asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the exhaustive investigation into the serious want of dry-dock accommodation for our biggest ships on the East Coast, and the question of the provision of floating docks to meet the deficiency, as mentioned on pages 4 and 5 of the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1909–10, issued in March last, has now been made; if so, whether, as a result of such investigation, it has been decided that the two floating docks, the cost of which was partially provided for in the said Estimates, are considered sufficient to meet the requirements for our biggest ships on the East Coast; and, if so, has it been definitely decided to place one of such docks in a port on the East Coast north of the Thames?

The two floating docks mentioned are considered sufficient to meet immediate requirements. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Has the exhaustive inquiry mentioned in the memorandum been made and what has been the result of the inquiry?

The question asks me whether exhaustive investigation into the serious want of dry dock accommodation for our biggest ships and the question of the provision of floating docks to meet the deficiency as mentioned on pages 4 and 5 of the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1909–10 has now been made. That exhaustive inquiry has been made or it could not be mentioned.

And the result is that no dock is to be placed upon the North-East Coast?

No, it does not cover that point. It is as to the number of docks required and not the particular location of the docks.

What is their capacity? What size of vessels will they take?

The largest.

Twenty thousand tons?

The largest.

asked the First Lord whether he is aware that there has this year been an unprecedented dearth of white fish in the Moray Firth, and that this is attributed to the frequent gun practice by His Majesty's ships; whether he was aware that this firing often takes place at night, to the danger of the fishermen, who must then be at sea or abandon their calling; whether notice of the times of firing is given by telegrams signed Coastguard; and under whose authority such telegrams are despatched?

No reports to this effect have been received, and no proof has been given that the catches have been injuriously affected by the firing of His Majesty's ships. Night firing has been carried out by His Majesty's ships since 15th September, within a definite area in the Moray Firth, which was carefully selected so as to interfere as little as possible with the fisheries. In order to minimise any inconvenience to the fishermen, the times of commencement and completion of firing each night have been notified in advance to the Coastguard by the officer in charge of the practice, in order that the fishermen may be informed as speedily as possible.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Colonial Office exercises any control over the employment and dismissal of professional men by the Crown Agents for the Colonies; and, if so, how is it exercised?

With regard to this question I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 35 of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry of which I was Chairman, and which has been laid before the House.

asked the Under-Secretary if he had yet received the revised estimate of cost and alleged profits of the Kowloon Railway which the chief resident engineer was preparing last August; if he would give an abstract showing how it was contended that the railway can ever pay in competition with the shorter river which had cost nothing; whether the same resident engineer still holds office; and, if not, would he state the cause of the change?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. As to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his question on 30th August. A new chief resident engineer has been appointed owing to the resignation of the officer lately holding the appointment.

asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he was aware that the survey of Southern Nigeria had been carried on for eight years at a cost of £52,868 without the production of a proper map; and that the annual Report of the Colonial Survey Committee for 1907 commented on this state of affairs; whether the Governor had made any representations on the matter; and whether it was proposed to take any steps in remedy?

The matter referred to in my hon. Friend's question are now being carefully considered by the Secretary of State.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the reason why Consul Werner, who refused to send for trial before a British court a British subject charged with having killed a Chinese, is being withdrawn from his post; and whether the accused British subject will be removed?

The statements implied in the question are not in accordance with facts. His Majesty's Consul at Kiu-kiang happens to be proceeding on leave of absence due to him in the ordinary course. The police inspector whose trial on the charge of causing the death of a Chinese resulted in his discharge is not in the service of His Majesty's Government, and the question of his removal does not rest with them

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Parliamentary Papers are delivered without charge to Members while in the Colonies and British possessions; that if delivered to them in foreign countries a heavy postage is charged; and whether he will make arrangements to have the Vote Office bear the necessary expense of postage in the latter case?

Under the Regulations of the Postal Union, the only correspondence which can be sent from one country to another without payment by means of postage stamps is official correspondence exchanged between Postal Administrations on Postal business. Arrangements have been made with the Colonial Post Offices for the mutual recognition of the "Official Paid" stamp on official correspondence of other kinds, but I am not in a position to make similar arrangements with foreign countries.

May I ask whether the Post Office is justified in making charges for the redirection of Parliamentary Papers inside the United Kingdom?

That does not arise out of the question.

Why is it that the Vote Office will not bear the necessary expense of the postage of documents sent out from their office?

That is not a matter for me; it is for the Vote Office and the Stationery Office. I have no control over them in regard to these matters.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland) charge over 1½d. per mile to second-class passengers for uncomfortable carriages; what rate per mile is charged for first-class accommodation by the leading lines in England; and, in view of the high fares charged by this company for its second-class, will the Board of Trade endeavour to secure that third-class passengers who may not be able or willing to pay the high second-class fare charged by this company will be provided with foot-warmers or the carriages warmed by some other method?

I am aware that second-class fares on the Great Southern and Western Railway are, in some cases, at any rate, more than 1½d. a mile. The maximum fare chargeable is 2d. a mile. On the more important English railways the first-class fare is, generally speaking, about 2d. a mile. As regards the provision of foot-warmers in third-class carriages on the Great Southern and Western Railway, I have not yet received a definite reply from the company, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I do so.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the total number of the crew engaged on the steamer "Linden Hall," of West Hartlepool, in London during September last; whether the crew were engaged on board or at a mercantile marine office; how many Chinamen were engaged; and how many produced discharge books?

The crew engaged on the steamer "Linden Hall," of West Hartlepool, at Poplar on the 17th September last, numbered 28, of whom 20 were Chinese. The men were engaged on board and nine of them produced discharge books, two of the seamen producing discharge books being Chinese. There were also two apprentices on board.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the next examination will be held for situations as assistants of Customs and Excise, and what the limits of age will be?

I regret to be unable to make any statement on this subject at present.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, at the time of the release of Lady Constance Lytton and Mrs. Brailsford from Newcastle Gaol, the other suffragist prisoners were being fed by force; and whether, previously to the forced feeding, these other prisoners had been medically examined for heart disease?

Some of the suffragist prisoners were received in Newcastle Prison on Saturday, the 9th October; others on the following Monday. Lady Constance Lytton and Mrs. Brailsford, who were received on the Monday, were discharged on Wednesday, and on that day it became necessary to feed five of the other prisoners. All the prisoners, eleven in number, were medically examined with the utmost care, and four of them, who were suffering from heart disease or showed symptoms of cardiac trouble, were released on the recommendation of the medical officers. I need hardly say there is not the slightest ground for the insinuations which are being freely made that Lady Constance Lytton was released because she was a peer's sister. She was released solely on medical grounds, as were the other three prisoners.

