asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an increase is now contemplated in the graving dock accommodation at Rosyth?

The matter has not yet come up for consideration.

asked what steps were taken to ensure that on every troopship there are sufficient boats to accommodate everyone on board in the event of fire or shipwreck?

The inspection will be by the Admiralty Inspector.

May I ask if the inspection by the Admiralty inspector is carried on in all respects as if it were under the regulations of the Board of Trade?

No, Sir; he does not inspect as if he were an inspector of the Board of Trade, but he uses the forms and regulations made by the Board of Trade.

May I ask whether in the case of a troopship it is seen that accommodation is found, if necessary, for every soul on board?

That is the regulation of the Board of Trade.

asked whether the German cruiser which was laid down in 1907, at the same time as the British "Invincible," is of considerably greater displacement and fighting power than the British vessel, and whether the German Government have, during the last year and the present year, laid down two more cruisers still larger and more powerful?

The details with regard to the "Von der Tann," which is assumed to be the vessel referred to in the first part of the question, have not been made public, but it is not anticipated that the comparison suggested with regard to our "Invincibles" will be found to be justified. It has been stated in the Press that the two cruisers laid down subsequently by the German Government will be larger and more powerful than the "Von der Tann."

Is it not a fact that the German cruisers have twelve big guns and ours only eight?

It may be well known to the hon. Gentleman, but we have no official information on the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether various ships of the "Canopus" class are now lying at Chatham with not more than twenty deck hands on each; whether other ships of this class on their arrival from the Mediterranean are to be reduced to a like complement; and, if so, whether the present manning of these ships is due to the admitted shortage of personnel or to the intention of the Admiralty to remove these fine ships from the active list of battleships?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The hon. Member has no justification for stating that there is an admission of shortage of personnel if he means to suggest that that admission is made by anybody of competent authority or knowledge. Vessels of the "Canopus" class are gradually passing into the fourth division of the Home Fleet as they are replaced by later types.

Then are we to understand that these battleships are going on the scrap heap?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

If that is not so, why have these battleships not got a proper complement of men?

It is rather difficult to explain the organisation in answer to a question across the floor of the House, but the fourth division of the Home Fleet has nothing to do the scrap heap.

asked whether H.M.S. "Invincible" has carried out any of the regular gunlayers' tests since she was first commissioned; whether any practice, and, if so, what, has been made with her heavy guns; and whether he can state if the experiment of fitting this ship with electrically-worked apparatus for her gun turrets instead of the hydraulically-worked system has rendered this "Dreadnought" cruiser practically inefficient in the matter of gun-fire up to the present time?

Gunlayers' test with 4-inch guns has been carried out. No practice has been carried out with heavy guns. It is not the case that the "Invincible" has been unable to fire her guns, due to defects in electrically-worked apparatus; but it has been considered advisable to make certain alterations, chiefly of a mechanical nature, found necessary by experience before carrying out the annual firings with heavy guns.

Then are we to understand that this electrically-worked apparatus is to be retained?

Yes, the hon. Gentleman may understand that.

asked whether there are now building in this country any battleships, and if so, how many, equal in gun-power, speed, and defensive armour to the most modern German type now being constructed under the German naval pro grammes of 1908 and 1909; and whether any British battleships equivalent to these will be in commission by December, 1910?

The details of the German 1908 and 1909 battleships have not been made public.

Are we to understand that the Admiralty does not know what the German battleships of those year's programmes really carry?

I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman any further information.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Naval and Military Attaché in Berlin?

Yes, sir, I have asked the Naval Attaché in Berlin.

asked what is the number of men which will have to be lent to the Commonwealth Government to carry out the agreement made with Australia; and whether it is intended to increase the personnel to make good the loss incurred by the Imperial Navy?

It is premature to make any statement on the subject. The questions discussed at the recent Conference are still under the consideration of the Commonwealth and other Dominion Governments concerned. I may say, however, that the noble Lord is in error in assuming that under the arrangement there will be any loss incurred by the Imperial Navy.

Is it a fact that the Imperial Navy is going to lend 2,000 men?

No, sir, no such figure, as I am aware of. If it were true, they would not entail a loss in the personnel of the Imperial Navy. We have a larger number of men already on the Australian station at the present time.

Are they to be diminished on the Australian station, or will they be replaced by colonials?

I cannot discuss the question at the present time. The Australian command does not imply there will be any loss in the Imperial personnel.

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the time this agreement is to come before the Australian Commonwealth Parliament?

No, Sir, I am unable to give any information without notice.

asked whether the four second-class cruisers to be provided by contract in this year's Estimates have been ordered; if so, whether he will give the dates at which they were laid down; and, if they are not yet laid down, when tenders will be called for for these cruisers?

The four protected cruisers of this year's Estimates have not been ordered. Tenders have been invited, and received; they are now under consideration.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state why Rear-Admiral Sturdee, who was promoted admiral in September, 1908, has since that date been passed over for employment by four officers junior to himself?

It is undesirable in the interests of the Service and of individual officers themselves to canvass their qualifications or suitability for employment.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if Admiral Sturdee was Lord Charles Beresford's Chief of Staff?

Yes, Sir; I believe he was when he was captain.

May I ask if this officer received a warning that if he remained with Lord Charles Beresford he might find himself unemployed?

The statement made by the hon. Gentleman is absolutely without warrant, and he has no right whatever to make any such statement in public.

