to what took place on the previous night, he must confess that he was not too sanguine not to fear that the necessity would arise of adopting the alternative in deference to the calculations of what was previously acknowledged to be a high authority, and which must, indeed, be taken into account. As to the general principle, there could be no doubt that they had given a pledge which had been often repeated, and was tolerably well understood on all sides, that should experience show that they had been mistaken in regard to their calculations, they should still be open to reconsider the subject. He must say that the mere fact of taking the figures of the Board of Inland Revenue would not in itself be a conclusive test. The actual facts and information which were developed and obtained by them in the course of actual experience would be the real test as to the revenue likely to accrue.

Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

said, that in the discussion on Clause 12 they had elicited some information with regard to the equivalents of sugar and of malt to the specific gravity. There was an expression in the 4th sub-section of the clause under notice which was not clear. He presumed that the same meaning would apply in both cases.

said, he believed it would be the case. He believed that the words in the sub-section were necessary, in order to enable the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to work that measure satisfactorily.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 14 (Mode of ascertaining gravity and quantity).

said, he should like to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. That clause only spoke of an "approved saccharometer." He wished that the Prime Minister would establish a standard saccharometer. He wished to observe that saccharometers made by different makers did not always show the same results. Would it not be better to specify a particular one?

said, he thought it would be unwise to fix by law on any particular saccharometer. There might be changes, or new discoveries, which might seriously impede them, if they were to do so. He could assure the hon. Member that, if he could communicate with the Board of Inland Revenue, he would find that they would give the subject every attention, and that they had every desire to arrive at the best results.

Clause agreed, to.

Clause 15 (Mode of ascertaining original gravity) agreed to.

Clause 16 (Payment of duty).

said, he proposed to strike out this clause, and bring in the alternative one which appeared on the Notice Paper.

Clause omitted.

Clause 17 (Power to distrain for duties in arrear).

said, he had an Amendment to propose which did not appear on the Notice Paper. It was in page 8, line 5, after the word "unpaid," insert "for fourteen days." As the clause stood, it appeared to him that an unfortunate brewer might be hardly dealt with. It was possible for the Commissioners to put in a distraint at once, for in Clause 33, sub-section 2, it said that—

"The charge of duty shall be made, and the duty shall be paid at such times as the Commissioners shall appoint."

If the Commissioners could at once put in an execution, it would, he believed, bear very hardly on the brewer.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 5, after the word "unpaid" to insert "for fourteen days."—( Colonel Barne. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he was sorry he could not agree to the insertion of the words. The matter was perfectly understood between those engaged in the trade and the Inland Revenue Department.

said, that did not apply to the case of private brewers.

said, that the rule must apply to all brewers alike. He was not aware of any reason why, by law, an interval should be given after the duty was payable. It appeared to him to be a bad and awkward precedent. They were all acquainted with the practice of the tax gatherers, and knew that there was an inconvenient pressure applied after the tax became payable. That was not the only tax that had to be collected, and he objected to introduce into an Act of Parliament a provision, the peculiarity of which was that the payment of a duty should be postponed a certain time after it became payable. In that case it would not be payable at all until after the expiration of that period.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken as to the gist of his remarks. The clause applied not only to brewers for sale, but also to private brewers. It was upon the latter class that he (Colonel Barne) thought that it would bear heavily.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 (Loss by fire, &c.) agreed to.

Clause 19 (A brewing book to be delivered to brewers, and provisions to be observed in relation thereto).

said, that the Amendment which he had put upon the Paper was in the interest of private brewers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see—in fact, he could not help seeing—that private brewers were placed in a very much worse position by that Act than they were before. They had formerly to pay the Malt Duty, and there was an end to it; they might then brew when, how, and where they liked, without being subject to inconvenience from the Excisemen, or liable to a penalty of £100, or anything of the kind. But by that clause a book was to be delivered to private brewers, in which they were to enter all the malt to be used in brewing, and state when the brewing was to take place, and a number of things perfectly unintelligible to the agricultural labourer. If he understood that clause correctly, that book would be delivered to every brewer, and they would be required to enter all particulars therein; but surely the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to put restrictions upon private brewers which were perfectly unintelligible to a great number of them. He merely moved the Amendment with a view to relieve private brewers from what he believed would be vexatious to them. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman intended to have something less troublesome and more intelligible than the ordinary run of such books, where the Inland Revenue authorities had to deal with private brewers.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 28, after "brewer," leave out from "and" to "brewer," in line 31 inclusive.—( Mr. Storer. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

said, he believed there was very little difference practically between their views and those of the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Storer). He could assure him that they did not wish to impose restrictions on private brewers unnecessarily. In cases where there was no exemption it would be quite necessary that Returns should be sent in, and it was for that purpose that the book was required. It was intended to provide two books. There would be, first, the book for public brewers, which was of a more complicated description, and contained a greater variety of specifications; and then there would be the book for private brewers, in which it was their intention to insert only the proper tables, and spaces, and directions for making it out; and the specifications would be simply directed to the materials and time of brewing. With regard to the time of brewing, he promised that, in a very large number of cases, it could not be dispensed with; at the same time, whether it would be necessary that the time should be specified in the case of small private brewers was a matter for consideration. For his part, he could not see why any distinction should be introduced for the purpose of relieving them from that.

said, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment, and expressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would withdraw the enormous penalty of £100 which was to be imposed on the farmers for infringements of the Act, for the purpose of substituting a more reasonable sum.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, the Amendment he was about to move on behalf of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease), had reference to the provisions of Clause 33, which said—

"Where the full annual value of the house occupied by the brewer does not exceed ten pounds, the beer brewed by him shall not be charged with duty."

In his part of the country they had considerable difficulty in dealing with persons who retailed liquor without licences. As the book proposed to be kept by those persons would be primâ facie evidence against persons taking out licences, in case of their having purchased or made beer beyond the requirements of the family for retailing, contrary to the provisions of the Act, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see the desirability of agreeing to the Amendment which he begged to move.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 30, before the word "liable," insert "whether."—( Mr. Arthur Pease. )

said, that the objection to the Amendment was that it would make it necessary for every cottage brewer to keep a book. He did not contemplate that at all, and should be very sorry to make it necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, the fact of the Excise officer having power to make his visit at any time would be very inconvenient to many private brewers. He, for one, objected to be knocked up in the night to allow an inspection of his brewing book; and, therefore, he begged to move, as an Amendment, that the time should be limited to between the hours of 10 A.M. and 4 P.M.

said, he need hardly point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the words "at all times" had reference really to public brewers for sale. The proposed limitation would be inconvenient, because the hours named were not the usual business hours with the trade. He would much rather consider the matter from the point of view of a person's rest being broken, and would see if he could not introduce some specific provision to provide for the case of the hon. and gallant Member.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn ,

Amendment in page 8, line 38, after "enter" insert "separately,"—( Mr. Cowan. )— agreed to.

said, the sum of £100, fixed by the clause as a fine for the contravention of the section which related to the keeping of books by persons who brewed, was excessive, especially in the case of private brewers. It, therefore, appeared to him advisable to leave a discretion to the magistrates as to the amount of fine to be inflicted; and he accordingly begged to move in page 9, line 20, after the word "of " to insert the words "not exceeding," which would have the desired effect.

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 20, after "of," insert "not exceeding."—( Colonel Barne. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, the section expressed the uniform proceeding on the part of the Board of Inland Revenue in every case of infringements of the Act. The question might be raised on Report; for he could not, at the present, take the responsibility of breaking the invariable rule. The practice of the Board of Inland Revenue was not, he believed, to sue for the extreme penalty; after the magistrate had imposed the fine, he believed that the Excise officer was, after consideration, allowed to sue for such portion of it as was thought fit.

thought it was a case of hardship to inflict a penalty on a small farmer for the slightest breach of the law, and then leave it to the Board of Inland Revenue to say whether it should be paid or not.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) was in error in supposing that it rested with the Board of Inland Revenue to say whether the fine should be paid or not. That rested with the magistrates. It was quite impossible for him to admit any error in what he believed to be the uniform practice; but, if Notice were given of raising the question later on, he would be able to deal with the subject with fuller information, and not upon conjecture, as he was then doing.

said, that having sat as a magistrate for many years, his experience was that the Excise officer, in all cases, in the first place, asked for the full penalty; and the magistrates, if satisfied with the evidence that an offence had been committed against the Statute, had only power to reduce the penalty by three-fourths of the original amount. He did not mean to say that the officers pressed for the full penalty; but they asked for it in the information, and the magistrates, having evidence to show that an offence had been committed, however small that offence might be, had no power beyond that of mitigating the fine by three-fourths. So that in the case of a penalty of £100, they would be bound to inflict a penalty of £25. The penalty having been so inflicted, the case, he believed, was then referred to the authorities in London; but, as he had already said, the magistrates had no power beyond that proportion named. He suggested that a clause should be brought up distinctly stating what the liability of brewers was to be.

said, that was a very serious question, of wide application, and one that ought not, he thought, to have been raised without Notice. Let the question be raised upon Notice, and he would then take care to make as full a statement as the case required. He repeated his belief, that it was necessary to have one uniform rule for dealing with cases of infringement; but, when the matter was raised upon Notice, he would give an answer on the part of the Government. Unless, however, he was mistaken, the statement of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) was inaccurate.