Was the medical examination to which the right hon. Gentleman refers made before these prisoners were forcibly fed?

Yes, in every case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the released prisoners says she was not examined before she was forcibly fed, and one of the doctors said———

Which?

I cannot say for the moment, but I will supply the name to the right hon. Gentleman. One of the doctors said to the other: "Has her heart been examined?" and he replied, "No, it does not matter; go on with the feeding." Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into that?

Certainly I will, but I have stated the facts.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any of the ladies are being still forcibly fed in the Birmingham Prison?

I understand that is the case.

Is there any reason for believing that these prisoners would take food in the natural way if they were placed in the First Division?

The contrary has been stated.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if the suffragist prisoners at Newcastle asked to be allowed to see their solicitor; if the solicitor himself applied to the Home Office for permission to see the prisoners; and, if permission was refused, what was the reason for the refusal?

Several of the prisoners referred to applied for permission to have visits from solicitors, and a firm of solicitors also applied for the same purpose; but the grounds stated did not bring the cases within the prison rules as to visits by legal advisers. I should have been disposed, in the special circumstances, to grant a visit outside the rules, but the fact that the prisoners who applied were due for release within a few days rendered this unnecessary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is aware that town councils are issuing, in large numbers, licences to sell poisons under Section (2) of The Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908, in places where abundant facilities are provided by the shops of qualified chemists; and, in view of the statement made in this House by the Under-Secretary when the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill was under discussion, that licences would only be granted under Section (2) where reasonable facilities did not exist, will he take steps to stop the granting of such licences in violation of that understanding and to cancel such licences as have been issued in contravention of it?

I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answers which I gave to questions by the hon. Member on this subject on the 10th and 24th June last. I have no power to control the action of the Town Councils, and I have already called the attention of the Privy Council Office to the allegations made.

had given notice of the following question to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that last Friday an official disclosure was made by the chairman of the Liverpool Watch Committee from which it has become evident that the present dangerous situation in Liverpool originated in consequence of and following upon the erection of an altar in a public street for which official permission was given through some blunder on the part of the authorities; whether he is aware that on Saturday afternoon last Pastor George Wise was escorted to gaol by a procession of 60,000 sympathising citizens; whether, seeing that the inquiry for which the Government have promised a Bill will necessarily be largely concerned with events connected with Pastor George Wise, it is intended to hold such an inquiry whilst Mr. Wise, being in prison, is unable to take part; and whether he can see his way to assist in allaying popular excitement by accepting Mr. Wise's solemn promise, supported by the offer of prominent citizens to be bound over, that pending the official inquiry Mr. Wise will take no part in any public meetings which could reasonably be objected to by referring to matters sub judice and release Mr. Wise for the time being by allowing the warrant to stand over pending the inquiry?

I desire to postpone this question.

As the hon. Member's question may appear again on the Paper, I wish, upon a point of Order, to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the first paragraph of the question which says: "An official disclosure was made by the chairman of the Liverpool Watch Committee from which it has become evident that the present dangerous situation in Liverpool originated in consequence of and following upon the erection of an altar in a public street for which official permission was given through some blunder on the part of the authorities." I want to ask whether, in view of the fact that there is a Bill before the House for the appointment of a Royal Commission to take evidence in regard to these disturbances, it is in order to use the Notice Paper of this House for the purpose of pre-judging the facts of the case before the investigation is held?

I do not think this will prejudge the question. We do not take for gospel all the words that appear in print.

Have the Commissioners been appointed yet?

No, Sir.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there has recently been a serious diminution in the orders of the Indian State railways and other Indian railways for rolling stock from British firms, both in the case of maintenance and construction; what were the total values of orders placed by the Indian State railways and other Indian railways with British firms for rolling stock during the years ending 30th September, 1907, 1908, and 1909; and do the indents for railway rolling stock sanctioned by the Indian Government during the last financial year, both for the State railways and other Indian railways, represent the full requirements of the managers of those railways?

I regret that I can answer the Noble Lord's question only so far as relates to the three railways worked by the State. The companies that work the other lines place their own orders for rolling stock, independently of the India Office. The orders for rolling stock placed through the India Office with British firms amounted in 1906–7 to £2,571,000, in 1907–8 to £1,385,000, and in 1908–9 to £1,016,000. I should explain that in the first of these years trade was exceptionally active, and urgent demands were made for more rolling stock, to meet which the Secretary of State granted an extra million pounds. Almost the whole of this grant, although it was eventually shared by both State railways and companies, is included in the figure given above. The other two totals relate to State railways only. Recently, as the Noble Lord is aware, economy has been necessary in every branch of the administration. The Secretary of State has no information as to whether the indents for rolling stock during last year represent the full demands of managers, but he will be glad to refer the Noble Lord's question to the Railway Board for any observations.

Will that necessitate a mail there and back?

Yes, I think it will.

Is it not the case that all the estimates and demands for rolling stock on the other railways as well as on th State railways are sent to the Secretary of State for India, and, therefore he has all the information necessary to inform the House of Commons what orders have been given or can be given?

So far as the last part of the question is concerned the Secretary of State for India has not the information. I will inquire of the Railway Board for the information which the Noble Lord asks for.

Is it not a fact that this falling off is due to the Swadeshi movement, and will he consider whether those who are responsible for it should be deported?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the expansion and growing importance of public accounts in Ireland, whether he has power and contemplates raising the standard, status, and responsibilities of accountants, appointing none to practice in a public Department except such as have passed a competitive or at least qualifying examination, and recruiting the official auditing staff exclusively from the qualfied accountants in the order of merit ascertained by competitive examination?

I have no power to alter the status or responsibilities of accountants. The qualifications of Local Government Board auditors were settled by a Treasury minute of 8th July, 1908, which was presented to Parliament. I see no reason for restricting the appointments as suggested.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the growing practice of the Estates Commissioners to leave competent agriculturists who are landless in the neighbourhood of a ranch bought by them long in suspense, and finally give them none of the land, but give parcels of it to persons from distant places where land of the same class is available; and whether, seeing that this practice is different from the intentions of Parliament as declared by him, he will arrange to have evicted tenants, occupants of uneconomic holdings, and suitable landless men in the neighbourhood of a purchased ranch provided with land from it before any outside application is entertained.