But was Admiral Sturdee told to go on a holiday like Captain Hulbert?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any improvement is reported in the internal condition of Persia, more particularly in the provinces on the northern shore of the Persian Gulf?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply for him. The latest reports received indicate that the situation has not become worse during the last few weeks, but it is still unsatisfactory. Kerman and Sultanabad have been the chief centres of disturbance, and there has been much lawlessness on the southern roads, especially those from Bushire to Isfahan as far north as Abadah, and from Kerman to Yezd. In Tehran perfect order has been maintained, and the principal towns in the provinces have remained undisturbed. The Bunder Abbas district has been reported to be quiet, but at Lingah the peace has been threatened by the activities of Seyyid Hussein Lari, against whom repressive measures are being taken by the Persian Governor of the Gulf Ports.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, how many officials, established and non-established, including non-pensionable employés, were employed in the service of the Board of Inland Revenue on 31st March, 1906, and 30th June, 1909, respectively.

The figures asked for are as follows:—

asked how many officials, established and non-established, including non-pensionable employés, were employed in the service of the Treasury, including Customs and Excise, on 31st March, 1906 and 30th June, 1909, respectively.

Any comparison of figures in these years is vitiated by the amalgamation of the Customs with the Excise, but the figures are as follows:—

asked how many officials, established and non-established, including non-pensionable employés, were employed in the service of the Woods and Forests on 31st March, 1906, and on 30th June, 1909, respectively?

About 660 officials and employés were employed on 31st March, 1906, and the same number on 30th June, 1909.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he was aware that under the New Forest Deer Removal Act, 1851, 14 and 15 Vic, c. 76, s. 9, the Crown may grant licences to sport in the New Forest, and that such licences have been granted for many years to packs of fox-hounds, deer-hounds, otter-hounds, hare-hounds, and basset-hounds; whether he was aware that the licence to hare-hounds had recently been withdrawn by the Crown authorities; and whether he would arrange with His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests to renew or regrant the licence to the hare-hounds?

The Commissioner of Woods has been in the habit for many years past of giving leave for hunting in the New Forest by various packs of hounds, including hare-hounds. This year he has felt compelled, in the interests of the Forest as a whole, to refuse leave for hunting by a certain pack of hare-hounds, and I can hold out no prospect of his decision being reconsidered.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received a Petition signed by 448 persons, representing the trade of Lyndhurst, also the followers and puppy walkers, of the hare-hounds, requesting that permission for these hounds to hunt in the New Forest for the past 40 years, which is now withdrawn, may be granted to hunt the hare in the Forest on the same terms as other New Forest packs?

It is true that I received this petition, but like many other petitions a good many of the signatures appear to be in the same handwriting.

I verified most of the signatures. I knew the handwriting of the persons.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state the grounds for the refusal?

Yes, Sir, the real fact of the matter is there seems to have been a personal quarrel between some people in the New Forest. The inhabitants of the New Forest are mostly Unemployed. Their principal occupation appears to be to get up disputes with each other—some of a rather serious nature, and this happens to be one of these cases.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the difficulty of ascertaining the nature of Irish imports and exports, tooth as regards quantiy and quality, he will make arrangements necessary for securing accurate records in these matters?

I have no means of ascertaining the quantities and value of Irish imports and exports in the sense of this question. The direct foreign trade of Irish ports is shown in Volume II. of the Annual Statement of Trade, in the same way as the direct foreign trade of other ports in the United Kingdom. But there is no statutory authority for obtaining records of the coastwise trade between Ireland and Great Britain.

Is it not the fact that the returns are inaccurate because the Irish exporter and importer need only make a return if they choose, there being no legal obligation to do so? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to put the matter on a more satisfactory basis?

It is true there is no statutory authority to compel the making of returns. I cannot promise fresh legislation at this stage of the Session.

Can you promise it at any stage of any Session?

I have no authority to do that.

asked at what date the superannuation forms prescribed by the Treasury regulations were issued to the Government offices; and whether, seeing that the date of adoption of the Act by any Civil servant is the completion by him of the form, instructions were given that the forms should be immediately placed in the hands of the Civil servants concerned?

A circular enclosing copies of the Treasury Regulations under Section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1909, and of the prescribed forms of application for permission to adopt the provisions of the Act was issued by the Treasury to all public Departments on 21st September, the day following that on which the Act became law. The Departments were instructed to obtain further supplies of forms from the Stationery Office, and I am informed that each requisition has been dealt with at once, without any delay. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is in the affirmative.

asked whether, in the case of a Civil servant who died between the date at which the Superannuation Act came into operation and that at which he would have had an opportunity of filling up the superannuation form, his family would get no benefit from the Act, although the delay was due to the non-issue of the forms and not to the neglect of the Civil servant?

If a Civil servant dies before he has applied to be allowed to adopt the provisions of the Act, his family will, of course, not be entitled to the benefits of the Act, but I see no reason to suppose that any application will be delayed by the non-issue of the prescribed forms.

asked at what date superannuation forms were issued to the Department of Customs and Excise; whether the forms have been actually placed in the hands of Civil servants in that Department; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay?

The supply of forms of application to adopt the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1909, was received at the Customs House on the 30th ultimo, and copies were forwarded to the various supervising officers on the 2nd instant for issue to their subordinates. It is presumed, therefore, that a form has already been placed in the hands of every established officer of the Department who is not absent from duty.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these forms were only actually placed in the hands of the officials yesterday?

I think that is so, but it was not the fault of the Stationery Department. It was due to some misunderstanding at the Customs Office.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that for a number of years repeated representations have been made by the Belfast branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, with reference to the unsatisfactory lighting of the local instrument room; whether the Department has acknowledged the legitimacy of these complaints; whether he is aware that over 12 months ago, on the recommendation of an officer from the engineer-in-chief's office, who paid a special visit to Belfast in connection with this matter, an improved system of lighting was authorised, and that at a staff meeting held recently complaint, in view of the near approach of winter and the fact that so much work is performed under artificial lighting conditions, was made regarding the failure in carrying out the new installation; what has been the cause of this delay, and can it now be stated when the work will be proceeded with?

