§ Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Customs and Excise Act, 195a, so as to provide that beer shall not be offered for sale unless the original gravity thereof has been made known to the purchaser and the minimum quantity contained in any receptacle in which the beer is sold is declared; and for purposes connected therewith.As hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber will realise, the principal ingredient of beer is water, but, contrary to the belief of some of the hon. Members who are going out, water is not the only ingredient. To make water into beer it is necessary to add to the water certain solids, which, for the purpose of this Motion, I need not particularise, and to allow these solids to ferment to a certain degree so as to produce at any rate a minimum quantity of alcohol.The alcoholic strength of beer depends upon two things: first, on the original proportion of solids to water; and, secondly, on how far those solids have been allowed to ferment. If the solids are allowed completely to ferment, the beer has little or no taste. If, on the other hand, the fermentation of the solids is checked at an early stage the beer may have a very strong taste, have plenty of body, and yet contain far less alcohol than otherwise. Lager, which is quite alcoholic, is a typical example of this fact.
For those and other reasons, even the most experienced beer drinker has great difficulty in determining the original gravity of the beer he drinks. He has the right to know the gravity, because it is on the original gravity that tax is paid and the price is fixed. This gravity is measured in degrees. If the substance as sold has not an original gravity of 1016 degrees, or "16 degrees" as it is often described, it cannot be classed as beer. Any beer up to 30 degrees pays the same duty.
After that, on every degree increase of the original gravity of beer the brewer has to pay an additional duty of 6s. 7½d. per barrel of 36 gallons. It would appear that today many brewers have fallen into the very natural temptation of serving a very low gravity beer and charging a 408 very high-gravity-beer price, and pocketing the difference, which should normally go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like to give the House one example.
The Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures in Northumberland reported in November, 1952, to his county council:
The analyses carried out by the public analyst have shown that there exists a considerable variation in the original gravity of beers sold under the description 'Best Scotch.' Although there is no legal standard of compositional quality for beer, it has been found that so-called 'Best Scotch' marketed by some companies is, in fact, of lower gravity than the ordinary beer sold by other brewers.Asked for his observations on the figures Obtained by the public analyst, a representative of one firm whose 'Best Scotch' beer was particularly low in original gravity, explained that his company could not produce beer as cheaply as the larger concerns, so lower gravity beer was marketed at the same price as the higher gravity beer sold by other companies. Money was saved on materials and less duty was payable.Hull Corporation decided last year to request the Association of Municipal Corporations to make representations to the Government that the strength of beer must be declared. They did this after they had had a report from their city analyst, who said, among other things, that one particular brewer in Hull was selling two beers of identical composition at 1s. 3d. and 1s. 6d. a pint respectively.The Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures in Kent reported in 1951 to his council that over the past two years the analyses of bitter beer in Kent showed that it varied in gravity between 29 degrees and 39 degrees, yet the price charged for all those beers was the same. In one case he found a mild beer of a gravity of 32½ degrees which was sold for 11d. a pint, while another mild beer, which had a gravity of only 29 degrees, was sold at a 1s. a pint.
The House will recall that in October, 1952, when I was speaking on the New Towns Bill I gave figures for the strength of five particular bottled beers. It is interesting to note that the general secretary of the Workingmen's Club and Institute Union had an independent check made by another analyst which confirmed the figures which I gave to the House. In an article which this general secretary wrote afterwards, he said:
The saloon price of a half-pint bottle of beer which my analyses showed to have the 409 highest original gravity was 10d., while the saloon-bar price of the beer which I showed had the lowest original gravity, was 11d.He headed this article:Are you drinking water or beer?He might very appropriately have added,Avoid water. It is much more expensive.One other aspect of the matter which will be particularly interesting to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) is that the alcoholic strength of these low gravity beers is very low indeed. In fact, in a considerable number of cases beers now being sold by well-known brewers would come within the definition of "non-alcoholic drinks" as defined by the U.S. Volstead Act, as finally amended.I hope the House realises what this means. We can have both prohibition and the public house. Thus we shall be able to ease the conscience of at least one Member supporting the Government who, I think I am right in saying, supported, at the same time, the Home Secretary's Licensing of New Towns Bill and the Band of Hope.
If the Bill which I am now proposing becomes law, no longer will it be possible for the teetotal brewer to be condemned, as he is at present, to anonymity. The label on the bottle or the notice hung up in the public-house will show which tied house has gone dry and which few still continue the old tradition of serving alcoholic drinks.
One final advantage of the proposed Bill would be that it would make impossible the continued use of the utiliser. Hon. Members will recall that this is a machine which filters the overspill and dregs left over in patrons' glasses and feeds them back again into the beer supplied to other customers.