In the allotment of un-tenanted land acquired by them the Estates Commissioners have regard to the provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the Evicted Tenants Act.

asked the Chief Secretary whether in an old age pension case in which the applicant has always resided in the same district and yet does not appear in the Census Returns, and there is no baptismal register, and the local pension committee, satisfied that the applicant is over 70 years of age, grant a pension of 5s. a week, and the evidence of age is not refuted before the Local Government Board, and the Board disallows the claim solely for lack of proof of age, the Board rules that the incorrectness of the Census Returns shall deprive of a pension a person otherwise entitled; and, if not, will he say what kind of evidence the Board requires in the circumstances stated?

The Local Government Board have no power to award a pension unless there is evidence of statutory age, and they have been advised that the onus of proof rests with the claimant. The Board give full consideration to any reasons assigned by a committee for believing a claimant to have attained the statutory age, and are glad to accept these reasons when it is possible to do so. In many cases, however, no valid reasons are given in support of the committee's opinion, and in such cases the Board cannot grant a pension in the absence of evidence from the claimant himself. As regards the last paragraph of the question, the Board consider any kind of evidence they can get, and do not lay down any rule on the subject.

Would the applicant in such a case in Ireland be called upon by an inspector of the Board as in this country?

I do not think there is any difference in the practice of the two countries.

Is it not a fact that the majority of pensions refused in Ireland have been refused because the applicant's name cannot be found in the Census Return, and is it not also a fact that the Census Return for one town omits the principal street of the place?

No, the Local Government Board in Ireland do not regard the Census Return other than as a factor in the case, and any other evidence of a satisfactory character is received by them.

If the evidence in a case is evenly balanced, will the right hon. Gentleman have an inspector of the Board call upon the applicant as is done in this country?

That course is open to the Board as it is in England if they think it is desirable.

Will they do it in this case?

I do not know whether in this case they think it necessary.

asked whether the Local Government Board for Ireland, before finally disallowing the pension of 5s. a week granted by the local committee to Peter Bennett, of Delvin, will consent to see and hear the applicant himself, and then judge for themselves?

I have already informed the hon. Member in reply to the question asked by him on the 20th instant that this case has been finally decided by the Local Government Board.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to a case heard at the Newtown-hamiltown Quarter Sessions, on the 21st instant, in which Sergeant Carroll, Royal Irish Constabulary, was charged with assault at Maguiresbridge; whether he is aware that the assault was committed in an attempt to prevent the hoisting of a Union Jack upon private grounds, and that the defendant stated that he had acted under authority, but declined to produce his authority to the court without the consent of the Government; and whether he will state upon what grounds the sergeant of police was authorised to interfere with persons who were hoisting the flag of their country upon private land?

My attention has been called to the case to which the hon. Member refers. I understand that the sergeant has appealed against the decision of the county court judge. The case is, therefore, still sub judice, and it is not desirable to make any statement on the subject.

asked if the Commissioners of Intermediate Education were requested to consider the question of re-examination of the marking of the Irish papers at the last examination; whether they considered the question at their last meeting; if so, what decision was arrived at; and on what ground was the decision based?

The suggestion that the honour papers in Irish should be re-examined by a competent authority, and the further suggestion that the papers should be re-examined by the examiners, were considered by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education at their last meeting, when they declined to adopt either suggestion. The Commissioners inform me that they have never referred papers for re-examination unless satisfied that there has been some miscarriage. In the present instance they are satisfied that there was none.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the firm of Messrs. Ransomes and Rapier, Limited, Ipswich, are contractors to the War Office; if so, whether he is aware that the riveters and platers in their employ are paid 22s. a week, the district rate being 32s. per week; and whether he will take action to have the Fair Wage Clause complied with?

This firm does not at present hold any War Office contracts.

asked the Secretary of State for War what progress he has made with his inquiry into the circumstances under which a large quantity of smuggled hashish or bhang, discovered on a British transport, was recently confiscated by the Egyptian authorities, involving the payment of a heavy penalty by the British Government; whether he has reason to believe that certain British officers were implicated in the matter; and, if so, what steps he is taking or proposes to take to bring them to justice?

The Army Council has this matter under investigation at the present time, and I hope before long to give my hon. Friend some information on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company recently refused to grant cheap tickets to officers of the Special Reserve and Territorial Forces on the warrant which is issued to Regular officers entitling them to travel at reduced rates for weekend training, on the ground that they are not a part of the Regular forces; and whether, in view of the repeated declaration that officers of the Special Reserve are part of the Regular forces, he will make representations to the railway company upon the subject?

My hon. Friend is apparently alluding to the special concession made to Regular officers in the matter of week-end tickets when attending a course of instruction at Hythe. The question of extending this concession to Special Reserve and Territorial officers has been referred to the Railway Clearing House Superintendents' Conference for their consideration.

asked whether the experiments in regard to rifle shooting have resulted in any decision as to pointed bullets; and, if so, are they soon likely to be issued for general use?

Valuable information has been obtained from the experiments and is still under consideration.

asked the Prime Minister if he can now give the names of the Development Commissioners and Road Commissioners?

No, Sir, I am not as yet in a position to make a statement.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement?

Well, before the Bill finally leaves this House.

asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to filling up the vacant judgeship of the Court of Appeal in Ireland; and whether he will name the successor to the late Lord Justice Fitzgibbon?

No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot make any statement.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the official intimation of interest and good wishes sent through the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Trafalgar anniversary demonstration at Toronto, will the Government in future show their interest in the London celebration in Trafalgar-square?

I believe that the message transmitted through my Noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, was in reply to a communication to the King. I am not aware of any steps that could fittingly be taken by His Majesty's Government to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member. As he is no doubt aware full facilities for the decoration of the Nelson column are accorded by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the suggestion often made in this House to fly the flag over public buildings on Trafalgar Day?

asked the Prime Minister when the promised Bill for the Amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act will be introduced; and if it is the intention of the Government to redeem the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9th July, 1908, that the Poor Law disqualification would be removed this year?

It is not proposed to introduce this Session a Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act of last year. My right hon. Friend explained in the course of his Budget statement on 29th April last that, though he was afraid he would not be able to deal with the Poor Law disqualification this year, he had borne the matter in mind in framing his proposals, and hoped next year to be able to make the necessary provision.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make as to the course of business?

On Monday next we propose to take the Lords' Amendments to the Housing and Town Planning Bill, the Lords' Amendments to the House Letting (Scotland) Bill, and the Second Reading—I understand it will not be seriously contested—of the Assurance Companies Bill.

Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday we propose to devote to the Third Reading and final stage of the Finance Bill; and we hope on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, after the Debate on the Finance Bill has been concluded, to secure the Committee and Third Reading stages of the Assurance Companies Bill, which I believe may now be regarded as a non-controversial measure.

