*SIR RANDAL CREMER: I did not | election or a by-election at which the say it is impossible, but that it is very candidate will not be confronted by the undesirable. trade and the friends of the trade with the question : "Are you in favour or not of putting an end to the section of the Act of Parliament which confiscates SIR E. CARSON : I should like to express regret that I in the first place misrepresented the hon. Gentleman. It is very undesirable. Why undesirable? our licences at the end of fourteen years?" I do not believe this Bill is a real contribution to temperance; I do not believe *SIR RANDAL CREMER: Because believe that altogether above and beyond the country looks upon it as such; I unnecessary. SIR E. CARSON: Because it is unnecessary. Yet we have the testimony of hon. Members below the gangway and opposite, and the Prime Minister himself, that it is a growing evil. It is no use saying that this Bill is being passed in the interests of temperance reform unless you deal with these clubs. The hon. Member for Haggerston thinks it is impossible to deal with these clubs. I believe clubs are growing too strong for you, and that the only remedy is to treat these clubs as licensed premises, and all the suggestions have been in that direction. In this Bill you are setting up annual licensing sessions for these clubs, and in the long run you will have the same trouble with these clubs that you have with public-houses. The truth of the matter is that you cannot deal with the question in the way you are trying to do unless you are able to put forward the theory that the traffic in drink is an immoral traffic, and nobody has said that it is. I should like to say, in conclusion, that if your Bill passes, I believe it will settle nothing. I notice that the President of the Board of Trade, in his farewell letter to the electors of Manchester before he went to woo a constituency to which this Bill will not apply, said that the next time a contest arose in North-West Manchester the power of the licensed trade-the excessive political power-would have vanished by the passing of this Bill. I do not know whether he was expressing the views of the Prime Minister. I think he is entirely mistaken. By passing this Bill you will not get rid of the difficulties of the licensing question. Do not think for a moment that I believe it is a healthy influence in politics, but what will be the state of affairs if this Bill passes? For fourteen years there will not be an the opposition to the Bill the fear of the country is that you are by this measure creating a precedent as regards other property, and so far as I am concerned I will with all my heart oppose it. MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, and whom I thank most heartily for his courteous and kindly references to myself, which are the more welcome as coming from an old friend and fellowworker in another sphere, is, as we all know, a most accomplished advocate. I think that he need not have made any apology to the House for the length of his speech. I am glad he made it as long as he did, for we may now assume that in that speech, at the conclusion of four days debate, we know the worst that can be said against this Bill. I confess as I listened to a great part of my right hon. and learned friend's speech it appeared to me not to be directed against this measure at all, but that it would have been more relevant if it had been uttered in this House in the year 1904 against the proposals of the Government of that day. For what was the main staple of the argument to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman devoted the larger part of his speech? It was that the State, by taxation, and in other ways, had treated the interest in a licence as though it were a permanent and perpetual property. Well, if that is so, what is to be said in justification for the confiscatory legislation of 1904 ? The legislation of 1904 proceeds upon the assumption that those licences may be extinguished-extinguished upon any scale which the justices for the time being think proper; and at whose expense? When the public in the public interest takes property for public purposes, according to the invariable practice of our law and Constitution compensa- [ what is more important from the point of tion comes from public funds. But the view of Gentlemen opposite, it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman him- underlying principle, if there be a principle self is the author of a proposal which at all, in the Act of 1904. As I said a recognises that, so far from this being few days ago, the only answer to that an analogous case, when in the public proposition is this-that if you reduce the interest the extension of the system of number of public-houses without taking suppressing licences is sanctioned, the any further steps, you will not provide cost is to come, not from the coffers of an adequate security against the upspringthe State, but from the pockets of the ing in their place of equally extensive trade itself. That is quite sufficient to facilities for the consumption of drink dispose of nearly two-thirds of the right in the shape of clubs. That is the arguhon. Gentleman's argument. I am not ment of the right hon. Gentleman who going to trespass on the attention of the has just sat down. I have always not House more than a few moments, but I only admitted, but asserted that there should like, at the conclusion of this was a danger, and a real danger here, most interesting and most momentous which has to be effectually