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would seriously reconsider the clause now before the Committee. The Bill would tempt a number of poor and ignorant individuals to become private brewers, who would come within the reach of the heavy penalties of the Act. He thought that the introduction of the words ''not exceeding," discretion being left to the magistrates thereby, would be far better than to retain the clause as it stood. The Bill would effect a very great change in domestic arrangements of persons in all parts of the Kingdom; and he could not but think that a clause involving so heavy a fine upon the class of persons to whom he had alluded should be very carefully considered.

said, he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mistaken in the view he had taken of the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks). The statement of the hon. Member, he (Mr. Staveley Hill) was able to say, was absolutely accurate; and he could not but think it hardly fair that hon. Members should be told, when in Committee, that they had made inaccurate statements.

also said, that the law as stated by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) was perfectly correct. The magistrates could only reduce the penalty to one-fourth of the sum named in the Act.

said, he would, with permission, withdraw his Amendment, and raise the question on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 (Persons brewing beer for others to be deemed to be brewers for sale).

said, the Committee would see that he had given Notice of two Amendments, one of which affected a limited number of persons, and the other a large proportion of the private brewers, other than brewers for sale. He would confine himself to the first Amendment, which applied simply to the agricultural labourer. As it had been stated on more than one occasion during the discussions on this Bill, it was the common practice in the agricultural districts of occupiers of land to give at harvest time a certain quantity of malt to their labourers for their own use; and the labourers not having any conveniences for converting that malt into beer at their own houses, were in the habit of applying to their employers for permission to use their vessels and premises for the purpose of brewing, and when the malt was brewed the beer was taken to their own houses. Under the present clause, no employer of labour could allow his men to bring their malt on to his premises, and afterwards take away the beer brewed from it. If he did so, he would become a public brewer as defined in another part of the Bill, and would be liable to having his name inscribed on his premises. That would, no doubt, be a very small matter as far as he was concerned; but the employer would also be subject to all the inconveniences imposed upon public brewers; and, more than that, the agricultural labourer would be liable, at the very least, to the duties on worts provided by the Bill. The Committee would remember that he had, last night, drawn attention to the hardships of imposing licences on men occupying cottages at a small rental. The Committee were told that the labourers were to have the benefit of not paying duty for malt or worts if they lived in houses of a certain rental. It was perfectly impossible for these persons to brew on their own premises; and, therefore, it would be impossible for them to brew at all, because they were prevented from brewing on the premises of their employers. In the course of the discussions which had taken place they had seen some concessions made to the public brewer; but he had been able to discover very little intention to concede anything to the agricultural labourer. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see how reasonable was the Amendment he was about to move; and, whether he agreed or not to the larger Amendment which followed, he hoped that he would, at any rate, allow occupiers of land to give the use of their premises to their labourers for the purpose of brewing. Words might easily be introduced into the Bill to protect the Revenue. He asked nothing more than that these labourers, who had certain apparent privileges conferred upon them by the Bill, should be able to avail themselves of the benefits intended to be given to them. The Committee would recollect that a Petition had been presented from Suffolk upon this very point. These facts being as he had stated, he trusted that all hon. Members, whether sitting for boroughs or counties, indeed, all who were connected with land, would see the necessity of the farm labourer being allowed to brew a wholesome beverage for himself, and support his Amendment, which he begged to move.

Amendment proposed,

In page 9, line 25, after "sale," to insert "Provided always, That nothing in this Act shall be taken to prevent any occupier of land allowing his or her labourers engaged in agriculture the use of his or her premises and vessels for the purpose of brewing their own malt, the beer so brewed being taken home by the labourers aforesaid."—( Mr. Hicks. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew, as well as possible, that it was of great advantage, from a social point of view, that the agricultural labourer should be encouraged to brew for the use of his family. He believed that if the Amendment could be framed in a way to allow that, without doing detriment to the principle of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman would agree to it. They wanted the farmer to be allowed to brew beer for his labourers, the liberty being restricted absolutely to the men employed on his farm. That he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) believed would meet the views of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), and would, at the same time, be no invasion of the principle of the Bill. The clause was not so clearly drawn as might be, so as to show whether a farmer might brew and serve out the beer to his labourers for the work they were doing. The point was a very important one, and he ventured to hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to make the clause clear as to the farmer being allowed to brew beer for his own consumption, and being also allowed to brew for his labourers, in the premises in which he brewed beer for himself.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to nearly the same effect, but of wider scope than that before the Committee. It was the custom in some country towns not to have the brewing done on one's own premises but to do it on the premises of a neighbour. This custom was similar to that in existence between the farmer and his labourers. Now, by the 34th clause of the Bill, it would be impossible that these two customs could be continued. That clause stated plainly that—

"A brewer, other than a brewer for sale, shall only brew on the premises occupied by him for his own domestic use."

The result of that would be that persons could not accommodate their neighbours, unless they put themselves under the onerous and dangerous restrictions applied by the Bill to brewers for sale. He believed very few persons would do that for the purpose of accommodating their neighbours. He trusted that the discussions which had taken place would have shown hon. Members the importance of the questions involved in the Amendments, both of himself and of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks); and, in the hope of continuing the two customs, it was his intention to move a Proviso at the end of the clause—

"That nothing in this Act shall he taken to prevent the use by any person or persons not being retailers of beer, or spirits, of any brewing plant contained in private premises other than those in which he or they shall reside but within the same or adjoining parishes for the purpose of having beer brewed therewith for his or their own domestic use solely, the occupiers of such premises to come under the provisions of this Act as respects only the payment of licence only as a brewer for sale, and to be in all respects answerable for the observation of the provisions contained in Clause nineteen as a brewer not for sale, and in his entries to state the name and address of all persons on whose behalf such brewing is made, such persons to come under the provisions of this Act in respect only of the payment of licences as brewers not for sale."

That would have the effect of carrying out the Amendment in the same way both on behalf of the residents in towns, and the farm labourers contemplated by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire.

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks). He (Colonel Ruggles-Brice) should not be sorry to get rid of all the exemptions in the Bill, and he thought that the line of £10 had been hastily and ill-considered, and would prove of no advantage to the occupier or the farm labourer, unless the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment or gave a much more clear definition of the manner in which they were to be allowed to brew. It was, of course, possible for persons to brew in a tea kettle; and he believed that many agricultural labourers had brewed in that way in various parts of the Kingdom. But if the labourer was to be confined to brewing in a tea-kettle at his cottage, then he said that the offer of the right hon. Gentleman was worth nothing. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment he would thereby sweep away all exemptions under the Bill, which he (Colonel Ruggles-Brise), for one, would have no objection to. He understood the Bill to preclude the labourer from brewing at the common brewhouse of the locality, and to confine him to his own premises for that purpose. That, as he had said before, rendered the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer valueless; but, if this disability were removed, he thought a great favour would be conferred upon the agricultural labourer.

said, there were three Amendments on the Paper dealing with this subject, and it would be well to make some reference to the whole of them, in discussing the particular Amendment before the Committee. There was an objection to the clause, on the ground that it indicated a particular class of persons who were to enjoy a privilege not granted to the rest of the community. He should, indeed, be sorry if anything appeared on the face of the Bill which involved that distinct and invidious principle. He was by no means so hostile to the object of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) whom he understood to say that inasmuch as there were many persons who were in the habit of brewing—he did not ask whether they were agricultural labourers or not—and as certain other persons, their employers, were willing to lend their premises for brewing purposes without any payment whatever, that such persons should be able to lend their premises for that purpose without thereby becoming liable to the provisions of the Act as brewers for sale, and, as he ought to say further, without there being any evasion of the other provisions of the Act with regard to the duty payable in consequence of this permission. He did not think, so far as he could judge at that moment, that any of the three Amendments could be safely incorporated in the Bill; but, if he was correct in the idea he had formed of the views of the hon. Gentleman who had placed them on the Paper, he believed upon the Report the Government might be able to make some provision which would secure the object in view. But he begged hon. Members to recollect that he was absolutely pledged against what might be called co-operative brewing, which, if it were undertaken, must be carried on subject to all the liabilities of public brewing. Within the limitations he had endeavoured to describe, he thought something might be prepared before Report which would answer the purposes of hon. Gentlemen.

said, he was not quite sure whether he understood the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to take the Bill as it was drawn and placed upon the Table of the House. By the provisions of the Bill, a labourer, living in a cottage of under £10 annual value, if he took out a licence, was not to be called upon to pay duty. Was he right in so understanding the purport of the Bill?