On Friday, 5th November, we shall take the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Land Bill, preceded by a Motion to enable the Amendments to be put as a whole from the Chair. A formal Motion will be made at the commencement of the sitting on Friday, 5th November, to adjourn the House until Tuesday, 23rd November.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has not received information that there will possibly be a very long discussion on the Assurance Companies Bill, and whether, if time be not available on Wednesday evening, the House will not be asked to sit up and discuss the Bill after 11 or 12 o'clock?

My information is in the contrary sense; but, if it turns out that the Bill is seriously contested, we shall have to reconsider the matter.

May I ask if any date has been fixed for taking the Lords Amendments to the Development Bill?

When the House reassembles after the adjournment.

May I ask whether there will be any opportunity of a discussion with reference to the Public Accounts Committee?

I am afraid we shall not be able to find time for that.

moved, on Subsection (2), to leave out the words "as to which the determination of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the amount to be paid for compensation under Subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Licensing Act, 1904, is for the time being subject," and to insert instead thereof the words "to the High Court as under the Finance Act, 1894."

I beg to second the Amendment. I think my hon. Friend's objection is well founded. Often the costs in an appeal become more important than the subject matter of the appeal. It is only the uninitiated who imagine that the costs are a mere matter of form. Under Sub-section (4), Section 2, of the Act of 1904, it is provided that in no event shall the Commissioners of Inland Revenue be called upon to pay their own costs, whatever the issue of the litigation may be. The Sub-section says that the costs incurred by the Commissioners on an appeal from their decision to the High Court shall, unless the court orders the costs to be paid by some party to the appeal other than the Commissioners, be paid out of the Compensation Fund. But in these cases there is no Compensation Fund to draw upon, and the fear of my hon. Friend is that the interpretation of the Section will be to throw the whole of the costs—whatever the issue—on the appellant. Why not leave it entirely open and let the costs, as in the ordinary courts, follow the event? Let the party who appeals, if he is successful, have some chance of recovering his costs.

With regard to the question of costs the provision under Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act of 1904, which enables the court to give costs against the Commissioners out of the Compensation Fund cannot apply at all in this case. Therefore the law, with reference to costs; upon an appeal, will be governed by the provisions of the 10th Section of the Act of 1894, the Finance Act, and those provisions are perfectly plain because the appeal under the Act of 1904 is in accordance with the provisions of the 1894 Act, which says that the costs of the appeal shall be in the discretion of the court, and the court may order the Commissioners to pay them for such period as they may think fit. Therefore, the position is that any appellant will have a chance of getting his costs, and if he is able to satisfy the court that his appeal is reasonable he may bring it without having to pay costs at all under the discretion of the High Court. It is quite true that the appeal under the Act of 1904 is only to the High Court, and that is the appeal which has been preserved under the provisions of this measure. We have adopted the provisions of the Act of 1894, which will enable the appeal to be taken to the High Court. The costs are mainly within the discretion of the High Court.

As I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman, he really thinks that the Bill as it stands will have the precise effect which my hon. Friend wishes to ensure by moving his Amendment?

Except in regard to the county courts.

As regards the High Court there is absolutely no difference between my hon. Friend and the Government as to the way costs shall be allocated and they shall be allocated under the Act of 1894, and the fact that the Act of 1904 is interpolated does not affect that at all. They are to be under the Act of 1894?

Yes.

Why is it necessary to import the Act of 1904?

The answer to that is this: The Act of 1904 is referred to in the other part of the Clause, and as we deal with it in the one case we think as a matter of drafting it is well to deal with it in the other.

Would it not be better, in this connection, to insert words to the effect that the Act of 1904, except as regards the Sub-section dealing with this particular matter of costs, would apply? That would make the matter perfectly clear and would not leave any room for misinterpretation. It is very well known that a Solicitor-General takes one view, but other expert legal opinion takes a different view, and I think it would be better to insert words which would eliminate the portion of that particular Sub-section of which I complain, and which the hon. and learned Gentleman explained to the House the Government do not wish to import into the interpretation of an Act dealing with this matter. On that ground, in the interests of clear drafting, it is very advisable that some limitation of the words should be applied so as to eliminate the ambiguous words and prevent their being applied to the particular matter of this Bill. I venture to make an appeal to the Government for further consideration before the Amendment is finally dismissed, and it is in the interest of their own measure that they should make this clear. I admit that in relation to the Act of 1904 these words are very properly inserted. The Commissioners would come forward, not as interested persons in that case, but in the position of arbitrators between the licence holder who is to receive compensation and the local authority who have contol of the Compensation Fund, and have to award that fund and see it devoted to particular licences. There the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are called in as arbitrators, but in this case they are called in as one of the most interested parties. They are in their official position interested in the collection of the revenue, and it is to their interest to make that collection as high as possible. Therefore they are not in the position of disinterested parties, and they are not able to exercise their powers disinterestedly. If they exceed the absolute line of justice and over-assess and value the property, then it is only reasonable that there should be an appeal against their decision, and if they have to pay the costs when the case is clearly against them, that liability will, at any rate, be some check upon the valuation which they place upon the property for taxation, and will act as a protection to the interests of the subject. In all these cases of valuations and assessments for the purpose of taxing it is held that the interests of the subject and the taxpayer are to have the benefit of any doubt, and I therefore maintain that the insertion of such words as I have suggested would act in the direction which the Government desire. I am quite sure that it will be desirable to do away with this ambiguity. There will be probably in the earlier stages of this legislation some disputes which will result in very costly litigation, and every lawyer in this House knows that in cases of litigation an opinion from an authority, however eminent and well instructed, given to Members of this House as to the intentions of the Government, or even the intentions of Parliament, count for nothing in the law as it stands and as it passed this House, is the matter for decision. I therefore venture to put these words forward for further consideration, and I hope that that consideration will result in the insertion of some words which would make the Sub-section clear.

May I say that if there is any genuine doubt on the part of anybody I am quite willing that the words should be put at the end of the paragraph to make it clear, "and the costs of any such appeal shall be in the discretion of the court."

With regard to the next Amendment of the Solicitor-General it appears that to strike out the words "no increased value arising from profits not derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be taken into consideration," will increase the charge. To the ordinary mind it implies that the increased value should be taken into consideration. I do not know if the Solicitor-General can show that it does not increase the charge.