dealt with. debate, in a few sentences to repeat But as the argument is pushed so far, the questions which I addressed to I must point out that experience does the Opposition at other stages, to see not show that a reduction of publichow far they have been answered by houses is accompanied by a corresponding the speeches made in the debate. increase in the growth of clubs. Since Let me take them seriatim. My first the passing of the Act of 1904, the question was this. I asked it on the increase in the number of clubs has only First Reading, and again on the Second been one-seventh of the diminution in Reading. Is a compulsory reduction of the number of licences that have taker licences within a prescribed time, and place. making due allowances as this Bill does for variety in local conditions-upon a uniform scale-is it, or is it not, a necessary step to be taken if you are to make any real advance on the path of temperance reform? When I asked that question in introducing the Bill I thought there was only one answer to it. In point of reason it would seem to me obvious, self-evident, and indisputable, that there must be a connection between the multiplication of facilities for the consumption of drink and the use and abuse of those facilities. If you turn from reason to authority, the authorities are overwhelming and concurrent. Let me quote once more the statement from a great authority. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in giving evidence before the House of Lords Committee some years ago, said SIR E. CARSON: What has been the increase in the membership of the clubs ? MR. ASQUITH: You will find no great discrepancy if you take the membership also. I do not want to labour that proposition, because it is self-evident; but there is a second question. It is this: Is the change which we propose in this Bill in the scale of compensation during the statutory term of reduction justifiable and justified? MR. CHAPLIN (Surrey, Wimbledon): No. MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman opposite says "No." I will show that it is. The hon. Member for Kingston, who moved the Amendment in a speech which has been highly praised, but not more highly praised than it deserved, cited a number of figures showing the contrast between the scale of compensation which has been paid during the last three years under the Kennedy judgment and the sums which would have been receivable under the new scale proposed by the Bill had it been in force. The has just sat down said that we were dealing in a very unfair and uneven way with this particular monopoly as compared with others, and he instanced railways, gasworks, waterworks, and other undertakings of that kind. In the case of railways there is an Act of Parliament passed by Sir Robert Peel, not a confiscator either by principle or by practice, which enables the State to take them back again when they have paid a certain rate of dividend. There is not a single gas or waterworks in this country whose distributable amount of profits among its shareholders It is which it charges for the article. figures were striking and effective for | for the resumption by the State of the the moment; but they were only effective monopoly value in principle adequate? because they proceeded on two assump-["No."] The right hon. Gentleman who tions: first, that the basis of compensation introduced by the Kennedy judgment was intended by Parliament to be, and was, a reasonable one; and next, on the assumption that the assessment of the licensed house under Schedule A of the income-tax was equitable and fairly represented the difference in value between licensed and unlicensed premises. I venture to deny both these propositions. As to the assessment of licensed houses, we propose in the Bill-one of the most salutary provisions in the Bill-to give a year to enable the process of re-assessment to be effectually carried out; and as to the validity and reason-is not limited and defined by the price ableness of the basis of compensation adopted in the Kennedy judgment, I have never yet heard any one practically acquainted with these matters defend the assessment. For one year and a half after the passing of the Act of 1904 the scale of compensation actually adopted by the Inland Revenue was that which is proposed in the Bill; and it was adopted and practised as far as I know without any outcry from the brewers, and apparently with the acquiescence of the right hon. Gentleman and the other authors of that Act. Then again and this is a most important point-the Kennedy judgment establishes what I conceive to be both an unfair and an impolitic distinction between the quantum of compensation to be given MR. ASQUITH: No, again. I want to tied and free houses. The tied house to say, if I may, late as the hour is, a gets the benefit; the free house is left few words on this point, which goes to out in the cold. But in this Bill we the very root of the whole question. propose to put them on a level and We have been confronted in this conuniform basis. Lastly our Bill secures, nection in the course of this debate by or is intended to secure-and I will some of the strangest paradoxes even take care in Committee, if the language in the philosophy of confiscation. Just of the drafting is not adequate for that let me illustrate what I mean. Take purpose, that it shall be made soa very common case. A man becomes separate compensation upon a reasonable a tenant of a dwelling-house, or of a shop, basis for the publican's loss of profits upon an annual tenancy from year