The Postmaster-General has requested me to reply on his behalf. Complaints have been received from the staff on the subject, and I regret that, while efforts have been made from time to time to improve matters, no satisfactory scheme has up to the present been brought into operation. The room is difficult to light properly, and special investigation has been carried out and experiments made with metallic filament lamps in order that a correct judgment might be formed as to the best system of lighting. A report has now been received, and the work will be put in hand at once.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether a member of a board of guardians is entitled by any rule of the Local Government Board to communicate to a paid political agent information, known to him only in his capacity of guardian, as to the persons whose poverty necessitated their receiving Poor Law relief?

The reply is in the negative. The Board have not made any Rule on the subject.

Then am I to understand that a member of a board of guardians is at liberty to communicate to any third party information received in his official capacity as to the circumstances of those in receipt of poor relief?

I do not think the hon. Member is justified in drawing that deduction.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Chiswick Urban District Council paved Barrowgate-road in 1901, subsequently took legal proceedings against one of two frontagers who refused to pay their apportionments, abandoned these proceedings, and then in the middle of the night of 20th May, 1909, tore up 300 to 400 feet of paving stones fronting the premises of the person against whom they started legal proceedings; and whether he proposes to hold a public inquiry into this expenditure of public money on legal proceedings and in regard to this destruction of public property?

I have received a Memorial on this subject from some of the ratepayers of the district. It is not one, however, with respect to which I am empowered to direct an inquiry at the present time. The only jurisdiction I should have in the matter would be on an appeal from the decision of the auditor as to the legality or otherwise of the expenditure incurred. It will be competent for any ratepayer to raise this question before the auditor at the audit of the accounts in which the expenditure is charged.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it will be necessary to carry forward to next year the whole of the unexpended balance of £141,118 of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account; and, if not, whether he will devote a further sum of £15,000 towards marine superintendence, having in view the inadequacy of the present payment and the importance of encouraging and safeguarding the interests of the fishing communities on the coasts of Scotland.

The whole unexpended balance referred to, except a sum of £933, consists of moneys paid into the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, under statutory direction, prior to 31st March, 1909, to provide for payment of grants as authorised by the Agricultural Rates, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1896, and the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898, during the ensuing six months. The sum of £933 is an undistributed balance of the Medical Relief and Pauper Lunacy Grants for 1908–9, and must be applied in augmenting the corresponding grants for the current year.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention had been drawn to the case of a schoolmistress at Gibbons-road council school, Willesden, who was summoned at Willesden Police-court on the 17th instant for severely caning a boy, eight years of age; whether he was aware that the boy was placed in a class-room by himself, and without supervision, because his parents objected to him receiving religious instruction; whether the offence for which corporal punishment was inflicted was directly or indirectly due to such isolation; and, if so, whether he would take steps to prevent such treatment of children whose parents approve of moral instruction and object to religious instruction being given?

I have no information about the case referred to. If my hon. Friend will supply me with details I will gladly have inquiries made, as if the facts are of the character suggested I think those responsible for them should be severely dealt with.

asked the Secretary of State for War why the military authorities take no steps to safeguard the lives of officers and men when on a troopship?

All the arrangements for the hiring of troopships are made by the Admiralty, and the responsibility of securing that the conditions of such hire are complied with naturally rests with that Department. The King's Regulations contain detailed instructions for the behaviour of troops in case of fire or collision.

Supposing the First Lord of the Admiralty does not carry out his duties has the Secretary of State for War any control over him?

He does carry them out.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he would grant facilities to the rank and file of the Army to cater for themselves, as are allowed to the commissioned ranks?

I am afraid that the hon. Member's suggestion is impracticable. In barracks at present, within certain limits, soldiers settle details regarding the cooking of their rations and the expenditure of the messing allowance.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he would state what extra money grants per day are allowed to officers whilst on manœuvres; and if any extra money grants are allowed to the rank and file whilst on manœuvres?

Field allowances at rates varying from 3s. a day upwards according to rank are allowed to officers and 1s. a day to warrant officers, whilst on manœuvres, in aid of the expenses caused by their being placed under canvas. The rank and file do not receive any extra money grant, they are not put to any similar expense.

Are you sure of that?

Quite sure.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the number of Regular Artillery to replace the Special Reserve formed but of the old Artillery Militia regiments about to be disbanded would be of equal numerical strength to the disbanded regiments; and, if not, whether more or less, and by what number?

The establishment of the Royal Field Reserve Artillery will be ultimately reduced from 12,000 to 6,000. The establishment of the new three-year men in the Regular Royal Field Artillery is 5,000, and it is expected that this number will create a normal reserve of nearly 14,000.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had received a copy of the opinion given by Dr. Forbes Ross that forcible feeding by the methods employed in the case of the women suffragette prisoners in Birmingham Gaol is an act of brutality beyond human endurance, that it is frequently followed by an intractable disease known as chronic pigmentary colitis, and that asylum patients who have to be fed in this way die, as a rule, of the treatment; and whether, in view of the risks involved to the prisoners who are being so treated, he would give orders for the practice to be discontinued?

I have found the statement referred to, which I had not previously seen, in a Sunday newspaper. I am advised that it can only refer to a method of feeding employed when feeding by the stomach is impossible; and that it has no bearing on the methods of feeding adopted at Birmingham.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state how many of these ladies are being fed in this manner at the present time, and whether, in view of the very widespread feeling, amounting to revolt, against such feeding, he cannot see his way to alter it?

I have answered several questions upon that point before.

Not from me.

No prisoners are being fed by the methods indicated in the question. I think at the present time two are being fed by the tube.

Is it not true that this opinion of Dr. Forbes Ross was given on the assumption that the food was being administered by a tube passed down the throat, and is he aware that other medical men have also published similar opinions in "The Times" newspaper?