Yes, as long as the person is brewing for his own domestic use.

said, of course he understood that. Did hon. Members wish to strain the words of the clause to do any wrong to the Revenue? His object was simply that those to whom a benefit was apparently offered should be able to avail themselves of it in reality. He maintained that one-half of the class under a rental of £10 had no means of brewing at home; and, therefore, he proposed that they should have an opportunity of brewing on their employers' premises, as they had done up to the present time. Of course, it was expected, at the same time, that they should be exempt from duty, just as if they brewed on their own premises.

said, it was intended that the labourers should remain in the same position as before. But hon. Gentlemen would see the necessity of guarding against evasions, under cover of which places might be made use of for the purpose of co-operative brewing.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to exempt people who lived in houses of £10 rental from paying any Beer Duty. Did the right hon. Gentleman also propose to relieve them from the payment of duty on spirits and tobacco? He could not but think the principle of the exemption utterly wrong; and, therefore, he trusted that the Government would consider the point well, and hesitate before introducing a novel and vicious principle.

said, the inhabitant of a house under £10, after having paid 6 s. for a licence, which would suffice to keep him within the knowledge of the Revenue Department, was to be free from further interference, and all charge upon the material that he used, so long as he brewed for his own domestic use. That was the limitation. But, in order that there might be no evasion and unfair competition created against the brewing trade, that person was defined to be a brewer, although not a brewer for sale. In cases of evasion, there would be an opportunity of making an examination to see that the liberty conferred was not used for purposes for which it was not intended.

said, in his county the farmers brewed at home, and gave a good deal of beer away to their labourers as part-payment of their wages. He would like to know whether a farmer who brewed at home, for private purposes, and for giving beer to his labourers, would come under the heading of brewers for sale?

said, he would not come under the heading of brewer for sale.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had given a satisfactory answer; but, as there were plenty of lawyers in the country capable of turning and twisting the clauses of Acts of Parliament in every direction, he hoped that a clear definition of the clause would be added at the end of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 24 (Provisions as to operations in course of brewing).

, in moving as an Amendment, in page 10, line 34, to leave out "twelve," and insert "two," said, the Irish porter brewers would be prejudicially affected unless they had liberty to remove their worts earlier than was provided in the clause. He, therefore, begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 34, to leave out "twelve, and insert "two."—( Mr. Findlater. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Clause."

said, it appeared to him the Government could not possibly depart from the Rule laid down in the clause. The best course, however, for the Irish porter brewers would be to send in a full account of the method of procedure in their manufactories, which should be examined, and then it would be a matter of consideration whether an alteration could be made to meet their particular case. In the meantime, it would not be possible to reduce the limit to two hours, which would allow very little time to the Revenue officers to perform their duty, and so vitally maim an important provision of the Bill.

said, the rules as to brewing in England were not at all applicable to brewing in Ireland; but after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. At the same time, he did not think it was desirable that the secrets of the Irish trade should be made public; but he would endeavour to furnish such a statement as the Prime Minister suggested.

said, he would engage, if the Irish brewers would supply the Board of Inland Revenne with so much information as they thought necessary in order to separate their case from other cases, that the matter should have his attention.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, he had another Amendment to propose to the clause—namely, in page 10, line 38, to leave out "twelve," and insert "twenty-four." He looked upon the Bill as an experiment; and while the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to some extent met his views, he did not clearly understand whether he intended to insert words to meet the case of the Irish brewers before the Bill passed, or whether he meant to insert words giving power to the Excise to make special arrangements. He believed it would be good policy to encourage porter brewing; but the time fixed in the 2nd sub-section of the clause would be very detrimental to the brewers in Ireland, who were, generally speaking, small brewers, and could not provide themselves with the expensive machinery in use in this country. Again, the process of their brewing was a slow one, and it would be very useful to make special variations in the hours named in the Bill to meet the case of the Irish breweries. He was informed by all those persons connected with the trade in Ireland to whom he had spoken that the 12 hours fixed by the 3rd sub-section was altogether too short a period for the performance of the work to be done. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the substitution of 18 hours for the period named in the clause. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 38, leave out "twelve," and insert "twenty-four."—( Mr. Shaw. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

said, before the right hon. Gentleman replied upon the amount, he wished to point out that the English brewers also considered that, at certain times of the year, 12 hours would not be sufficient for the collection of the worts. However, he had understood that some hours' grace would be given in case of need; and that, he supposed, would meet the objection of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw).

said, he understood that if the period of 24 hours were adopted generally, fermentation would have proceeded too far to enable the testing process to be applied according to the provisions of the Bill. What had been said upon the subject appeared to him quite reasonable, no doubt, with reference to the English brewing trade. As his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) had stated, with regard to brewing in Ireland generally, the extension of the time from 12 hours to 18 hours would be a benefit. There was no indisposition on the part of the Government to agree to that; but there would be an objection to place it in the Bill. He hoped the hon. Member for Cork would be contented, as the hon. Member for East Surrey had expressed himself to be, with the assurance that the six hours' grace would be conceded by the Board of Inland Revenue in every case of need connected with the process of public brewing.

said, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was so satisfactory that he should ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25 (Provision for case of excess in gravity of worts) agreed to.

Clause 26 (Provisions as to the separation, and the mixing of brewings).

said, that the same question arose on this cause as on Clause 24; but he did not intend to move his Amendment upon it.

On the Motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, Amendment made in page 11, line 11, after "and" leave out "have subsequently to such notice specified the quantities and gravities;" and insert, "he shall specify in writing the quantity and gravity."

said, that another Amendment he had to move on the clause merely was a verbal one—namely, in page 11, line 13, to leave out the words "to be," and insert "when."

Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.

said, that he wished to call attention to a paragraph of the clause which specified that the product of one brewing should not be mixed with the product of another, unless notice were given to the Excise officer. It had been represented to him that, in some cases, that might be very awkward. He did not propose to move the words that he had given Notice of them; but he would bring the question up upon Report. He thought that something of this kind should be inserted in the clause—that a brewer should not be at liberty to mix the product of one brewing with another, "unless he should have given six hours' notice to the officer to take an account of the first brewing." Without that provision a brewer might in one day's brewing have something over, which he could not put into another brewing until the account had been taken by the officer. It would be awkward if he were not able to do so; but the proposed Amendment would give him the power, and, at the same time, provide for sufficient notice to be given to the Excise officer.

said, that he thought that the proposal of the hon. Member for East Surrey was properly applicable to sub-section 1, which dealt with the regulation for brewing. He could give no answer to the matter now, but would consider it upon Report.

Clause, as amended, agreed, to.

Clauses 27 to 32, inclusive, agreed, to.