I put the Amendment down in deference to the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister on the Committee stage that upon the whole, to avoid doubts being raised, it would be better to omit these words, and in that opinion I respectfully agree. But when you, Mr. Speaker, ask me if the excision of the words might in some cases have the effect of increasing the duty, I wish to say that while I do not think it probable, I cannot deny that it is possible that the relief contemplated by the Subsection might not be fully given in some cases, and, accordingly, after what you have said, Sir, I do not propose to move the Amendment.

moved to omit Subsection (3).

seconded the Amendment.

I have considered this. I offered in Committee to insert certain words which would be of a limiting-character—"information material for ascertaining the annual value" or something; of that kind. I think in a matter of this kind we must leave it to the discretion of the Commissioners. It is necessary that they should be informed as to the value, rent, and things of that kind which would enable the accurate annual value to be arrived at without making it necessary to embark upon an expensive appeal. The information required cannot be of a very inquisitorial kind. Everyone knows the kind of information which will be asked for. I certainly did not hold out any hope in Committee that I could put any form in the Schedule. The Bill is quite long enough, and I do not want to increase the number of Schedules.

There is a certain amount of hardship because cases of this kind under this Bill differ entirely from compensation cases under the Act of 1904. There, there is no hardship at all in having the fullest possible inquiry, because there, there is no secrecy in the matter. It is no longer a going concern. The licence was about to be extinguished, the amount payable in respect of the extinction was to be ascertained, and there was nothing to be held back on the part of the trader. But here it is a totally different matter. It is a going concern, and no trader likes to disclose the whole quantity and quality of his business. The wind should be tempered, as far as possible, to the shorn lamb. Unfortunately, words uttered by so eminent a legal luminary as the Solicitor-General carry no weight with those who have to decide these matters hereafter. They may see no reason at all for being benignant when they have to perform their duty. They may demand the ransacking of the books from beginning to end, and go into the whole business. I wish some words could be put in roughly, as a guidance to those gentlemen to show that only the information which is absolutely necessary in ascertaining the annual value of the licence should be required. We have some grievance in this matter.

I do not know whether, after the statement made by the Solicitor-General, it is any use to press this matter further on his consideration. I do not think there is any exact precedent for conferring these powers on the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I believe that the right of the Inland Revenue Commissioners to ascertain for the purpose of Income Tax the facts as to the business being done is strictly limited to certain particulars. They have not a roving commission. They have the right to make inquiries in regard of certain specified matters, but they are not allowed to go beyond these. I can give an instance, not drawn from the revenue laws, but from the public health laws. In dealing with some of the greatest nuisances arising in relation to the question of public health, one of the difficulties in the way of discovering the causes was that it was impossible for the Government inspectors to make certain investigations without making such demands on manufacturers as might result in the disclosure of secret processes of manufacture. The manufacturers thought they should not be called upon to part with information which might be used to their prejudice if disclosed to others. Here you are asking wide powers, which are not defined or limited in any way. No one doubts the bona fides or the capacity of the Commissioners, but I think some difficulty might arise, as in the case I have referred to in connection with the administration of the public health laws. I had the pleasure of proposing an alteration in the law for the purpose of enabling the Government inspectors to carry out their inquiries more effectively in regard to public nuisances, and an hon. Member opposite vehemently resisted the change on the ground that a manufacturer should not be exposed to the risk of having the information which would be supplied to inspectors disclosed to his competitors. It is clear that for the purpose of arriving at the value of the premises you do not want to investigate the innermost secrets of a man's business. I am sure the Solicitor-General is entirely at one with us in desiring that there should be no inquisitorial procedure and no disclosure of matters which are not necessary to the purpose of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Surely it would be possible to insert words to guard the licensed trade against what they conceive to be a real risk. If the Solicitor-General could suggest some words to do so, the trade would be relieved from a danger which, I think, they very reasonably fear.

I am entirely at one with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that no particular information should be asked except that which is reasonably necessary for the purpose of making the valuation. I have been informed since I spoke that when the Bill was in Committee the words "such particulars as may be material for the purpose of ascertaining the value" were inserted in connection with the Land Clauses. They provide some limitation, but I think they are not so good as the discretion of the Commissioners. I am quite willing to insert the word "properly," so that the Sub-section would read "such particulars as the Commissioners may properly require."

I think that is about as much as I can ask for under present conditions. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, after the word "less" in Subsection (1) ["were in the preceding year less than one-third of the total receipts"], to insert the words "in the case of a restaurant than two-fifths, and in the case of any other premises."

It was stated in the Debate in Committee that there might be submitted cases of bonâ fide restaurants where the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor were over 33 per cent. of the total receipts, and that they would, therefore, be excluded from the reduction provided for by the Clause owing to the somewhat higher percentage of liquor receipts than the Bill allows. No such cases have been submitted, but our own inquiries have revealed the fact that there were one or two restaurants which have a somewhat higher percentage than 33. I think the cases are exceedingly rare where restaurants, which are not public-houses, have a percentage of liquor receipts over 33. In those rare cases there would be a real hardship in leaving them under the public-houses charge, and consequently we propose to alter the per- centage from 33 to 40 in the case of restaurants. The figure 40 is taken from the Memorandum to which I referred yesterday. It was circulated by the committee representing the hotel and restaurant trade of the United Kingdom. I should not be prepared to go beyond that figure as is suggested in the Amendment of winch the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Arkwright) has given notice, for this reason. We want to draw a line between public-houses and restaurants. A certain amount of public-house sales will be soda-water and temperance drinks of one kind or another, and usually tobacco. Therefore they all have a certain percentage of non-intoxicating liquor business. It would be very easy so to arrange prices as to show a somewhat larger proportion of non-intoxicating liquor receipts and a somewhat smaller proportion of intoxicating liquor receipts. The danger is that if you go beyond 40 per cent. many places would be able in this way, if they were anxious to escape the burden of the Licence Duties on public-houses, to receive the consideration which is being given to restaurants. They would be able surreptitiously to bring themselves within a class to which they do not properly belong. I hope the House will accept the figure 40 per cent., which is the figure proposed by the accredited representatives of the restaurant proprietors.

I beg to move to leave out in the proposed Amendment "two-fifths," and to insert instead thereof "three-fifths." I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Duchy cannot accept this Amendment. I desire to point out what I meant by putting down the Amendment, and to say that I shall be obliged to ask the House to divide upon it. The chief meaning of the Amendment is the reference it bears to our contention which would follow that the hotel proportion should be one-half, and it was in view of the possibility of being told that that proportion would be more favourable than the terms already given to the restaurants that I put down this Amendment to avoid that objection.