I was very much surprised indeed at the opinion expressed by the doctor in question. It would have been very desirable if he had made some inquiry before committing himself to such an opinion.

asked the Prime Minister whether he had received a memorial signed by Sir Victor Horsley and 116 other medical practitioners pointing out that the compulsory feeding of women prisoners is attended with the gravest risks, that unforeseen accidents are liable to occur, that the subsequent health of the person so treated may be seriously injured, and that, in the opinion of the memoralists, the action is unwise and inhuman, and praying him to use his influence to prevent the continuance of the practice; and whether he was prepared to accede to the prayer of the memorialists?

I beg to answer this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The Memorial has been received. Though the statements it contains are not borne out by the prison medical authorities, whose experience of artificial feeding is necessarily much wider than that of the memorialists, I thought it right to refer the Memorial to the President of the Royal College of Physicians, and I have this morning received the following letter from Sir Richard Douglas Powell:—

"I beg to state that I do not agree with the opinion expressed in the Memorial signed by some medical, practitioners in protest against the artificial feeding of certain prisoners who refuse to take food in the normal manner. The statements contained in the Memorial are inaccurate and greatly exaggerated. The method of artificial feeding is largely employed amongst those who, from mental aberration, refuse to take nourishment otherwise, and also with those who are physically unable to take it.

"It would be an exaggeration to say that the method of artificial feeding is wholly free from the possibilities of accident with those who forcibly resist, but no such cases have come to my knowledge. Nor can it be said tha the method is as convenient or as free from possible digestive ailments or discomforts as a reasonable diet taken naturally would be. But it may be remarked that patients have been so fed successfully for years. It is the only measure that can be adopted to maintain the health and preserve the lives of persons who persistently refuse food.

"I am assuming in my reply that the feeding of these patients is entirely carried out by skilled nursing attendants under careful medical observation and control."

Were temperature charts taken, and have they been kept?

The feeding is carried out by medical officers, who are perfectly competent, and I have no doubt all the necessary precautions were taken.

Is the feeding always carried out by medical officers, or is it not sometimes administered by nurses?

I am informed that it has been carried out up to now by the medical officer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that, in view of the great public interest taken in the matter, there is an independent medical officer?

As a matter of fact an outside medical officer has been called to the assistance of the medical officer of the prison.

I admit that feeding by tube is done by the medical officer, but where the system of feeding by cup is employed, is that not done by nurses?

That is a detail of which I should not like to speak with perfect certainty. I imagine there would be no pain in administering feeding by cup. I am under the impression that where feeding by cup has been had recourse to the prisoner has drunk from the cup.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to whether, when feeding by cup has been employed, the nostrils and the throat are not held while the liquid is forced into the mouth?

All I can say is that I am absolutely satisfied that whatever has been done has been done in a proper and most humane manner.

Is it not a fact that all this trouble and revolt might have been avoided if the Prime Minister would only be reasonable and receive a deputation?

asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with re-arming the cavalry with the new pattern sword; and whether there is any intention of arming the Yeomanry with the sword?

As regards the first part of the question, I have nothing at present to add to the information already given. As regards the second part of the question, no decision to arm the Yeomanry with the sword has at present been come to.

Are we to understand that the suggestion has been abandoned of arming the Yeomanry with the sword?

No, the whole thing is under very careful consideration. There is great division of opinion among the commanding officers.

asked whether it has been hitherto the practice of the Department to refuse additional post office accommodation in urban areas, notwithstanding the offer of an urban council to guarantee the Department against loss on working under the Post Office Act of 1898; how many applications of this nature have been received from urban councils since the passing of the Act; how many of such applications have been rejected; and what are the grounds of such rejection?

It is not known, and could not readily be ascertained, how many applications have been made under the Act of 1898. They are certainly rare. Applications would be refused if the existing facilities were adequate, having regard to the distance from the nearest office, the character of the locality, and the amount of business to be dealt with; and if a new office were opened it would only result in undue expense and wasteful competition with an existing office. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain the purpose of the Act in question in the words of the hon. Member who introduced it. "All this Bill proposes to do is to give the urban councils and councils of boroughs the same powers as parish councils already have. There are parts of boroughs and urban districts remote from the centre of population which are unable to get these facilities, and are thus excluded from the benefits which they would get if they were separate districts." The case in which the hon. Member is interested does not appear to my right hon. Friend to be one of the kind to which the Act was intended to apply.

asked with reference to sentences of birching passed on children in the Sheriff Substitute's Court at Jedburgh, whether the system followed in the River Baillie's Court at Glasgow has been introduced there under which an official inquiry into the parentage, character, and life history of the child, and the public prosecutor refrains in many cases from bringing the offender before the Court, while protecting the law and order by means of cautions and warnings to the child or parent and by using a friendly supervision?

I think my hon. Friend will understand that a system which may be suitable for a city like Glasgow is not necessarily suitable or practicable in a rural district. I am informed that while no special official is allocated to the purpose indicated every care is taken by those responsible to make full preliminary inquiry with a view to dealing with juvenile cases outside the court in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend wherever that course is possible.

I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House yesterday that he had an important statement to make with regard to public business.

I hope we shall be able to get through the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to-night, and I trust that my hon. Friends will assist us in getting to the end of these proceedings. If we do, we shall propose to-morrow to proceed with the Development Bill. If we do not succeed in securing the Report and Third Beading stages this week, we shall proceed with the Bill on Monday in next week; and, as soon as the third reading has been secured, we shall propose to adjourn the House until the following Monday, to enable Members of the House to have a full opportunity of considering Amendments for the Report of the Finance Bill, which will be placed on the Paper before the Adjournment. On Monday, the 18th instant, we propose to put down, as the first Order, the London Elections Bill, Report stage, and to proceed on Tuesday, 19th October, with the Report stage of the Finance Bill.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not in any event propose to take a Saturday sitting? If the Development Bill is not finished on Friday he proposes to take it on Monday. I believe there will be no difficulty, as far as my inquiries go, in finishing the Finance Bill to-night if everyone sets his mind to work; but I understand that that is contingent upon the right hon. Gentleman being of the same mind as he was yesterday, and giving us an opportunity of considering the Tobacco Duties upon the re-committal of the Bill at a later stage?