Clause 33 (Provisions as to charge and payment of duty).

said, that he had to move in page 12, line 38, to leave out sub-section 1 of the clause. The subject-matter of the clause related to the question that had already been before the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman had promised to consider it. He thought that it would be well to leave out the sub-section in order to make the position of the private brewer less hard. He hoped that an alteration would be made for that purpose. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.

said, he was bound to say that he did not see any reason for reconsidering the principle of the provision in the sub-section referred to. It was only proposed to the examination provided for by the sub-section when there was a necessity for it, and it was not in the least degree intended to use the power in ordinary cases. It was very necessary that the Excise should retain the power.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, the next Amendment of which he had given Notice, was in page 13, line 4, to leave out the word "ten" and to insert the word "twenty." This was rather an important question, and had regard to the question of the exemption of private brewers from the Beer Duty. It was provided by the clause as it stood that if the rent of the house occupied by the private brewer did not exceed£10 per annum, then he was not to be charged any duty. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adhere to his original promise, that a person occupying a house, the annual value of which did not exceed£20a-year, should be freed from the duty. If that were done, the great majority of agriculturists would be free from duty. He did not suppose that the power of brewing would be much used by persons out of the agricultural districts. All farmers did not brew their own beer; but there were districts of the country where large farmers occupying houses considerably over £10 annual value might wish to brew their own beer, and if the clause stood as at present they would be hindered from so doing. He thought that if the present figure£10 were adhered to half the farmers of the country would be on one side the line, and half on the other; and that would be making harsh and invidious distinctions, and would lead to great jealousy and discontent. It would be imposing a tax upon one man and leaving another man of the same class exempt from it. Then it would be very difficult to find out in all cases whether a house was of the value of£10 a-year. What right would the Excise have to assess the houses in numerous Unions? There was a valuation of the houses distinct from the land; but, in some Unions, the house and land were assessed together. There was no rule on this subject throughout the country, and he would ask how the Excise was to draw the line. There would be no doubt that the Excise would find a great majority of the premises within the line. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the effect of the limit he had imposed would be to create a very great amount of heart burning, were a farmer on one side of the street to brew without taxation, and another farmer who paid a few shillings more rental would be subject to the tax. In the latter case the farmer would be allowed to malt without duty; but if he used his house for brewing, then he would be charged duty. When it was remembered that a penalty of£100 was imposed for breach of the regulations of the Act, he thought the necessity of care in fixing the limits would be seen. Moreover, it should be remembered that the farmers in the cider counties were subjected to no such provisions as the farmers who brewed beer, and that would be a cause of great grievance. But besides farmers, other persons would take advantage of this exemption, and it would be much better to fix the line as to the exemption of duty at £20. He hoped that the Committee would feel that it would be rather unfair to make the distinction at £10. There would be no loss to the Revenue if his proposal were adopted; while it would cause very great satisfaction to the farming interest. If this were done the effect of being able to brew might, in many cases, determine a farmer to remain on his land; whereas if he were taxed he might take himself and his capital away to countries where there was no taxation of this kind, and where he might have all the advantages he now enjoyed of sending his corn to this country.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 4, leave out "ten," and insert "twenty."—( Mr. Storer. )

Question proposed, "That the word "ten" stand part of the Clause,"

said, that the figure fixed for the exemption in this clause meant only value of premises, and not the valuation. The hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Storer) had rightly stated that the original statement in the Bill was to exempt persons occupying premises over £20 a-year from the duty; but it was to be remembered that the conditions attaching to that exemption were such that, as the clause at present stood, it was in truth much wider than when it stood as originally proposed. When it was proposed to exempt persons occupying premises over £20 a-year, that sum was meant to include the annual value of the house and land occupied. The effect of that would have been that the clause would not have exempted many of the farming classes; but the exemption of £10 annual value referred only to the value of the dwelling-house, and it was, therefore, wider than the former proposal. He must remind the hon. Member that it was not his object by this Bill to exempt the farmer from taxation; he could not see how it was to be done, or upon what principle it was to be justified. The exemption was intended to meet the case of agricultural labourers and farmers upon a very small scale. Considering the habits of the agricultural labourer, and the smallness of the brewing which he would have to do, an exemption was almost a necessity, however objectionable it might be in principle. When the hon. Member informed the Committee that, in certain Unions, there was no valuation of the dwelling-houses apart from the land, he forgot that that objection would apply as much to his proposal as that of the Bill; there would still have to be a line drawn between one farmer and another, whether this Amendment were adopted or not. It appeared to him that the line proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be a more awkward one than that laid down in the Bill. The line drawn in the Bill was one between farmers and labourers rather than between one farmer and another. If farmers wished to brew, the Government hoped that the Bill would place them under no injurious or unjust conditions. They already used taxable materials, and they would continue still to use them. The tax would be placed on the result of the brewing operations of the farmers. He did not wish to discuss the question whether the private brewer was to be charged at precisely the same rate on his yield as the trade, or whether he was to brew at a slightly lower rate. There were one or two small points with regard to this matter which might be raised; but they were very small. As regarded the exemption, he did not agree with the Amendment proposed; for he thought that it would introduce more differences between one farmer and another than the Bill already did. He hoped that the Committee would consent to the proposal of the Government.

said, that he wished to move an Amendment in a totally different direction to that of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer). He thought that all these exemptions were wrong. The Government were proposing to raise a Beer Duty, and he could not conceive why every man should not pay the duty on beer. Everyone had to pay the duty on tobacco. If the Government made any exemption, he thought it ought to be only for the class of people mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister—namely, the poorest class of labourers. In his opinion, £10 was too high an amount at which to fix the annual value of the dwelling-house of a person who was to be exempted from the duty. It was always supposed that a man paid one-seventh of his income in rent. If, therefore, they exempted every person from the duty who paid a rent of £10 a-year, they would be practically exempting everyone who had an income under £70 a-year. That could not be the class which the Government intended to exempt. They professed only to wish to exempt the agricultural labourers, or people in a similar position; and that object would be met by reducing the limit of £10 to £5. He did not see any reason for the exemption; it ought not to exist, and it was a very dangerous precedent. But if the Government were determined to have an exemption, he hoped that they would confine it to the lowest class of labourers—namely, those who paid not more than £5 a-year rent.

said, that he was sorry that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney) was not satisfied with the excellent position of the brewers, but that he should seek to run down the agricultural community, upon whom his class were dependent to a very great degree. He (Mr. Storer) had supported the brewers in the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member; and he regretted that the hon. Gentleman did not reciprocate. It only appeared in the first Bill that the £20 annual value was to include the house and land; it did not so appear in the original speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In introducing this measure, his words were these—"I propose that in the case of a person who resides in a house of £20 value he shall not pay the Beer Tax." He (Mr. Storer) imagined from that observation, in common with many other hon. Members, that the exemption was to apply to all persons whose houses were under the value of £20. With regard to the question of value, he thought that the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to raise the exemption to £20 was rather unreasonable. What he (Mr. Storer) proposed was to make the exemption extend to all persons who were exempted from the Inhabited House Duty; and it seemed to him that that was a very fair line, because it assumed that a person residing in a house of above the value of £20 was something more than a farmer, and had some means. As the right hon. Gentleman would not accept his Amendment, however, he should not press it.

said, that he ventured to think that these exemptions were rather objectionable in themselves; but, as it was stated that they were intended to meet the case of working men, he thought that they should alter the clause in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney).

said, that he had considerable knowledge of the town in which he lived, and he was certain that there were many farmers the rent of whose houses was under £10 a-year. The valuations which were made in towns were much stricter than those in rural districts. In country places the valuation was, to a great extent, in the hands of the farmers, and their practice was to put their houses and cottages for rateable purposes at the very lowest possible value.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to .

Clause 34 (Beer to be brewed for domestic use).

moved, as an Amendment, in page 13, line 7, after the word "him" to insert "and."

Amendment agreed to; word inserted accordingly.

said, that he had to move, as an Amendment, in page 13, line 7, after the word "use" to insert "or for the use of a household engaged in some industrial occupation." He put in those words because he was doubtful whether the words in the clause ''on the premises occupied by him for his own domestic use," meant that he should brew solely on those premises and not in any other that he might occupy. A great many farms, at the present time, were thrown on the hands of the landlords, who were about to occupy them by putting in persons who were engaged in the farming operations of several farms. He wished to know if, in the case of houses under the value of £10, occupied by bailiffs or persons engaged in agricultural pursuits, for the owner there would be the same liberty of private brewing that there would be in the case of a farmer residing upon that farm?

said, that the Amendment he had already moved to insert the word "and" after "him," met the case put by the hon. Gentleman. It would show that the Amendment was to extend to all premises occupied for domestic use.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

moved, as an Amendment, in page 13, line 11, after the word "licence "to insert the following subsection:—

"Provided, That any labourer or artizan brewing solely for his own domestic use may brew on premises lent to or hired by him for that purpose."

He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

said, he apprehended some words to that effect ought to be inserted in the clause, either now, or upon Report. He presumed that, in any case, the words ''labourer or artizan" ought not to be inserted in the clause, because he understood that the privilege was accorded to any person to brew upon premises lent to him, and it would not be right to confine the privilege to any particular class. He should suggest that the Amendment should run as follows:—

"Provided, That any person brewing solely for his own domestic use may brew on premises lent to or hired by him for that purpose."

said, that it would be very much better that this matter should stand over. It involved the question to which, he had already referred, and he would deal with it on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

Clause, as amended, agreed to .