I had an interesting letter from one publican who sent me his actual stock sheet, together with a letter which he had received from his brewers. They were complaining that while the retail value of the beer which he had sold was about £384, the actual cash which he had received was only £390. The implication was, of course, that he ought to have sold very much more, that he had failed to sell a sufficient quantity of his beer twice over. In a recent investigation in Bath, it appeared that 29 out of 156 licensed premises in the town were reselling overspill 410 and leavings in this way. This Bill, by making it necessary to declare the strength of each beer sold, would make it impossible legally to sell the mixture of beers produced from the utiliser.
The Bill does one other thing. It makes it necessary to declare the minimum quantity contained in any receptacle in which beer is sold. There is no reason why, if one buys a pint or a quart bottle of beer, it should not, in fact, contain a pint or a quart. If an hon. Member opposite is to oppose this Motion perhaps he will explain why it is that some brewers apparently object to selling half a pint of beer in a half-pint bottle. The only argument that I have ever seen put forward is that it is, technically speaking, difficult to put exactly half a pint of beer into a half-pint bottle.
I think I have got over that difficulty. I am proposing that this Bill should not make it an offence to put more than half a pint into a half-pint bottle. All that the brewer is being asked to do is not to put in less than half a pint. After all, every dairy in the country is under a legal obligation to put not less than half a pint or a pint of milk, as the case may be, into the bottle. It is surely not too much to ask the brewer, with all his great resources, to do what the country dairyman finds no difficulty in doing—give to the purchaser the amount of liquid for which he has paid.
I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in this Bill.
§ Mr. Anthony Marlowe (Hove)I rise to oppose the Motion which has, I agree, been most divertingly moved by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). I do so because, although the hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt with the matter so amusingly, I think that it is really a subject which deserves more serious consideration.
I have informed the House before that I am sometimes professionally engaged in the interests of those in the brewing trade. I never know whether that is a declarable interest or not, but I think it better to make it plain. What the hon. and learned Gentleman is really doing is seeking leave to introduce a Bill under which discriminatory action could be taken against a particular section of the trading community.
411 There are many other liquids other than beer which are sold in bottles and concerning which there are statutory legal requirements, but none of the interests concerned in them is, by law, required to show on the label that those requirements are being fulfilled. Soft drinks, for example, are required to have a certain sugar content, but no one has suggested that that content should be certified on the label.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to milk. It is perfectly right to say that there has to be a certain minimum fat content in milk, but no one has suggested in regard to milk what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests should be done in regard to beer, that the requirement should be certified on every bottle of milk sold.
What the hon. and learned Gentleman is, in fact, doing is discriminating against a particular trade, because, as is well known, he has an antagonism towards that trade. In fairness to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it must be said that he has never attempted to disguise that antagonism, and he has frequently explained to this House that what he does not like about the brewers is that he supposes that they subscribe to the Tory Party funds.
That may well be true. It only shows what sensible people the brewers are. I think it would be a sad day for this country if we started legislating against a particular section of the community merely on the ground that they subscribed to a certain political party. I certainly do not believe that hon. Members on this side of the House would ever subscribe to the idea that we should legislate against, say, the Co-operative movement or the trade union movement merely on the ground that they subscribe to the funds of the Labour Party.
I now turn to another aspect of this matter which I think will have a particular appeal to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), to whom reference was made by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch. The hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly referred to another difficulty with regard to his proposal. As I understand, there are technical difficulties in bottling which would make it almost impossible to have 412 regard to the regulations which he would like to have introduced.
I am advised that gravity is not necessarily an indication of the strength of the beer, but it is believed by the public to be so, and, as a result of what the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting, it might well be that we should get a gravity race between the brewers. They would all be stepping up the gravity of their beer and stating that fact on their labels. This would result in making the beer stronger and stronger, to the great disgust of the hon. Member for Ealing, North.
It need not be thought, I think, that the public interest is not properly safeguarded in this matter. The brewers are already under very close control by the Customs and Excise. It is not as though the law is being flouted; they are required to produce beer of a certain specific gravity, and merely to state the gravity on the labels will not alter its amount.
Brewers are more closely controlled than almost any other trade in the country. Anyone studying the Excise Acts will realise that Excise officers can call on a brewer at any time, and that impositions can be placed upon brewers which cannot be placed upon any other traders. A brewer can be fined £100 if he does not produce within one hour the books required by the Excise Officer. That is an imposition to which, I believe, no other trade is subjected. It seems to me most unfair that, in view of the burdens which brewers already have to carry, they should be asked to carry an additional burden.
The hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with the question of the measure to be contained in the pint or half-pint bottle. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion, if accepted, would have the effect of amending the Customs and Excise Acts which have, of course, nothing to do with weights and measures, which are dealt with in entirely different legislation.
The point is this. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, quite rightly, that a pint of milk can easily be sold in a pint bottle, there are very different considerations to be taken into account in the question of the bottling of beer. Owing to the process of fermentation, which milk does not undergo, some of the beer is bound to be lost, with the 413 result, of course, that both the wholesaler and the retailer might find themselves subjected to a whole series of pettifogging prosecutions at a time when, as I say, the brewing trade is already having to bear burdens which others do not have to bear. I hope that the House will not agree to further burdens being placed on this already very closely regulated trade.
Having regard to the fact that, as everyone knows, a Bill introduced at this stage of the Session will have no opportunity whatsoever of reaching the Statute Book, it will probably be unnecessary to waste the time of the House by dividing on this matter, but I want to make clear the position in regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion in the hope that if ever he is fortunate enough in the Ballot to be able to introduce a Bill of this kind earlier in the Session the House will vote against it.
§ Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)On a point of order. Did you not rule, Mr. Speaker, on a previous occasion when the Ten Minute Rule was used by an hon. Member that it was improper for an hon. Member on the other side to get up on the pretext of opposing when not prepared to carry his opposition to a Division?
§ Mr. SpeakerI did express myself roughly in that sense. I did not say that it was improper, but it does seem to me that if an hon. Member rises to oppose a Bill he should oppose it. Otherwise, it seems to me to be wasting the time of the House.
§ Mr. F. J. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)On a point of order. The point that my hon. and learned Friend was making was that the Bill should be opposed by the House as a whole.
§ Mr. SpeakerI was about to put the Question that leave be given to bring in this Bill, but it is a matter for the House to decide.
§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)Further to that point of order. The House would be quite unable to give a decision on the Motion proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) unless the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), who invited the House to object to the introduction of the Bill, was prepared to test it in the Division Lobby. To speak against it and then to give consent by silence is an abuse of Parliamentary processes.
§ Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)Surely it is not wrong for a Member to make a speech in one sense and cast his vote in the contrary sense. In this particular case, it may be that in the course of his speech my hon. and learned Friend convinced himself that he was wrong.
§ Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)On a point of order. There is no ground for hon. Members opposite using the lateness of the Session as a reason for dodging their obligations under the rules which you, Mr. Speaker, have laid down for their guidance. May I remind you that hon. Members opposite are to propose a measure kindred to this for Second Reading on 25th June. If they are honest and genuine enough to do that at so late a time why cannot hon. Members now be kept to the point at issue?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order which arises here.
§ Mr. MarloweI can clear up this matter quite easily. There is no inconsistency here at all. I have made my speech in opposition and I am opposing. When you, Mr. Speaker, put the Question I propose to say, "No." Nothing could be more negative than that, but it very often depends on how often one says "No" what the consequence will be.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 182: Noes, 158.
415| Division No. 117.] | AYES | [3.53 p.m |
| Acland, Sir Richard | Bing, G. H. C. | Brook, Dryden (Halifax) |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Blackburn, F. | Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Blenkinsop, A. | Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) |
| Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) | Blyton, W. R. | Brown, Thomas (Ince) |
| Awbery, S. S. | Boardman, H. | Carmichael, J. |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Bowen, E. R. | Castle, Mrs. B. A. |
| Balfour, A. | Bowles, F. G. | Champion, A. J |
| Benson, G. | Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Chapman, W. D. |
| Beswick, F. | Brockway, A. F. | Clunie, J. |
| Coldrick, W. | Jeger, George (Goole) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Cove, W. G. | Jeger, Mrs. Lena | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S) | Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras N.) |
| Crosland, C. A. R. | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Gullen, Mrs. A. | Jones, David (Hartlepool) | Ross, William |
| Daines, P. | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Shackleton, E. A. A. |
| Darling, George (Hillsborough) | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) | Keenan, W. | Short, E. W. |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Kenyon, C. | Shurmer, P. L. E. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W | Silverman, Julius (Erdington) |
| Deer G. | King, Dr. H. M. | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Delargy H. J. | Lawson, G. M. | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Dodds N. N. | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) | Lewis, Arthur | Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgfield) |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M | Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) | Logan, D. G. | Snow, J. W. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | McGhee, H. G. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Sparks, J. A. |
| Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) | McLeavy, F. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Fernyhough, E. | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) | Mainwaring, W. H. | Stross, Dr. Barnett |
| Follick, M. | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Foot, M. M. | Messer, Sir F. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Forman, J. C. | Mitchison, G. R. | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Freeman, Peter (Newport) | Monslow, W. | Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) |
| Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N | Moody, A. S. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Gibson, C. W. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) | Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin) |