If we find we cannot get a Debate on the Tobacco Duties to-night, it will be a perfectly reasonable thing for the Opposition to ask for opportunities for a discussion on a re-committal. Perhaps we had better not make up our minds about that until we see whether we cannot get a Debate to-night at a reasonable time. I have promised the right hon. Gentleman, if that was his view, that, so far as I was concerned, I would agree to a re-committal for the purpose of getting a Debate owing to the circumstances in which it passed the Committee. With regard to a Saturday sitting I am very much in the hands of the House. Supposing we could not get through the Development Bill, third Reading, as well as Report, to-morrow and Friday, it might be more convenient for everyone even, if necessary, to have a Saturday sitting in order to have the whole of next week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow that to be discussed later on in the usual way and say nothing for the present. I simply suggest that it might be more convenient for everyone that we should dispose of the Bill this week so as to have the whole week.

May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether the course the Government propose to adopt in adjourning over next week at such short notice is going to be very inconvenient to the great majority of Members, and is going to prolong the Session probably a week nearer Christmas. We understand that there is still a considerable amount of business to be got through before the Session closes. There are Bills which have been to another place and have to come back here for consideration, and to have an adjournment next week is only going to prolong the final closing of the Session. Could we not get on with the Housing and Town Planning Bill?

There will be plenty of time to consider those Bills when the Finance Bill leaves the House. The Government have arranged that it will not have the ultimate effect of prolonging the Session. It is quite necessary that there should be at least a week's interval. A good many promises have been made in the course of the Committee stage of Amendments on the Report stage, and I think the Government should have full time to consider them before they are placed on the Paper. The Amendments refer to matters of considerable importance, and I think it would be a mistake to put them down in a hurry. It would certainly be in the interest not only of the Government but of all parties that there should be at least a week's interval.

I beg to move to leave out the words in the second column, and to insert instead thereof "Duty specified in Scale 4."

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

I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to state shortly what the history of these old beerhouses is. They were created under an Act of Parliament which was passed in 1830. Up to that time for 300 years the policy of Parliament had always been that houses where beer was retailed should have a licence issued by the justices. A grievance had come to pass, the quality of the beer supplied by those engaged in the trade having deteriorated, while the price had risen very much indeed. The effect of this was that people had got into the habit of drinking spirits to an extent more than was considered desirable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1830, in moving for a Committee to inquire into the state of the law with respect to the sale of beer, said:—

"It had been shown by previous inquiries that the present system of licensing had given rise more or less to a degree of monopoly in the beer trade, which had produced two evils, one, a deterioration in the quality of beer; two, an enhancement of its price, both of which were, in effect, a severe tax on the poorer classes. Both these he hoped to remedy, but he begged to be understood as not at all yielding to the imputations thrown upon a wealthy and respectable class of individuals engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer; the fault, if fault there was, was the fault of the law. His view was that by opening the trade the means of consuming beer would be extended, and that no injury would be inflicted upon the brewer, while an important benefit would be conferred on the public; and he was convinced that the apprehensions felt by many persons interested in the present system, when any alteration was spoken of, would turn out to be unfounded."

Under that provision any householder whose name was on the rate book was authorised to sell beer free from any control after obtaining a licence from the justices on the payment annually of an Excise Licence of two guineas. The preamble of the Bill of 1830 is in the following terms:—

"Whereas it is expedient for the better supplying the public with beer in England to give greater facilities for the sale thereof than are at present afforded by licences to keepers of inns, alehouses, and victualling-houses, be it therefore enacted…"

The immediate effect of the passing of that law was that no fewer than 24,342 persons paid £2 2s. and took out licences to sell beer. Fifty beer shops were opened in Liverpool alone every day of the week for several weeks. This went on for a considerable number of years, and by the year 1869 the number of beerhouses had reached about 50,000. In 1869 Parliament decided that the whole of these licences must come under the jurisdiction of the licensing justices. When doing that they admitted that these ante-1869 beerhouses had got a vested interest, because they had been created on the invitation of Parliament for a public policy, and therefore they were entitled to the consideration of Parliament. Therefore it was enacted that the licences should not be taken away from those old beerhouses unless in cases of misconduct, or of the houses not being proper. That was the position in 1869. The only alteration which now obtains is the alteration created under the Act of 1904 by my right hon. Friend and Leader (Mr. Balfour), in which they were brought under the general principle that if they were redundant licences the justices should be entitled to suppress them on payment of the whole compensation. That is the position of these beerhouses at present. Whatever their annual value may be they are all paying only £3 10s. per year. I am not able to tell the Committee exactly the numbers according to rateable value, because no statistics are shown, but I find that in the county of London alone there are nine of these beerhouses of upwards of £300 annual value, and there is one in the City of £800 annual value. In the former case these nine houses in London which now pay £3 10s. would have to pay a duty of £110, and the house in the City would have to pay £266 a year, and £12 more on account of taking out a wine licence, against £4 which it is paying at present. But the case of these beerhouses is very much accentuated by the minimum duty imposed by this Bill. The minimum duty is most oppressive in the large towns of over 100,000 inhabitants, namely, the limit of £23 10s., which is going to create a very great grievance. I have taken three cases to show the Committee the effect of the proposed increase. In Bristol the increase of duty will be from £1,737 to no less than £11,026, or six times the amount, owing to the minimum increase. In Birmingham the increase will be from £2,673 to £18,557, or seven times the amount. In Sheffield the increase is from £1,886 to £15,990, or 8½ times the number. These large increases will create no doubt the position that many of those houses must be closed, and must be closed without receiving a penny of compensation. They have done no wrong; they have simply gone on in the way in which they have been going on since they were created by Parliament in 1830, and they are doing their duty to the country as the country invited them to do. The right hon. Gentleman may say that we made an alteration in the year 1904, and that they have not now the vested interest which they had then. The difference is this: Under that Act of 1904 they are to receive ample market value for any licence which is taken away.