to through the discontinuance of his busi- year. He spends, in course of time, if ness. He is intended under this Bill the tenancy is renewed, almost as a to be treated as a yearly tenant and matter of course, a considerable amount compensated for his loss of business of capital in structural improvements, and as such, and the House will observe in extending the scope of the business that his compensation will not dwindle he has carried on in the shop. He has or diminish with the shorter duration an expectation founded upon practice, of the time-limit. The third question upon custom, upon what has happened I ask is: Are the conditions we propose between the landlord and himself that AN HON. MEMBER: No. that tenancy will continue to be renewed, and on the faith of that expectation he goes on living there, as it were digging his roots every year deeper into the soil. But there is a change of landlord or there is a change of mood in the old landlord. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, he receives-what? Six month's notice to quit, and out he goes, bag and baggage, reaping none of the unexhausted fruits of the capital which he has there expended, and if any purblind and revolutionary Radical ventures to say that that is a hard case he is told it is a legitimate exercise of the rights of property. Is that confiscation? Will right hon. Gentlemen on that bench regard it as a case of confiscation? Is a six months time-limit sufficient for such a purpose? Yet so it is according to the law of England. The right hon. Gentleman had the temerity to refer to the Irish Land Act of 1881. The Irish Land Act was a recognition of the validity of these expectations and customs. It secured the tenant to some extent in the possession of it, and was denounced by the whole Tory Party of that day. That was denounced by the whole Tory Party as a gigantic act of confiscation. Let us compare the case I have given with that of this Bill. Here is the case of a licence of a public-house. We know very well who it is really now. It is not the licensee at all. But let us take the theory of the law, the case of a licensee who gets an interest from the State, not from a private individual, as the law says, for not more than one year. The licensee pays for that privilege not a rack rent like many a tenant in his dwelling-house or his shop, but a most inadequate sum in the shape of licence duty. He also expends capital in building up and extending his business, which requires both a local and a personal goodwill. How do we propose to treat him? To give him six months notice and then turn him out into the street? We give him fifteen years notice, and that is denounced as confiscation. an insurance against the possibility of his licence being determined within the fourteen years. We give him fifteen years notice, and the very people who defend as the elementary exercise of the rights of property the action of the landlord in the case to which I have referred denounce this as a piece of unexampled confiscation. I explained a few moments ago the philosophy of confiscation, and I have given the House two parallel cases. I shall be much obliged to anybody who can point out to me any flaw in the parallel. You talk of confiscation in connection with this. Let me suggest another way in which this matter might be dealt with. It is going to be my duty, I am glad to say for the last time, to introduce the Budget in a day or two. Supposing on Thursday next, this Bill never having been introduced, I came down and finding, as every Chancellor of the Exchequer finds, that the State is in need of additional resources I were to say: "I think it is about time we revised our scale of licence duties," and that in pursuance of that design I suggested to the House that instead of the present perfectly trumpery and illusory duties exacted from the higher valued houses there should be a really good, swinging licence duty-would that be confiscation? I do not get any answer. I will let the House so far into my secrets as to say I am not going to propose it. But supposing next year or the year after my right hon. friend who succeeds me-assuming that this Bill is not passed into law-being a more moderate-minded man than I am, were to say: "Oh, well, we won't do this thing all at once; we will do it step by step. I am going to propose that. say, for the next ten years there shall be an ascending scale of licence duties.” MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is what Centlemen below the gangway propose. MR. ASQUITH: I am not talking of Gentlemen below the gangway. I am talking about what may happen on the Treasury Bench. Suppose, I say, my MR. LYTTELTON: He is paying right hon. friend the Chancellor of the compensation all the time. MR. ASQUITH: What is he paying by way of compensation? He is paying Exchequer, in his Budget for next year, should propose an ascending scale of duties, carefully graduated to ease the application as far as possible of the and the right hon. Gentleman opposite principle of bringing up the scale to AYES. Question put. 66 The House divided:-Ayes, 397; Noes, (Division List No. 76.) Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Acland, Francis Dyke Adkins, W. Ryland D. Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Agnew, George William Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Astbury, John Meir Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Barran, Rowland Hirst Beale, W. P. Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Bethell, Sir J H.(Essex, Romf' |