Clause 35 (Power of entry).

said, that he had to move to leave out the clause, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to abolish it altogether. He thought that the necessity of private brewer keeping books, and the authority of the Commissioners to make them verify their books, should be quite sufficient protection to the Revenue without this clause. It seemed to him that it would be a very great infliction to the private brewer, that an Excise officer should, at any time, be at liberty to inspect either his vessels or utensils. It was not necessary to have such a power, for the duty would be levied in the case of private brewers as a charge upon the materials used. Being a charge upon materials, it was needless that there should be any power of inspection of utensils.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, leave out Clause 35.—( Mr. Storer .)

Question proposed, "That Clause 35 stand part of the Bill."

said, that he should like to know at what time it was intended that the inspection of the utensils should take place? It certainly ought to be put in the clause that the inspection was to take place during the day. If some words of that kind were not inserted, the same objection would apply to this clause as to Clause 7. As the clause now stood, it would leave the Excise officer to choose any time that he considered reasonable to visit the premises of of a private brewer. That might be a most inconvenient time, and it would be excessively inconvenient for private brewer to be liable to the visits of the Excise officer at any time that the latter thought reasonable. He begged to move, after the word "time" to insert "during the day"

said, that these words were already provided for by the clause.

Amendment ( Mr. Dunbar ), by leave, withdrawn .

said, he should like to know, whether the right hon. Gentleman would abolish the clause entirely?

said, he wished hon. Gentlemen to recollect that this clause was only for use on special occasions—that was to say, when there was reason to suppose any fraud on the private brewers was taking place. It was to meet an exceptional case, and there must be some reasonable suspicion before the discretion would be made use of. If the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer) thought that the words of the clause giving that discretion were too broad, and that the Excise officer should not be allowed, at all reasonable times, upon his authority to make the inspection, then that was a matter which the Government would consider. The words might be made to limit the power in a certain way; but it was impossible to do away with it altogether. As to the precise extent of the discretion given to the Excise officer, that was a matter which he would consider upon Report.

said, that he should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be well to put into the clause—"That any officer having a reasonable suspicion that fraud upon the Revenue was being committed shall be at liberty to make the inspection." As the clause now stood the officer had power without any reason to enter the premises of a private brewer; and if some word were inserted showing that the power was only to be used when there were some reasonable grounds for suspicion that the Revenue was being defrauded it would be a proper protection to the private brewer.

said, that, in his opinion, this clause would give the Revenue officer power to inspect any utensil, whether used in brewing or not.

Amendment ( Mr. Storer ), by leave, withdrawn .

Clause agreed to .

Clause 36 (Drawback on beer ported).

said, that this clause ought not to pass without remark, because two important principles were involved in it. The first involved the general question of drawback, by which, he thought, too great authority was represented. If a brewer exported beer to foreign parts, it was only right that the Excise duty levied upon it should be returned. But when they came to the figures of the drawback—6 s . 3 d .—that was a point on which not only this clause, but other clauses were affected. His objection was not simply to this clause, but to other clauses where that figure was mentioned. He did not intend to move the rejection of the clause; but he hoped that the Government would consider the matter upon Report. They should remember that beer competed with alcoholic drinks of foreign manufacture, and when they placed a permanent tax of 6 s . 3 d . upon beer, it would be unfair that foreign wine should come to this country at a lower rate of duty; while the tax upon beer should remain at 6 s . 3 d . per barrel. He could not help thinking that this clause had an important bearing upon the question of Free Trade. It seemed to him to be entirely inconsistent with Free Trade that the Government should put a tax upon our own manufacture, and reduce those upon foreign alcoholic drinks, although they did allow a drawback. He thought that, in this clause, where they were imposing an Excise duty on beer, they should make provision that, in case of a reduction of duty upon an article of foreign manufacture, there should be also a reduction upon the English product. It was not his idea of Free Trade to tax the manufactures of the country, in order to allow a successful competition on the part of foreign manufactures.

Clause agreed to .

Clauses 37 to 42, inclusive, agreed to .

Clause 43 (Alteration of duties on licences to retailers of spirits).

said, that the question he wished to raise upon this clause was with reference to the rate of the public-house licences. As the Bill now stood, the publican was rated upon the annual value of his dwelling-house; he proposed to leave out the word "annual," and to insert "rateable." That would be a much more reasonable matter, because there was doubt as to the annual value of the house; but there could be none as to its rateable value. As the clause stood, the Excise would assume an annual value for themselves, and he thought that that was a thing which the Committee would not allow to be done. If they inserted the word "rateable" in the clause, it would be in the power of any occupier to find out what his rateable value was, and he would then know what licence he would have to pay. It seemed to him that that was the best way to proceed in the interests of the Government; and certainly in the interests of peace. He would tell the Committee how it would work, if the clause stood as now with "annual" value as the basis of the licence. A public-house might be sold one year at a very high price, and the Excise officer might charge a man with the value of the house, calculated on the price at which it was sold. It might so happen that, next year, the man might fail, and the house be sold for half the value. Was the annual value of the house then to be cut down to one-half because the last price at which it had been sold was half its former value? The clause would leave the matter open to all kinds of questions, and he thought it would be advisable to put in the word "rateable." The Government had already raised the scale of licences a good deal from what it now stood at, and he thought they might make this small concession. He admitted it was a concession to the trade; but it would save so much trouble that he felt sure that the Government would acquiesce in the suggestion he had made. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 18, to leave out the word "annual," and insert the word "rateable."—( Mr. Watney .)

Question proposed, "That the word 'annual' stand part of the Clause."

said, that under an Act of Parliament passed in 1856 the annual value of public-houses in Scotland was taken once a-year; it was the custom to inquire from the occupier what his rent was, and another form was filled up by the owner also stating the rent. In that way the real rent was ascertained and fixed. If the Amendment were adopted, the result would be that, as the rateable value of premises in England was one-fourth less than the real value, every licensed house in England would pay one-fourth less than the licensed houses in Scotland.

said, he ventured to think that it was unnecessary to make this alteration. Annual value in the licensing of public-houses should be considered as the rateable value. The Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act of 1869 was quite conclusive as to the interpretation of the word. In that Act it was specially stated that the Valuation List should be taken for various purposes, and amongst those it mentioned that it should be taken for the purpose of determining the value of the house with respect to the licence for a house in which exciseable liquors were to be sold. That clause further specifically stated that, for the purposes of the Act, the amount of value determining the licences should be the rateable value. He, therefore, thought that under the authority of the Act of 1879 the only legal test at the present moment for the licences was the rateable value of the house.

said, that he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not part with the power of taxing these houses not upon their rateable value, but upon their annual value. It should be remembered that the owners and occupiers of public-houses enjoyed a valuable monopoly, and it was only fair to subject them to adequate taxation.

said, that, in his opinion, the proper way to fix the value for these licences was the way proposed by the hon. Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Watney). He had had a great many representations made to him by his constituents with regard to this matter, and it was a question which caused great anxiety amongst them. Complaints were made that whatever might be the case as regarded the publican interest in other parts of the country, this measure dealt very hardly with public-houses in the Metropolis. He held in his hands a statement, and he was sorry that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was not in his place, because the Paper would have great interest for him. That document showed that, so far as public-houses in the Metropolis were concerned, the articles of food consumption sold by them were much larger than of drink. The Paper had been given him by Mr. Spiers, of Messrs. Spiers and Pond, who had various restaurants at railway stations and other places. He stated that in the 12 licensed places occupied by him in the Metropolis, the consumption of food, including aerated waters, were much greater than the consumption of drink, with one exception, the restaurant at King's Cross. With that exception, in every case, the proportion of food sold was much greater than the proportion of drink. In one case, the proportion of food to drink was as 73 per cent to 27; at the Mansion House Station the sale of food was 64 against 86 per cent of drink. He thought that those who supplied the public in the Metropolis with articles of food at restaurants were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to deal with them so hardly as he proposed. He ventured to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee to make the concession proposed in the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney).