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

In supporting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Arkwright), I still maintain, as I maintained in Committee, that the distinction between the ordinary public-house and the restaurant and hotel is emphatically not a distinction that can be arrived at by determining a numerical proportion; but the higher you put that numerical proportion the more justly do you treat such exceptional cases. The distinction is, as everybody knows by experience, whether the house in question does or does not lay itself out for ordinary entertainment, or whether it lays itself out merely for making a profit on the sale of liquor. I have heard no argument advanced to maintain a numerical proportion as the test except one interjection by the Chancellor of the Duchy—who I think is quite out of touch with public feeling in this matter as in most matters—in which he said that permanent officials, or, at any rate, he himself, had determined that one-third was the exact proportion which made the difference between a restaurant and a public-house. The difference is not numerical. It would be best established by a local committee whether a house is a bonâ fide hotel or restaurant, or not. I shall vote for the Amendment moved from the opposite side of the House, because it goes further in my direction than the Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Duchy.

The proportion of three-fifths might create certain difficulties. At the same time it seems to me that anything that advances the interests of temperance should be encouraged, and if you could prevail upon publicans to carry on their business more like restaurant keepers, and go in more for supplying meals rather than merely selling liquor then it would be a gain to temperance and a gain to society.

moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "one-third" ["one-third of the total receipts"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one-half."

I beg to second the Amendment. I know myself of a case exactly similar to those quoted by my hon. Friend, but it is a case where there was a mortgage on the premises, and I have been told by the people who are the owners that if this duty be imposed it will mean the difference between making a living and not making a living. This additional £200 or £250 a year will deprive them of their livelihood. They must pay the mortgage interest, and this duty would leave them nothing to live upon.

The hon. Member who moved this Amendment quoted generally the cases of small hotels in provincial towns, in which, he said, there were very few bedrooms, but which on fair days and market days did a very considerable trade that brought the proportion of their liquor receipts to over one-third. These houses, in our judgment, are not really the class of houses that ought to be brought within the terms of the Clause. The houses to which the hon. Member referred are the ordinary village public-houses—[an HON. MEMBER: "No."]—the ordinary public-houses in little country towns, of which I know many, and which are frequented every night by their ordinary habitués of the town, and on market days by farmers and their friends, who sit down to the market ordinary and have their refreshments. The hotel business of such houses is extremely small. They have a few bedrooms patronised by commercial travellers occasionally, and practically by no one else. They are not places which, in our opinion, ought to be taken out of the category of public-houses and brought within the category of bonâ fide hotels. The proportion of one-third, after careful inquiry, is in our judgment a very fair dividing line between premises of that character and those places which are really hotels, except in the special case of seasonal hotels, which has been specially met, and to which the hon. Member has just referred. The reason for the distinction between seasonal hotels is that they are shut up for a part of the year, while the bars remain open for the supply of the inhabitants, as in the case of very small houses in the Highland villages. They are perhaps a little above the one-third, but nevertheless they are bonâ fide hotels, which during a large part of the year do mainly an hotel business to which the liquor trade is subordinate. The special provision is intended to meet that case, but it is by no means to be taken as a precedent, and it cannot be applied to hotels generally. The hon. Member opposite quoted figures, but he did not give us any in regard to the liquor receipts, which are really a very important item in this matter, and the danger is that this Clause, as I have said before, may be used as a means for what are in essence ordinary public-houses escaping the duties which their neighbours and competitors have to pay, merely on the ground that they have two or three bedrooms, and the Commissioners could not refuse to class them as doing, to some extent, a bonâ fide hotel business. The genuine and typical London hotels are far below the 33 per cent. Here are four hotels—I am not authorised to give their names, but they are very familiar to hon. Gentlemen opposite—information in regard to which has been supplied to the Government under the seal of confidence. In the case of a very well-known London hotel, doing an extremely large business, an hotel where there are supper parties, the proportion of liquor receipts is 21.6 per cent. The second hotel has a proportion of 15 per cent.; the third 6 per cent., and the fourth 5 per cent.

I spoke on behalf of the small hotels in provincial and market towns.

I have one case, and it is in Surrey, the total turnover of which is £10,736, and the annual purchases of excisable liquors amounts to £2,000. There are other cases, but I have not the figures by me for the moment, as I did not know that this special case was going to be brought up. The London hotels are far below 33 per cent., and even those who have the higher liquor receipts have only a proportion of 20 per cent., and most of them 10 per cent., 11 per cent., 12 per cent., and some 15 per cent. In the country, our information is that 33 per cent. is a very fair dividing line between a house which does mainly an hotel business and the public-house which incidentally does some hotel business. By charging a little more for meals and so on, and charging a little less for the liquor served with the meals, it might be easy in the case of a house that has at present a good deal above 50 per cent. in liquor receipts, to bring these below the line, so that, although it is really mainly a public-house, it can come within the benefit of this hotel clause. In view of that danger, I must ask the House to adhere to the figure which we propose.

I have heard the reply of the right hon. Gentleman with considerable regret and astonishment. The right hon. Gentleman failed alto- gether to deal with the character of the case brought forward by my hon. Friend. The illustrations which he gave are outside altogether the point which we are trying to bring before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to hotels with a turnover of £10,000. They are not to be compared with the class of country hotels, on behalf of which my hon. Friend moved this Amendment. When the Government started on this crusade they laid down several principles. Their intention was to draw a wide and broad line between those places which were for the accommodation of man and beast, and those which were merely drinking shops. The right hon. Gentleman says that the hotels on behalf of which this Amendment is moved are practically represented by the cases he quoted, namely, the larger kind of hotels. He actually took London, and I do not suppose that in any parts of the Larger London that we are familiar with, since the Local Government Act came into operation, that you would find one single hotel of the class referred to by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). Supposing there are some of them—there may be a few—the right hon. Gentleman, when he had done with London, went to one case in Surrey. That was the case with a turnover of £10,000. The hotels which we ask relief for are the hotels that were described in the Government's own language as places of accommodation for man and beast. Where do their receipts in a very large measure come from? Does not every hon. Gentleman conversant with our country towns know perfectly well that most of those hotels confine their sales of liquor to a particular class? There is very often in the larger country towns the club which is used by the country gentlemen, and there is sometimes the working men's club, while there as a very large class of tradesmen and of the middle class who have no club to go to, and who frequently use these hotels as a sort of club. That at once adds to the consumption of liquor and penalises them, although it is the most respectable kind of trade you could wish for, and it ought to be encouraged, and not discouraged, by the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman says that it is really the village public-house. I venture to say he confesses by that argument to a complete ignorance of the facts in our country districts. They are not village public-houses in any sense of the word. There is no comparison to be made between the houses to which we are referring and the village public-houses mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. There is an aspect of this case quite apart from whether you are doing justice or injustice to the publican. There is the general interest of the locality and the trade of the locality, and I venture to say that these hotels are essential to the industry and to the trade of the districts. I can confirm what my hon. Friend said an regard to many cases. I am not going to give the particulars, but I will say a word about two or three of the cases he mentioned. I have made inquiries myself, I have been to some of those hotels, and asked them for the facts. They are naturally very chary of having their figures produced, because although they feel that the rope is being put round their necks, they naturally do not want to help to tighten it until their fate is absolutely decided. Surely the fact speaks for itself. Does anybody here believe that in these small country hotels the profits are so large that you cannot once raise their outgoings, as in the three cases quoted by the Member for Worcester, from £50 to over £200, from £70 to nearly £300, and from £40 to £122? Does anybody believe with a knowledge of our country towns and the smaller class hotel that the profits are so large that you can treble, quadruple, or multiply four or five times one outgoing, and that there is the smallest prospect of their being able to carry on business? We know perfectly well those are the class of houses in respect of which the profit is probably the very smallest.