| Glanville, James | Mort, D. L. | Timmons, J. |
| Gooch, E. G. | Moyle, A. | Tomney, F. |
| Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) | Mulley, F. W. | Turner-Samuels, M. |
| Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. | Nally, W. | Viant, S. P. |
| Grey, C. F. | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J | Warbey, W. N. |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Oldfield, W. H. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Grimond, J. | Oliver, G. H. | West, D. G. |
| Hale, Leslie | Orbach, M. | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Oswald, T. | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) |
| Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) | Paget, R. T. | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Hannan, W. | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W |
| Hargreaves, A | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Hastings, S. | Palmer, A. M. F. | Willey, F. T. |
| Hayman, F. H. | Pannell, Charles | Williams, David (Neath) |
| Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) | Parker, J. | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) | Parkin, B. T | Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) |
| Holman, P. | Plummer, Sir Leslie | Willis, E. G. |
| Holmes, Horace | Porter, G. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Holt, A. F. | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside) |
| Hoy, J. H. | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) | Proctor, W. T. | Wyatt, W. L. |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Pryde, D. J. | Yates, V. F. |
| Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) | Reid, Thomas (Swindon) | |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Reid, William (Camlachie) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P T | Rhodes, H. | Mr. Elwyn Jones and Mr. Royle |
| NOES | ||
| Aitken, W. T. | Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. | Hare, Hon. J. H. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. | Colegate, W. A. | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Cooper-Key, E. M. | Harris, Reader (Heston) |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) |
| Banks, Col. C. | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) |
| Baxter, A. B. | Crouch, R. F. | Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) |
| Beach, Maj. Hicks | Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) | Higgs, J. M. C. |
| Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) | Davidson, Viscountess | Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Deedes W. F. | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Digby S. Wingfield | Hirst, Geoffrey |
| Birch, Nigel | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Horobin, I. M. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Drayson, G. B. | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence |
| Boothby, Sir R. J. C. | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond) | Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) |
| Bossom, Sir A. C. | Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. | Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A | Duthie, W. S. | Hurd, A. R. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. |
| Braine, B. R. | Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwish) |
| Braithwaite, Sir Gurney | Fisher, Nigel | Jennings, Sir Roland |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H | Fort, R. | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) |
| Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Jones, A. (Hall Green) |
| Bullard, D. G. | Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) | Kaberry, D. |
| Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. | Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) | Kerby, Capt. H. B. |
| Burden, F. F. A. | Gammans, L. D. | Kerr, H. W. |
| Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) | George, Rt. Hon Maj. G. Lloyd | Lambert, Hon. G. |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Glover, D. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H |
| Channon, H. | Gough, C. F. H. | Lindsay, Martin |
| Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Linstead, Sir H. N. |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) | Harden, J. R. E. | Llewellyn, D. T |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C | Odey, G. W. | Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) |
| Longden, Gilbert | O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Studholme, H. G. |
| Lucas, P. B. (Brantford) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Sutcliffe, Sir Harold |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. | Page, R. G. | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| McCallum, Major D. | Peto, Brig. C. H. M | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S | Peyton, J. W. W | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Macdonald, Sir Peter | Pitt, Miss E M. | Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N |
| Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry | Raikes, Sir Victor | Turner, H. F. L. |
| Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Rayner, Brig R. | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) | Remnant, Hon. P | Vosper, D. F. |
| MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) | Renton, D. L. M. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) | Roberts, Peter (Heeley) | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone) |
| Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Roper, Sir Harold | Wall, P. H. B. |
| Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) |
| Markham, Major Sir Frank | Russell, R. S. | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Maude, Angus | Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. | Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) |
| Maudling, R. | Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. | Wellwood, W. |
| Mellor, Sir John | Scott, R. Donald | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Moore, Sir Thomas | Snadden, W. McN. | Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.) |
| Morrison, John (Salisbury) | Soames, Capt. C. | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Nabarro, G. D. N | Spearman, A. C. M. | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Neave, Airey | Speir, R. M. | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Nicholls, Harmar | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard | |
| Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) | Stevens, Geoffrey | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Noble, Comdr. A H. P | Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) | Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Erroll. |
| Nugent, G. R. H. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bing, Mr. R. J. Taylor, Mr. Delargy, Mr. Blyton, Commander Pursey, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Snow and Mr. J. T. Hall.