said, that the principle of the Amendment ran through several other Amendments; and as most of them, would be ruled by the decision of the Committee upon the Amendment now before them, he thought it would be convenient he should now discuss the question he intended to raise. He was chiefly interested in the question, whether or not the licence was to be taken upon the annual value, or upon the rateable value, with regard to Ireland. He desired to call attention to the fact that, in Ireland, a uniform and general system of valuation prevailed, one which was used for all local purposes, and also for several Imperial purposes, particularly as regarded the assessment of the Income Tax. County cess, poor rate, and the Income Tax, were all alike charged upon the tenement valuation; and it might be said, therefore, that, for all local purposes, as well as for Imperial purposes, a uniform rating was recognized. The only exception was, with regard to these licence duties and if the clause were passed without Amendment, the charge falling upon public-houses in Ireland be, not according to the uniform system of valuation adopted for all other purposes, but would be regulated by a certain system established by 5 and 6 Geo . IV. c. 81, an Act passed at a time when no general valuation existed in Ireland. The valuation system established by that Act was open to very serious objections. The Revenue officer had a right to call upon the tenant or occupier to state his rent, and to call upon the landlord to certify to the same effect. When that was done he fixed the rate upon which the duty was to be charged. There was a further provision in the Act, by which the Revenue officer, if dissatisfied with the statements made him, or if he had reason to believe they were untrue, had a right to satisfy himself, according to his own discretion, and to make such assessment as he thought proper. That discretion was to be exercised, no doubt, under certain rules and regulations, which were to be made by the Inland Revenue Department. But it must be plain that the valuation arrived at by the Revenue officer for the purpose of fixing the licence was not likely to be very much in the tenant's favour. The machinery provided by the Act for appeal from such valuation was extremely unsatisfactory. An appeal lay to the Revenue Board; but that Board must necessarily, in a great measure, accept and rely upon the statements of their officers. When they remembered the amount of correspondence which would have to be gone through to induce the Board to set aside the decision arrived at by one of their own officers, it would be seen that many persons would be forced to submit to the high valuation imposed in despair of having justice done them. In Ireland, they had a valuation upon which the Government itself relied for all other purposes of Imperial taxation; therefore, he thought he was not asking too much in requesting the Government to consider this matter with the view of having this system of valuation adopted with regard to licences in Ireland. There was no reason why the system should not be applied as far as possible in Ireland, where it existed, even although it might not be possible to adopt the same plan with regard to England and Scotland, where a general valuation did not exist. In order that the Committee might not be taken by surprise at the question he was going to raise, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney).

said, the arguments against adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney) were decisive. In the first place, if they agreed to it, the assessment of all these houses would be entirely upset. The principle on which they were valued was perfectly well known; but the rateable value in England was something entirely different from that which existed in Scotland. Then, again, it varied in different Unions; and, if they adopted the Amendment, they would have a licence duty varying with the ideas of the Assessment Committees. He agreed that it would be a desirable thing to obtain, if they could obtain, a good valuation both for local and Imperial purposes; but the adoption of the Amendment would cause large losses to the Revenue.

An hon. MEMBER said, he wished to point out that there were many inns in the country towns which had court yards, stables, and gardens that were used by persons coming into town, for their own purposes, and were not used for the purpose of selling spirits. It would be unfair that such sums should be charged upon those portions of the premises.

said, he contended that the Imperial taxes upon the Irish people were already inordinately great, as compared with those levied in England and Scotland. He would suggest that no taxes should be payable by any class in Ireland until the scale of taxation which generally fell upon that country was approximated, if not brought into exactly the same scale, to that which applied to England and Scotland. The clause, as it stood by itself, was perfectly fair; and if Ireland were taxed in proportion to the rest of the Kingdom, he should have nothing further to say; but it seemed to him that no amount of assertion and repetition could impress on the minds of hon. Members the fact of this great inequality of taxation. Imperial taxation in Ireland amounted to 5 s . 3 ½ d . in the pound on all the Schedules which represented property in Ireland; while in England it amounted to only 2 s . 6 ½ d . in the pound. [ Cries of "Agreed!"] Hon. Members should not be so impatient when he was urging arguments quite pertinent to the Question before the Committee. He said that the clause was only part of a system which weighed very unfairly on Ireland, and he objected to its application until the general taxation of Ireland had been reduced, or approximated to that of England. His objection was that the clause increased the taxation payable by a certain class in Ireland, which, as a whole, was at present overtaxed.

said, he asked, whether, for the purposes of the Act relating to the sale of excisable liquors, the value taken was the gross or rateable value?

, in reply, said, the basis was the gross value.

said, he thought the Government would do well to insert an interpretation of the meaning of "annual" value. He knew the term was made use of in the Property Tax Act; but, certainly, it was not used in the Metropolitan Valuation Act. He was not prepared to move an interpretation clause himself; but thought it would be of great assistance to those who would have to administer the Act when it came into force.

said, the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was well worthy of consideration; but that in this case the Government proposed that the assessment of these houses should be conducted on precisely the same principles as it was now conducted.

said, the present Excise limit was £50, and the right hon. Gentleman was about to propose to raise it to £700. It became very material what value was applied in view of the excessive values which were inserted in the Bill. He must take a division upon his Amendment.

said, the statutes required the licence to be taken on the rateable value. In the last Valuation of Property Bill presented to the House, but not passed, it was distinctly provided that, with reference to the valuation of licensed premises, the value of the qualification should be taken by the justices at the rateable value.

said, he did not agree with the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney) that the question raised was only of importance in the case of large valuations. He expressed his opinion that the rateable value was the proper and correct valuation to charge the licences upon. He fully agreed with the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, that different bases for valuations in England, Ireland, and Scotland would be very objectionable, and lead to much confusion.

said, that the words "annual value" were indefinite, and left the parties concerned in the payment of the duty entirely at the mercy of the Exciseman. The words ' annual value" might mean either gross or net.

said, he understood that there was no intention of altering the present mode of assessing the annual value of houses in the Metropolis. He wished to know if it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the present mode of arriving at the value of public-houses in the Metropolis was to be the mode provided for under the Bill?

said, that was so; but no cognizance was taken above £50.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 195; Noes 138: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 75.)

said, that he should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to apply this system of assessing on the annual value to the Metropolis, having regard to the Metropolis Valuation Act?

said, that it might be that in the Metropolis a question might arise as to what system of valuation ought to be made the basis of calculation. It would be impossible, however, for them, when their object, as the Committee must see, was to get rid of these various fluctuating valuation systems, to make any special exception in the case of the Metropolis. The valuation taken by the Revenue in ordinary transactions was the real annual value.

said, that if the real value of the dwelling houses was the rateable value, then it would have been satisfactory to take the rateable value as a basis. But it was the fact that the full value of the dwelling house was not the amount at which it was rated in England. He should move, as an Amendment, to put in the clause the words "if let for similar purposes." The reason for that was that there was a tendency at the present day to reduce the number of licensed houses, and the consequence was that the value of those which remained became very much greater. The value of the public-house was very different from its value as a dwelling-house. A great many public-houses belonged to the brewers, who put people in to manage them. He should like to know how the value in those cases was to be ascertained? He entirely dissented from the proposal that the rateable value should be the guide in these cases. He wished the value on which the licence was to be paid to be that of its value as a public-house, and not as a dwelling house. The increment upon the value of a public-house was not like the goodwill of any other trade earned by industry; it was an increment given by monopoly granted by the State, and that put it out of the category of ordinary dwelling-houses, and ordinary trade premises, seeing that the increment was one gained by monopoly granted by the State. He thought that the State ought to receive some benefit from the increase in value of public-houses. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consider this, and adopt the Amendment he (Mr. Anderson) now begged to move.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 18, after "value," insert "if let for similar purposes."—( Mr. Anderson .)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, that he did not consider that the word dwelling-houses sufficiently met this case. He might mention that there were 476 licensed houses in Edinburgh, which would not come under the description of public-houses. If the words dwelling-houses were allowed to remain in the Bill, those premises would, probably, be exempted from taxation altogether. He should propose that the word ''premises" be substituted for "dwelling-houses."

said, that it seemed to him to be unad- visable to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), as any alteration would unsettle the law; it would be much better to leave it as it was.