I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this, that the vast majority of the houses at the present moment which are being suppressed under this Act are these ante-1869 beerhouses. If he looks at the list, he will see that these are the houses which the justices are suppressing all over the country. It is not necessary to repeat the argument as to the over-taxation of the trade, or that the consumption of beer is declining in this country; but I should like to draw the attention of the Government to this: Revenge may be sweet, but I believe that the heart of the country is sound, that it loves political honesty and justice more than revenge and that it still reverences the law that it is righteousness which exalteth the nation.

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

Is it not a fact that the present Government refused to allow the magistrates to raise sufficient money to pay for these houses?

The hon. Member is quite wrong.

The Home Secretary said so.

No; what was done was that, when the Finance Bill was in prospect the compensation authorities were not allowed to forestall their future compensation levies by borrowing, seeing that the whole matter of compensation was to be put on another basis. No action was taken by the Government limiting by a single sixpence the amount annually levied on which those houses were able to draw from the trade for the purposes of compensation. The hon. Gentleman is not quite fair.

You are quite unfair.

The hon. Member really must not interrupt.

I beg pardon.

The present duty, as I was suggesting, is really so inadequate that I think it is indefensible in any quarter of the House, and the new duty which the hon. Member opposite proposes under the scale which is on the Paper is again very inadequate. A house of £200 rateable value, under the hon. Member's scale, would pay only £25 duty, although the trade done was exceedingly large. Two hundred pounds for a beerhouse is quite a large sum. In all the large towns of England and Wales put together there are only 230 beerhouses of over £200 annual value; only 83 of more than £300 annual value; so that a £200 house is exceptionally large. Yet the hon. Member would only charge £25 under this scale. One of the largest houses, of £400 annual value, would only pay £35 under this scale. Hon. Members opposite will urge that our scale of Public house Duties for fully-licensed houses is excessive. We all know their view that it is oppressive. The fact remains that the Committee yesterday sanctioned this new scale for fully-licensed houses, and I submit that, having sanctioned that scale, it cannot now accept the scale put forward by the hon. Member for beerhouses such as those to which he called attention, because the disproportion would be far too great. Take the £400 house of which I have been speaking; if it were a fully-licensed house it would be charged £200, and if it had a beerhouse licence, on the scale of the hon. Member, it would be charged only £35. Although it may be said that the charge on the £200 as a fully-licensed house is an excessive charge, yet I submit that you cannot charge a beerhouse, doing an equal amount of business, at so low a value as £35. These beerhouses have lighter duties to perform than the fully-licensed houses. In the first place, their valuation is lower. Houses which are smaller buildings are assessed at a lower rate, if they are only beerhouses, than if they had a full licence. Consequently the subject for taxation is less. Secondly, we propose to charge beerhouses taxation on one-third the lower valuation instead of one-half. I do submit that the charge proposed to be levied on these houses is not excessive in consideration of all the circumstances. The total number of these houses in England and Wales is 26,000, and we propose by this new duty to levy on them an increased revenue of £350,000. The increased charge per house will be £13 10s., on the average. There is always danger of fallacy in averages. Although it is no consolation to a man who occupies a highly-rated house, with his Licence Duty increased to a large extent, that the average is £13 10s., yet the fact remains that £13 10s. is the average. I think the figures which the hon. Member gave show that the increased amounts which will be charged in the cases which he cited, are very exceptional, and by no means represent the increased charge on beerhouses. The figures he gave only affect a small number of large houses in the bigger towns, which can well afford to pay the increased duty. If I may anticipate what the hon. Member for Louth is probably about to say, he would point out that the amount of the burden imposed in Ireland by this Licence Duty will ruin the trade and tend to the destruction of the economic prosperity of that country. I would point out to him that while England would be paying £350,000 additional under this scale, Scotland would pay £12,000 additional, and Ireland £5,000 additional.

I did not intend to rise, and would not have intervened but for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He stated that he was going to impose these duties as moral duties. May I ask if there is such a thing as Balmoral duties?

I think that the Chancellor of the Duchy, in attempting to deal by anticipation with anything that may fall from the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. T. M. Healy) is rather reckoning without his host. There is nobody about whom there is more risk in saying that he gets up knowing what he is going to say, and I think he might be more cautious in his anticipations as to what criticisms may be passed by so old and dexterous a Parliamentary hand as the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway. I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must frankly say I did not quite understand the character of the defence which he has made of the duties proposed to be imposed by this Schedule. My hon. Friend (Mr. S. Roberts) gave a very interesting and very succinct narrative of the history of these beerhouses from 1830 to the present day. How does the right hon. Gentleman deal with that case? He says that while it is perfectly true that these beerhouses have gone on for 79 years under the Act of 1830, Parliament cannot be bound for ever by its blunder. The legislature of 1830 having dealt with this vexed licensing question came to a decision which, in the opinion of the Government generally, and in the opinion of those interested in this subject, was a wrong decision.

It was very much modified in 1840.