My hon. Friend drew a distinction between the case of those smaller hotels and some of the public-houses. Yesterday, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy was referring to the recommendations in regard to local government, he forgot that although it was not part of the recommendation of the Royal Commission it did form a large part of the recommendations made by the Members of this House and outside. They recommended this change that the control of those public-houses and the fixing of the amount of their licences should be vested locally. That was a proposal which met with no favour here because the majority of this House resented any attempt to remove the control of Parliament in fixing the amount to be paid. The reason given for that change was that it is only locally that you can know the distinction and the difference between the different class of houses; between the one that makes money and the one that does not. Simply to take a hotel at random and to say that because it is a hotel and presents a better appearance, and looks a better house than its neighbour and therefore ought to be more heavily rated, is to jump at a conclusion for which there is no solid foundation and to inflict a very great injustice on this class of house. I made inquiries, and without any exception they resulted in the uniform reply that, "If the Government persist with this grave and heavy increase in all Licence Duties the only result must be that we shall have to close our houses, as it would be quite impossible to carry them on." My hon. Friend quoted hotels with 45 or 50 bedrooms, but I am thinking of smaller hotels, and there are a great many hotels which are not public-houses, and where the bedroom accommodation is probably not more than 12 or 15 rooms. How are those hotels used? They are used at the present time by everybody who has no place to stop in the neighbourhood, and who was visiting the locality either for business or for pleasure, or for any other purpose. They will be all included under the new charge. They will not come under the exemption. The figure of one-third is one which will bring all those hotels in, and will, for this small difference, impose on them a charge which it is impossible that they could bear, the charge of the extra Licence Duty.

Their rateable value would not be high.

Really it is very difficult to argue with the Government, as they rely for their answers on statements which are entirely in the air.

The right hon. Gentleman has not quoted a single figure or given a specific case.

I referred to three cases given by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. I said I had brought no case with me, but surely the people who conduct those hotels are as respectable and as well worthy of credence as we are ourselves. I have been to some of them and they have given me figures. Perhaps is is my fault that I have not brought them. I know their statements are correct and can be relied on. They have told me that the result of this Bill, so far as they can make out, will be to increase their duties as indicated in the cases quoted by my hon. Friend. Surely they must be given some credit for knowing their own business. I admit the difficulty of applying the new provisions of this Bill, as many of them are extremely vague and doubtful, but they have arrived at these figures for themselves, and they make the statements definitely, and statements which cannot be met by saying that their rateable value would not be so large. They know what their rateable value and position is. They have taken it into account, and they have estimated that their licences will be increased two or three or four times the amounts they are now. In face of those facts, and the Government cannot deny them, it is no use saying you must produce the figures in each case and show what the rateable value is. They stand on the authority of the people who occupy houses and know the facts of the case.

I venture to say if this Clause stands, and if the Government proceed with this Bill and pass it into law as it stands that the result must be to put an end to a great many of those places and to do something else which I think will be even worse. The very policy of the Government is to expose those places to two alternatives. The first is, to close because they cannot live. The other is to strain every point, and every single detail, of their business so as to make the profit which would be necessary if they are to meet their liabilities. Is that what the House or the Government want to do? To expose the publican to temptation in order not to give up business to make profits by all sorts of methods in order to get the money necessary to pay the licence. Do they want to deteriorate the quality of the goods or to make those houses less respectable than they are now? That is the only other alternative, and unless they increase their profits by methods such as those there is nothing else left for them to do. I venture to say in no part of this Bill containing many injustices is there injustice so great as the one we are trying to remove. When the Chancellor of the Duchy meets us by vague and general statements and tells us he cannot accept this Amendment because he is afraid it might be stretched in a particular direction or used improperly, I say that is no reason whatever to justify the Government in doing this. For my part, I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I do not think that this House with its eyes open should bring ruin on respectable men who have carried on an honourable trade and business with the sanction of Parliament.

I am a little doubtful whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are not exaggerating this position. I rather thought from the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Worcester, and he will correct me if I am mistaken, that he was dealing with the Bill as it stood before the Chancellor of the Duchy yesterday brought in his new proposal.

None of the proposals, as I understand, brought in yesterday would be at all available for these little houses.

It would appear to me that that is hardly the case. What I thought was that the new proposal yesterday as regards these houses which are called "small country hotels," and which, in a great many cases, take out the ordinary public-house licence——

They have to.

That clearly will come under the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Duchy proposed and carried last night. That Amendment took the form, and I understood it to be that you would arrive at what was structural value, and you then would arrive in another way at what was the value for all the purposes of the business. Then you deduct one from the other, and I understood that the difference is the figure on which you calculate your Licence Duty. Am I right? If that is the case, I put it, with all respect, that the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Worcester are not dealing with that idea at all. The hon. Gentleman told us that he himself had not gone into this matter, but that some of those hotel-keepers had told him something, and, no doubt, they ought to know their own business. May I quote something that happened to me? A hotel-keeper gave me certain figures. When I went into the matter I could not decide exactly what be would have to pay. I found that on this hotel his figure would come, according to the trade he was doing, to something not less than the minimum of £35 and not more than £52 10s. in the other direction. I will give the name of the hotel to the hon. Member if he desires it, and he can test it. I believe personally that these small hotels in country places will not suffer nearly as much as many other people will suffer under the Act. I know a great many will suffer, but I do not believe that this particular case is one of them. I have got some figures here which are correct, inasmuch as they have been agreed to by the valuers for the brewers and by the valuers acting for the assessment committee of which I was chairman. I have got the figures for the two principal hotels in the principal town in the district in which I live. According to my calculations, taking the trade they are doing on the basis of the suggestion made last night, I do not believe they will suffer nearly as much as is feared. I take the view that the smaller houses will not be much worse off than they are to-day, except in the case of the beerhouses. The larger houses will suffer immensely, but I cannot agree with the view that there is anything to be feared so enormously in regard to the position of the smaller country hotels.