Question put, and negatived .

said, that he had to move, as an Amendment, in page 16, leave out lines 18 to 30 inclusive, and insert:—

"If the annual value of the premises in which the retailer shall retail spirits (in Ireland such value to be in accordance with Griffeth's tenement valuation) is under

The case of Ireland was very much harder than that which had been raised by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney). They were not dependent upon a varying value; but they had a Government Valuation for houses, land, and all other property. Having such Government Valuation, it was rather unfair, at the present day, to say that for one particular purpose another value was to be taken. The Excise officer was privileged to come and say—"I do not approve of the rent, and I do not approve of the Government Valuation; and I will put upon your premises a valuation of my own." He would ask whether it was fair, in the present age, that such a state of things should exist? He would ask the Committee whether they would allow a state of things which was a grievance in Ireland to be still persisted in? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do away with that system of valuation for public-house licences, and to assess the duty upon the Government Valuation. The grounds upon which he asked that were very strong. The Poor Rate and County Cess were calculated upon Griffith's Valuation, as was also the Income Tax. If the Government were satisfied with Griffith's Valuation for the collection of the Income Tax, was it right, or fair, that in the case of licences the whole matter should be left in the hands of an Excise officer? A great many of the Excise officers were men who would be open to bribery, and who also might be influenced by vindictive motives. He was acquainted with an instance where an Excise officer, from vindictive motives to a publican, actually doubled the amount of his licence. However, that man was dismissed from the Inland Revenue service two years afterwards. The argument had been adduced that the valuation was rather uneven, and that it ought not to stand. Perhaps it might be uneven; but it was the nearest valuation that they could get. It had been said that Griffith's Valuation was higher in the North of Ireland than it was in the South and West. It seemed to him that that was only right, because they had trades in the North of Ireland which they had not in the South and West. But, although Griffith's Valuation might be uneven, yet the valuation of the Excise officers was still more uneven. In his own county there were two houses which were as nearly alike as they could be; one of the occupiers was value at £8 a-year, and he paid a licence of £7 10 s . 6 d .; while his neighbour, within three doors, in a similar house, and who was assessed at the same amount, was only charged £5 15 s . 5 d . That was the nature of the Excise Valuation, and he thought that a more uneven system could not be found. In another case, with which he was acquainted, two houses, one of which was occupied by a man who was rated at £5 15 s ., and paid £5 14 s . 10 d . licence; while the occupier of a house with a similar valuation paid only £3 6 s . 4 d . In the same town a widow occupied a public-house, on which the rating was £8 8 s ., and she was charged £7 14 s . 3 d . licence. Another house, which was rated as high as £20 a-year, was only charged a licence of £7 0 s . 3 d . Those were not isolated cases; but the same amount of injustice occurred in a great many others. It was clearly unjust to charge £7 14 s . 3 d . for a licence on a house rated at £8 8 s ., while a man rated at £20 a few doors off should be charged less. If Griffith's Valuation were adopted as the basis of the licence system the Revenue would be the gainer. In another town, he found one man rated at £8 5 s . 2 d . and paying a licence of £7 11 s . 4 d .; while, in the same street, a man occupying a house rated at £14, paid £4 6 s . 3 d . licence. If the Government Valuation were adopted they would be sure that no favouritism would be practised. Under the present system, the appeal from the licence only lay to the Excise authorities, and it was of no use whatever. The authority was given to the Excise officers in Ireland to fix the rating under the 5 & 6 Geo . IV. c. 81, which made provisions having regard to houses which were rated to the Inhabited House Duty. In Ireland they had no Inhabited House Duty; and, therefore, the valuation went entirely into the hands of the Excise. The officers of Excise were, by the terms of the Act, to ascertain the value of the premises, and such valuation was to be conclusive and without appeal. He asked whether, in this civilized age, it was right to perpetuate such a system as that? Was it right to leave such power in the hands of one individual, and to expose persons to such temptations? He did not think it was right to place the power of taxing such valuable property as this in the hands of men receiving £50 or £100 a-year. For those reasons, he hoped that the Committee would accept the Amendment. If Griffith's Valuation were adopted, no kind of abuse could be carried on. Then every occupier who thought he was too highly rated ought to have an appeal. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, that he desired to support the Amendment which had just been moved. In Ireland they had only one system of valuation, and that was Griffith's. He did not defend that system; but it was a uniform one, and it had existed for many years. For years past he had heard of great inequalities in the system of valuation by Excise officers. It was said that a very great amount of favouritism was shown; in some cases, premises were valued at double what the occupiers ought to pay; and, in other cases, the existing valuation was very considerably beneath what it ought to be. When he compared one system with another, without defending Griffith's Valuation, yet he thought it was preferable to that by the Excise officers. He did not know whether some better system of valuation could not be introduced; but he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give due weight to the representations of the hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan). He would appeal, most earnestly, to the Government to set aside the existing system of valuation by the Excise officers, whatever system they might introduce in place of it; but until an uniform valuation was made—and it could not be very long before one was made—he thought that they should fall back upon Griffiths' system. It could be modified, to some extent, by adding a limited percentage where found necessary; but there could be no difficulty as to choosing between it and the valuation by Excise officers.

said, that he had very much pleasure in supporting the Amendment. He thought his word would have more weight, if he said he did not support it as a publican's friend, for in all these divisions he had voted against them; but, in this particular, he considered that justice was on the side of the claim made by the present Amendment. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had given several reasons why Griffiths' Valuation was a proper one to adopt. One consideration was, that a body of men, such as the Excise officers, should not have in their hands the Valuation of such a large amount of property as was at present the case. Another very strong reason seemed to him to be derived from the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, contained in a speech which he recently made. He condemned the fictitious and fluctuating valuations which now existed. Griffiths' Valuation in Ireland was the only one which was not fictitious and fluctuating; moreover, it was the only certain valuation they had, and it was the valuation upon which all the taxes, whether Imperial or local, were collected. There was another reason why he should support the change advocated—namely, that the present system of valuation was unfair and unjust. The argument might be brought forward that Griffiths' Valuation was not sufficient, because the value of property might have changed. He would admit that there was another matter in connection with public-house trading in Ireland which did not exist in England, and which should be taken into consideration. Undoubtedly, a very large number of publicans in the small towns in Ireland were not engaged in that business alone, but they used the same premises for carrying on other businesses. Griffiths' Valuation would be an exceedingly fair apportionment of the rent of the houses in which they carried on those different businesses. If they were to confine themselves to the publican business, many of those persons might take houses at a less rent than those they now occupied. They now paid a higher rent, because they used the houses for carrying on other businesses. In small towns the publicans usually sold everything required by the population, and if they did not, they would probably occupy houses at a much lower rent. He thought that Griffiths' Valuation would be much fairer than that now made by the Excise officers.

said, that the Government could not accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick in the form in which he had proposed it; but, perhaps, they might arrive at a conclusion which might be satisfactory to the hon. Member. Certain instances had been given of the great inequalities in the present system of valuation by the Excise. Under that system, an appeal might be made to the Inland Revenue authorities. The hon. Gentleman must admit that it was not the duty of the Government, or the Committee, to accept at once the statements he had made as to the inequalities of this system of valuations. Still, however, they thought it would be desirable to make some changes in the present system. In the first place, they proposed to remedy the anomaly and inconvenience at present existing by making a regular provision for appeals. Then came the question of Griffiths' Valuation, and whether that should be adopted by the Bill as the basis of these licences; and, if so, under what conditions it should be done? He was not able to admit the argument of the hon. Member, drawn from the instance of the Income Tax. He had stated that Griffiths' Valuation, whatever might be its inequalities, had been in force in Ireland for the Income Tax. That was true; but when the Government first proposed Income Tax for Ireland, they took Griffiths' Valuation, not because they approved of it, but because they wished to have an Income Tax introduced, and they were obliged to take it upon such valuation as they found existing. They found that there was no other practical basis upon which they could collect it. The hon. Member would see that Griffiths' Valuation, as it stood, was not conclusive, for the Income Tax was put in force in Ireland 10 years ago, and it was only within the last 10 years that Griffiths' Valuation had fallen so much out of proportion to the real value of property in different portions of Ireland. He could affirm that for years and years it had been the object of successive Governments to introduce an Act of Parliament to re-model Griffiths' Valuation, and it had not been done from arrears of Business. He was aware that there were certain powers of altering Griffiths' Valuation; but it could only be done in certain cases, where a house was altered and structural improvements were made. Then there was power to alter the valuation in respect of those improvements; but in cases where the value of premises had altered, and there had not been changes in the house itself, it was doubtful whether such a power of altering the valuation existed. He affirmed, upon this fact, that Griffiths' Valuation was in so imperfect a state that, though he admitted it was recommended by being a public system, and though it had been originally framed with very considerable care, and at the time it was first made was a work of great merit, yet, in large portions of Ireland the value of property had so altered, that the real value was very much out of proportion to the valuation; and, for these reasons, it would be impossible for them to take Griffiths' Valuation as an absolute standard. He should not object to the reference as a basis, provided the valuation was neither too high nor too low. Where Griffiths' Valuation was too high, he would not preclude the occupier from showing that the valuation was too high with reference to the actual letting value. But where it was too low, it might, he thought, be corrected by the introduction of a percentage. Upon that basis, he thought, something might be arranged and brought forward on Friday next, when he proposed to resume the discussion of the Bill in Committee.

said, the class of trade, as well as the class of public-houses in Ireland, were entirely different from those in Scotland. The present rent system afforded a fictitious valuation.