At all events they came to a decision in 1830, which the Government say was a blunder. Of course our ancestors were not infallible, nor are we much more infallible than our ancestors. It is quite possible that long before 70 years from the present day our children may deem these blunders made by the present Government, or made in our time, with regard to the licensing question. Questions so difficult, so full of pitfalls as they are, touching so closely the life of the people, dealing with problems of such extraordinary complexity, are sure to be dealt with wrongly even by the best meaning people now and then. I am certainly no more concerned to defend the Parliament of 1830 than any other Parliament. Certainly I should not claim infallibility for the action of any Government, or any party with which I have been concerned, and still less for the prentice hands of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have no doubt many blunders have been made, and will be made so long as you choose to treat this particular trade in the abnormal and exceptional fashion which, rightly or wrongly, we have not been able to avoid. Among many blunders concerning legislation one was made in 1830, but how does that touch the question raised by my hon. Friend, and how does the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy answer the argument which he has advanced to the House? What the House of Commons did in 1830 was to invite the creation of a certain kind of premises and places in which intoxicating liquors could be sold. I do not imagine even the extremist partisanship at the present day will suggest that the Act of 1830 was due to political pressure by the trade, or that it was done with any motive whatever except the sincere desire to meet the social need.

Parliament animated, though we admit for the sake of argument, mistakenly animated, by this public motive, invites the creation of a certain class of property. Money is expended in it, rights are granted, and it becomes a species of property as deserving of the consideration of this House as any other kind of property. Nobody can contend, nobody has ever contended, that whatever rights the ordinary full-licence holder may have they are the same full kind as those created under the Act of 1830, and admitted to exist in the Act of 1869. That has never been claimed, so far as I know, by any representative of the trade, and it certainly has never been claimed by any responsible politician. But everybody admits while those rights were different they were superior. In other words, there was a fuller kind of property in the kind of licence created in 1830 than the kind of licences which are given to full-licensed premises. That was thoroughly understood and thoroughly anticipated by the Government which dealt with this problem in 1904. We admitted that under the Act of 1830 more of those beerhouses had been created than was necessary for the public good, and that a diminution in their number was probably a thing to be desired. We recognised they had a claim to the full market compensation of the premises, in which would be taken into account, of course, the special privileges granted under the Act of 1830. Therefore, I must honestly say that I do not understand on what principle the right hon. Gentleman tells us we ought not to be bound by the blunders of our forefathers, and that this is to remedy, as far as we can, the blunder.

We do not remedy an old blunder; we create a new crime when we absolutely ignore the rights which this House in a previous generation has deliberately, though mistakenly, created. If that be granted, and I think every impartial man will grant that particular proposition, and that it is one which the House will accept, the only additional point which has to be proved is that you are treating this particular kind of house, created under an Act of Parliament, and in obedience to an invitation of this House, that you are treating that particular kind of property very harshly and unfairly. Has the right hon. Gentleman met that contention of my hon. Friend? All he has done is to quote a few cases, in which he says, "Here are premises in which it is perfectly obvious that the licence holder can well afford the small toll which we desire by this Bill to exact from him." Yes, it is quite possible there are such houses—I have not exactly the cases which he gave—but that is not the point. The point is whether some of the people you are taxing can be taxed in justice. That is the point, and to which the right hon. Gentleman never addressed himself at all. Is it, or is it not, a fact that a large number of these beerhouses will practically be extinguished or threatened with extinction by this Bill? If that be the fact, and it is alleged by my hon. Friend—and I personally believe it is true—then I say your tax is oppressive and unjust. You have no right to impose a tax upon a particular section of the community which has the effect by the mere magnitude of the sum you take from their profits of extinguishing them altogether as part of the industrial system. That is not the use you ought to put taxation to, and that is the use to which you are putting taxation. Your fault is greatly aggravated in the case of these particular licence holders, because they certainly hold their premises on a tenure more complete, more full, and of a kind which more deserves the careful recognition of this House in all its legislation, even than the other licence holders, the full licence holders, whose tax we discussed yesterday.

The right hon. Gentleman said how impossible it would be to impose on beerhouses the small rate of duty suggested by my hon. Friend's Schedule when fully-licensed premises not far oil is taxed on a much higher scale. I make two answers to that argument. The first is, because you commit one injustice that is no reason for committing another; and in the second place, if your objection to putting too low a scale of duty on the beerhouses is founded on the fact that would submit fully-licensed houses to unfair competition, then I say why did you not think of that when you were dealing with clubs. That argument, whatever be its worth, is not one which lies in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to use. They have deliberately elected to throw an imposition upon the fully-licensed house which puts them into competition with clubs, and in a most difficult and unfair position, and therefore they are the last people who have the right to say that any modification we suggest in this particular Clause is one which ought not to be accepted, because it will be the cause, or may be the cause, of unfair competition with other existing houses. Therefore, for all those reasons I venture to say that the Government are extremely unwise in forcing this proposal. They are treating in very reckless fashion the practical pledges given by this House in times past, and in doing so they are teaching the public the worst of all morals, the moral, namely, that this House may make an invitation in one year which in another year it may withdraw on the plea that it has made a mistake. That is contrary to all sound public morality, and is most inimical to the position and credit of this House. In addition to that crime it appears to me they are committing an additional crime in throwing upon one very small class of the community a tax so heavy and so large in many cases in proportion to the total takings of the trade, that they will drive some perfectly innocent and deserving individuals out of a perfectly honourable, legal, and credit\able line of life which they have selected to live believing rashly in the State, and that it is the privilege of citizens of a free country to take any trade admitted by the law to be an honest trade, and that they might engage in that trade without the fear that they would be singled out for special ill-treatment or special exactions. Those two canons of legislation the Government have equally violated, and for that reason I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division, and receive a large measure of support from all sides of the House.

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy has told me that so far as he is concerned if any local authority apply in the future for making a borrowing basis under the Compensation Act it will apparently meet with his sympathy. We have many of us like the hon. Member for Holborn been troubled by the idea that the Home Office did not encourage any such proceeding. There are just two points I want to touch upon, and it appears to me that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) has not made the very best out of them, although what he said was extremely interesting. It appears to me that whereas those people have these rights under the Act of 1830 the substantial position that ought never to be forgotten is that in 1869 it was laid down by Mr. Gladstone's Act that they had an absolutely clear interest unless they violated one of four well-known conditions.

I mentioned that.