I think some of us quite sincerely sympathise with the object aimed at by the Amendment, but nevertheless we cannot commit ourselves to the precise arithmetical formula suggested; because by fixing an arbitrary formula of that kind the House might relieve injustice in certain cases, but would be showing an excess of generosity in other cases where there is a reasonable taxable capacity. At the same time I feel personally that unless there is some discretionary power or some safeguard, hardship may result from the particular formula in the Bill. It is perfectly true, as the Chancellor of the Duchy has pointed out, that under the Amendment a certain evasion of duty or loss of revenue might result where there is no reasonable cause for such loss of revenue. On the other hand, the Government have not sufficiently allowed for the fact that many of these country hotels which provide bedroom accommodation will undoubtedly, under the provision of the Bill, have their gross rateable value assessment, on which they will be taxed, enhanced by accommodation which does not strictly relate to the sale of alcoholic liquor. Could not the Government meet the case by inserting after the words "business…carried on in the premises" some such words as "or such special circumstances exist as justify in the opinion of the Commissioners exceptional treatment?" If the matter were placed within the discretionary power of the Commissioners the interests to the Revenue would be fully safeguarded, and I believe that cases of hardship or injustice might in that way be avoided.

While sympathising with the tone and temper of the speech just delivered, I confess I should look with considerable alarm on a method under which it was to rest entirely with the Inland Revenue to decide in which of two separate categories a particular place of business is to be taxed, the difference to the individual being quite enormous according to the choice made. That responsibility is apparently to be exercised by the Inland Revenue without instructions of any sort whatever.

My intention was not to give to the Commissioners a discretionary power to place them in the category of public-houses or in the category of hotels, but to give the Commissioners a discretionary power to make a greater allowance than that prescribed in the Bill if in their judgment special circumstances justify it. My intention was to approximate to the object of the Amendment without erring on the side of excessive generosity where such generosity was not required by the circumstances of the case.

I understand the object of the hon. Gentleman, and I need hardly say I am in general agreement with it, but I cannot see how it is to be carried out. What is the sort of argument brought before the Inland Revenue? They say to a man, "This is a public-house, and we must ask you to pay to the Exchequer half the total amount of your rateable value." The hotel-keeper thereupon says, "I have eight or ten bedrooms, which are very important at certain times of the year to people in the neighbourhood; it will be quite impossible for me to carry on my business." The Inland Revenue officer will then have to consider out of his own head, as I understand, what allowance he shall make. He is under no obligation to consider that there are two categories in one or the other of which every licensed premises must be placed. It is to be left entirely to the discretion of the Inland Revenue officer. I cannot help thinking that that is very dangerous finance. In the case of places on the doubtful line between the public-house and the small hotel it will be left entirely to the discretion of the Inland Revenue officer whether there shall be charged half the rateable value, or a quarter, or some other fraction. Though the plan aims at an object with which I heartily sympathise, I do not think I could recommend the Government to adopt it as any solution of the rather difficult problem before us.

May I put before the Government this argument, which I do not think has been brought to their attention in this Debate? In another part of the Bill they have made a special arrangement for seasonal hotels; that is, hotels which are almost entirely hotels at certain periods of the year, and are almost entirely public-houses at another part of the year. I do not see any distinction between a season in which all the days occur together, say during July and August, and a season consisting of one day a week during 52 weeks in the year. In one case the season is split up, but it amounts to 52 days in the year, and if those 52 days came consecutively they would count as a season. I do not see any inherent distinction in equity between those two cases, and why one should receive a privilege and the other not passes my understanding. Perhaps the Government will consider whether the privilege they have given to seasonal hotels ought not to be extended to these other hotels in cases where there is a special necessity in a market town for hotel accommodation, but only occasionally, and where, when that accommodation is not being used, the chief work of the establishment is to supply alcoholic refreshments to the inhabitants of the district.

In the first part of his speech the Leader of the Opposition dealt with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), who is very familiar with all these matters, and who studies them, as everybody recognises, perfectly impartially. I understood the hon. Member to suggest that it might be left to the discretion of the Commissioners not absolutely to say what the proportion was to be, but to stretch the 33 1–3rd to approximate to what we have allowed in the case of seasonal hotels. Against that is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is one which ought not to be left to the Inland Revenue officials. I make that statement simply in defence of my hon. Friend, because I think that that was what he meant, and that he did not go quite so far as the right hon. Gentleman thought. This matter is a very difficult one. Practically the same arguments which have been used to-day could have been used if we had fixed 40 per cent., or 30 per cent., or 25 per cent. It is very difficult to draw the line. One thing is certain. The Government have never had it in their mind to do anything unnecessarily harsh or injurious to this class of business. But in order to get your revenue you must somewhere or other have a dividing line between the genuine bonâ fide hotel and the establishment which approximates more nearly to an ordinary public-house. Certain hard cases have been put. The Government have, perhaps, some reason to complain that the people in this class of business, who are very well organised, have not brought particulars of this kind before them. The Chancellor of the Duchy mentioned the representations which were made by representatives of the restaurant-keepers. They put their case with regard to 40 per cent., and we have been able to meet them. But the case has not been fully put in regard to this matter by those who have all the facts at their disposal. You must have all the facts within your knowledge before you can say whether or not any particular provision will work unfairly. It is not a question of the number of bedrooms. When the right hon. Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long) was putting the illustration of a small hotel or high-class public-house with 12 or 15 bedrooms, I asked what was the rateable value. It is the rateable value in that case which fixes the amount of Licence Duty which will have to be paid, and it is obvious that the rateable value of a house with 12 or 15 bedrooms would not be anything like the rateable value of the houses mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment. That is the reason for the difference between seasonal hotels and this class of hotel. From the very necessity of the case the seasonal hotel must be a big place. The hotel at a seaside or fashionable resort must be a big palatial building. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not at all."] Ordinarily speaking, the seasonal hotel is a big building to accommodate a very large number of people during a short season of perhaps two months. That is the difference between