said, he thought whatever allowance was made to publicans in Ireland should be made to publicans in England and Scotland. The Committee knew that there had been agricultural distress in Ireland, but he had never heard of distressed publicans. He was quite sure Griffiths' Valuation was utterly worthless. He read an extract, to show that the nominal valuation of houses in Dublin was ridiculously low; and, consequently, no one ever dreamed of treating it as a measure of their letting value. The Amendment was an attempt, in a round-about way, to reduce the sum paid by publicans in Ireland. He held there should be the same machinery with regard to licences for England, Scotland, and Ireland.

said, he was sorry to contradict the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. D. M'Laren). A great many publicans in Ireland had told him, no doubt too truly, that they were seriously distressed. He hoped the Government would receive the advice of the hon. Gentleman upon all matters excepting those relating to Irish finance, upon which he was the hardest man in the House. This Budget was very unfair to Ireland; and as the Irish Members had supported the Government in the question of Income Tax, he thought they were entitled to some sort of consideration. The change introduced with reference to public-houses, with regard to the valuation question, had created a great deal of feeling in Ireland, and the question was one in which the Irish Members were bound to support the interests of their constituents. The Budget was so drawn as to be very favourable to the sellers of wine and beer, but unfavourable to the sellers of spirits. The hon. Member for Westmeath had pointed out that there were very few public-houses, properly so called, in the Irish country towns. There were large shops where, besides groceries and other articles, a comparatively small amount of spirits was sold. The true businesss lying in the sale of those things, the proprietor was satisfied with a small sale of spirits, and for that reason this increased taxation fell upon them very heavily. Then, again, there was the Income Tax, which although, no doubt, a very excellent tax in itself, pressed very much upon the Irish public- cans. Surely, under all these circumstances, the publicans in Ireland deserved a great deal of consideration; and he trusted it would be shown to them by taking Griffiths' Valuation as the standard for payment of spirit licences. He would like to know when the proposed alteration was to be introduced, respecting which he might mention that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the Committee no idea of what percentage he intended to apply? He would suggest that Progress should be reported, to afford an opportunity of introducing the proposed alteration.

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had been rather hard upon the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. D. M'Laren). The hon. Member, as far as he (Lord Elcho) could gather, had done nothing more than ask for justice to be done between England, Ireland, and Scotland. Scotch Members believed that their countrymen were more heavily taxed than the people of Ireland, and they said that the inequality ought to be removed. He would only say with regard to the publicans in Ireland, if their case was a hard one, let it be redressed if possible; but if publicans in Scotland were still to be assessed at the full letting value of their premises, when publicans in Ireland were to be assessed on Griffiths' Valuation, a very great injustice would be done to the Scotch publicans; because, it was notorious that Griffith's Valuation was by no means equal to the letting view, as Griffiths himself had admitted, when he stated that he had purposely put the valuation one-third below the proper letting value. There were other circumstances in which this question of valuation might crop up, and the question of public-houses generally might come on for discussion in the course of the next Session. Now, he had observed that Irish Members tried to get an inch, and, having got an inch, they tried to get an ell. On this question of licences, an inch had been conceded to them by the Government proposal to take Griffiths' Valuation as the measure of valuation with regard to public-houses; and the ell which the Irish Members would seek to get was the adoption of that valuation as the basis of the changes which they contemplated in the laws relating to land, by the scheme of compulsory purchase of all the land in Ireland by the State, and its transfer from its present owners, as was proposed by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell). If the Government were pressed to take Griffiths' Valuation on that occasion, what possible argument could be advanced against the proposal?

said, the Amendment was proposed not for the purpose of favouring the Irish publicans, but to get rid of the admitted grievance of the valuation being left in the hands of an irresponsible person. He thought the Prime Minister had made a fair proposal to settle the question, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. He admitted that, in many cases, Griffiths' Valuation was rather too low.

said, there was, as far as he could see, no difference as between the three countries further than the inequalities of detail which sometimes accrued out of the actual necessity of arrangements. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that Progress be reported. On Friday, when the discussion would be resumed, he proposed to add, at the end of the clause, some provision of this kind—

"In the case of premises in Ireland, the anuual value upon which the duty on the licences in respect of the premises is to be charged, shall not exceed the amount of the value assigned thereto in the valuation in force under the 15 and 16 Vic., cap. 63, with the addition of 20 per cent on such amount."

said, he desired to know whether the Excise officer was to have any voice in determining how much of the 20 per cent above Griffiths' Valuation was to be imposed? He hoped the Prime Minister would design some machinery for avoiding interference on the part of the Excise officer in settling what proportion of the percentage that was to be added. It was quite a mistake to suppose that all over Ireland Griffiths' Valuation was lower than the actual valuation of property. In Limerick and Cork there were places where the valuation of houses was below Griffiths' Valuation. Care, therefore, must be taken that in such cases the proposed alteration did not work mischief. The public-houses, in many cases, were fully assessed, and it would be a great hardship if any addition was made to the assessment.

said, it was alleged that Griffiths' Valuation was, to some extent, under the market value of property; but no proof had been given that it was not above the market price at the present moment, and, therefore, he objected to take it for granted that the value of these houses was 20 per cent above that valuation. He would like to know whether the Excise officer was still to rule in this matter and assess as he liked? He had no objection to withdraw his Amendment in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought, however, that 20 per cent, in addition to Griffiths' Valuation, would be too much. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give a power of appeal in all these cases. He might say that it was a mistake to think that the value of house property in Ireland had increased. He knew of cases in which the value of house property had decreased 10 or 20 per cent within the last few years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

said, he should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could tell the Committee definitely when the third reading of the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill would be taken? He had already expressed his opinion that it would be most convenient to take it on Monday. If the Government wished to take Supply on Tuesday, then he would use his best exertions to prevent any Motion being put down for that day.

said, that it was difficult to state the exact course which would be taken, Assuming that they disposed of the Report on the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill to-morrow, they would go on on Friday with the Bill at present under notice. As he understood it would be inconvenient to some hon. Gentlemen that the third reading of the Compensation tor Disturbance (Ireland) Bill should be further postponed, he would see if it could be taken on Monday. They wished to take Supply on Monday, and to take the third reading of the present Bill on Tuesday or Thursday. But, as he understood that it would not be convenient to a large number of hon. Members, he would take the assurance of his right hon. Friend, and would accept his proposal to sacrifice Monday, and to take their chance of Supply on Tuesday, upon his promise that he would use his exertions to keep them clear of Motions. Otherwise, it must be understood that the third reading of the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill would be taken on Tuesday; but, if there were no Motions for Tuesday, it would be taken on Monday.

House resumed .

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday , at Two of the clock.

Savings Banks Bill

Order for Committee read.

Instruction to the Committee, That they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills.—( Mr. Gladstone .)

Bill considered in Committee, and reported .

Savings Banks (No. 1) Bill

As amended, to be printed [Bill 273]; re-committed for Monday next.

Savings Banks (No. 2) Bill

As amended, to be printed [Bill 274]; re-committed for Monday next.

asked whether the despatches to which he had referred some days ago had now arrived from the Cape; and whether the Prime Minister could make any arrangements with a view to bringing forward the question of the Administration of Sir Bartle Frere?

No, Sir; the earliest of the days I named when the despatches could be expected has not yet arrived. I think the House will remember that the earliest day I mentioned was the 25th, and this is only the 21st. We have had no further information.

desired to say, in explanation, that an hon. Friend of his told him that he had received despatches.

said, he had received the whole of the Reports of the debate with reference to the Confederation Scheme, and he presumed they must have come by the same packet as ought to have brought the Government despatches.

said, the Government were waiting, not merely for the Report of the debate, which he had no doubt had arrived, but for Sir Bartle Frere's views of that debate and the whole situation. It might take Sir Bartle Frere a little time to prepare his despatches on the subject.

Motion agreed to .

SUPPLY— considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Resolved , That a sum, not exceeding £3,200,000, be granted to Her Majesty to pay off and discharge Exchequer Bonds that will become due and payable during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow ;

Committee to sit again upon Friday .

Industrial Schools Act (1866) Amendment Bill—[Bill 247.]

( Colonel Alexander, Mr. Robert N. Fowler, Mr. Villiers Stuart, Mr. Whitley, Mr. William Holmes, and Mr. Blake. )

Third Reading

Order for Third Reading read.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, expressed his thanks to the Government for the assistance they had rendered him in passing this valuable Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—( Colonel Alexander .)

Motion agreed to .

Bill read the third time, and passed .

Public Health (Scotland) Acts Amendment Bill

On Motion of Dr. CAMERON, Bill to amend "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," and "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment Act, 1879," ordered to be brought in by Dr. CAMERON, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Mr. MACKINTOSH, and Mr. ANDERSON.

Bill presented , and read the first time. [Bill 275.]

House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.