I do not consider you made enough of it. It appears to me that that position places them in a separate category altogether from all the other licensed premises in the country. I go a step further, and I take Mr. Justice Kennedy's decision and I believe I am right in saying he drew a different multiple between these houses and fully-licensed houses as to the measure of compensation. The Government, of course, recognise this, otherwise they would not propose a different scale of charge on these houses as against the fully-licensed houses. Going a step further, we come to the Act of 1904, which charges these houses compensation—for what? Absolutely to protect that which the law of 1869 had already protected. In my opinion, the Compensation Act gave these houses no additional security at all beyond that which they already possessed, except that if they were suppressed they were to receive money. Their position is a singularly powerful one, because the Compensation Act of a Conservative Government distinctly wronged them, and, therefore, coming to the present day, I think they deserve a great deal of consideration. The matter is one of degree. We have already seen that one charge is proposed to foe levied on fully-licensed houses and another on these beerhouses. The Chancellor of the Duchy says that, because we did something yesterday in regard to the fully-licensed houses, it would not be quite fair to treat these houses to-day in a more favourable manner. I do not pretend to know about the houses in the big cities, the statistics of which the right hon. Gentleman has given, but I know a great deal about the houses in country districts, and I am convinced that in many cases this proposition will press very unduly upon the beerhouses. It is a question not whether some blunder was made years ago, but of the position to-day. Parliament naturally cannot be bound by everything that occurred so long ago, but it can, and should, be bound by conditions which Parliament laid down, and which ordinary traders in a perfectly straightforward fashion imagined were to govern their line of business. It is under these conditions that, personally, I should have been very glad if the Government could have seen their way slightly to reduce the proposed scale, even if they could not go so far as the Amendment suggests.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, realised that this enormous increase in the Licence Duties might work great hardship on the on-licensed trade, and he made the very pregnant remark that, as a set-off, the on-licensees could charge practically their increased Licence Duties on the whisky. Even if that anticipation were supported by the facts, which, so far as we can tell at present it is not likely to be, it could not be done in the case of the beerhouses, for the simple reason that they sell only beer and not whisky. Then one word on the monopoly value. From the time of the Licensing Bill of last year to the present day we have heard that the justification for the proposed treatment of on-licensed premises was that the monopoly value belonged to the State, and that therefore the State had a right to recover a part of that monopoly value. In the case of the beerhouse the argument becomes a mere waste of breath, because the beerhouses rest on the firm foundation of a statutory title. You may say that times change, and that what Parliament said 40 years ago may not coincide with the facts of life to-day; but that is no ground for perpetrating an injustice. If beerhouses have a statutory title and on-licensed premises have not, the beerhouses should be given preferential treatment as against the others. You may say that you give them preferential treatment because on-licensed houses are to be charged half the gross annual value, and beerhouses only one-third, but that is not sufficient. Beerhouses at present pay only £3 10s., and if you jump up to one-third of the annual value the difference is too enormous. It is much greater than in the case of the on-licensed houses, because there, at any rate, you proceed from Mr. Gladstone's scale, and the difference, although great, is nothing like as great as the difference in the case of the beerhouses. One-third of the annual value does not coincide with any elementary principle of justice. No doubt you want money, but that is no reason for blinding your eyes to the justice of the case in your mad desire to wreak vengeance on a particular trade with which you are not in sympathy.

I wish to say how sorry I am that you, Sir, should have had to call upon me not to interrupt. I think, however, that the Committee, if they look impartially at these proposals of the Government, must admit that they are extremely unfair to the houses immediately under discussion. When interrupting the Chancellor of the Duchy, I said that the Home Office had refused to allow local authorities to borrow money in order to take up a larger number of houses, as they would have liked to have done, he practically replied that that was not so. Members will remember perfectly well that questions were put to the Home Secretary, who, I am sure, would be the last to deny that my statement was literally correct. His reason for refusing permission was that a Licensing Bill was coming on, and under the circumstances he thought they had better wait.

The Home Office never refused to allow any local authority to raise any sum by compensation levy that they liked. Indeed, the Home Office would not have power to do

The right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously mean that as an answer. The remaining houses would have enormously increased in value in years to come, and it would be more difficult to pay them off. Applications were made to the Home Office for authority to raise money to pay off these houses. That is the only contention I have made, and the right hon. Gentleman has practically admitted it to be correct. I wish to protest against the theory that a contract once entered into by Parliament is to be lightly departed from. The right hon. Gentleman referred to contracts made by legislation as far back as 1830. We do not need to go back further than 1904. The arrangement definitely made by the Government then was that if these beerhouses were suppressed they should be properly compensated, and now within five years the Government say that that contract is not binding, and that they are quite justified in going away from what was distinctly understood then and in placing on these houses further burdens which practically mean their annihilation. Even when milk vendors in St. James's Park were displaced, compensation was given. The whole of the legislation proposed by this Budget in reference to the licensed trade is the outcome of the determination of the Government, as exemplified in the statement made by the Chief Whip last December, that the people would expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cause the abolition of redundant licences by placing on them such taxation as would bring about that end. It is quite useless to appeal to the Government to treat these houses differently, but I strongly protest against the whole proceeding.

moved, in the same column, after the word "premises," to insert the words "as ascertained in the manner directed by Section thirty, Subsection one, and Section thirty-eight."

Whatever is provided by Clause 30, Sub-section (1), and Clause 38 as a basis for ascertaining the annual value will be admitted to this Schedule as well. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is quite unnecessary to add the reference here to the Schedule. I may just remind him that he has put his Amendment in the wrong place. It only refers to beerhouses here, and it was no doubt intended to apply to both. I made a promise to bring up words on Report to deal with the matter, which he has mentioned more than once in the course of these Debates. The words will in due course be put down on the Paper, and some considerable time before we get to the Report stage.

Will these words apply to Ireland?

I do not think so. It is not the same valuation.