HC Deb 26 October 1916 vol 86 cc1467-81

Postponed proceedings resumed on Question, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) should no longer be independent of the control of Parliament, and that its proceedings and expenditure should be made subject to the control of a Minister responsible to Parliament."—[Colonel Gretton.]

Question again proposed.

Sir J. D. REES

If the House will be so indulgent as to allow me to finish the speech which I had commenced when the Debate was interrupted, I think I can promise that the end will not be far off. I was dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. L. Jones).

He said, in a rhetorical manner: The House is now asked to deprive the Board of powers which have been granted to it. I submit that that is not the case. No such request was made in the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton). It only asks that the proceedings and expenditure of the Board should be subject to the control of a Minister responsible to Parliament. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division then urged that the Board had not closed enough public-houses. The House is aware that the Board can never close enough public-houses to satisfy the hon. Member. It is his case that all public-houses should be closed. That argument, therefore, is not worthy to be addressed to the House of Commons. Further, he objected to the existence of a bar at a certain munitions establishment, the name of which I will not mention. Again, he objects to anyone having a drink, therefore the House will not regard him as a fitting authority to speak to a Motion like this, in which the issue, drink or no drink, is not brought before the House. The hon. Member also referred to the waste of food in the manufacture of alcoholic liquors. In all seriousness, I would mention to the House, and particularly the opposite side, an argument that was given to me by a representative of the greatest milk-producing business in the United Kingdom. This gentleman told me that one result of the fanatical campaign against the brewing of beer is that the cheapest and best food upon which he had to feed his cows, namely, brewers' grains, had very much diminished in quantity, and actually in striking in this unreasonable manner at the brewing trade these fanatics are depriving the children of the country of the milk of which they stand so much in need. [Laughter.] I am quite prepared to find that that argument admits of not being regarded as seriously as it was put to me by that extremely good authority. I repeat it in perfectly good faith. At any rate, it illustrates the danger of fanatical adherence to one sole line of argument. I come to another instance. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division went on to refer to the action taken in Russia. He said: If they could stop the drinking in Russia, why not stop it altogether in this country? It is hardly credible that a Member of this House should compare a raw spirit like vodka with the wholesome and healthy drink which is the national beverage in this country. The Russian mujik, one of the most lovable and admirable creatures in this world, has his little faults. Nobody has the gift of friendship, nobody is worthy of having friends, who does not love his friends in spite of, and perhaps because of, their faults. I admit that the Russian peasant has his little faults, and that he is not the man for botanical beer. Not having port to drink, he drinks vodka, and now and again is likely to drink a little more than is good for him of that fiery, raw spirit. The hon. Member comes to this House and compares vodka with beer, and says that because the consumption of vodka has been stopped by Imperial ukase in Russia, the House of Commons should stop the drinking of beer in England. I submit that such an argument as that is not a reasonable one to place before a reasonable assembly. He then argued that nations of teetotalers have always subdued and will always subdue nations which drink—even moderate drinkers. Is that the case? Have the nations of the East, which are extremely temperate, subdued the moderate drinkers of the West? I should like the hon. Member to answer that question. I could give him an instance—rather a sinister instance at this moment—the Roumanians, who are far more Latin than would be believed by anyone unacquainted with them. Are they at present conspicuously stronger and more vigorous than the beer-drinking barbarians by whom they are confronted. Nowhere in history will you find any instance to confirm the doctrine which the hon. Gentleman has so confidently placed before the House.


Do I understand that the hon. Member prefers the Germans to the Roumanians?

Sir J. D. REES

No; I was taking the hon. Member's own instance. He said the moderate drinkers were always overcome by the total teetotalers, a case which I will undertake to say neither individual nor public experience will in any way confirm. I am surprised that the Minister of Munitions did not accept the extremely moderate Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend which was laid before the House, and seconded in speeches of the most conspicuous moderation. It would have been so easy to say the Government had the matter under consideration. That would, perhaps, to some extent have satisfied us. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I do not know that it would, but I am surprised that it should have been met with so direct and rather contemptuous a negative as it has received from the right hon. Gentleman. He actually said that the Board did not deal with controversial subjects. I ask the whole House of Commons, is there any more controversial subject than Sunday closing in Monmouthshire? If there is, I have never seen it in the course of my twelve years in this House. They settled that by a stroke of the pen, which no party and no Government here has ever been able to settle before. He also referred to the personnel of the Board. I do not wish to be led into anything personal, but it is very obvious that where you have a gentleman who, however sincere, is an extreme teetotaler he cannot be a very suitable person for the administration of the Regulations which this Board has to administer. I know cases where a farmer living in the depths of the country goes into his market town or sends out for a bottle of brandy for medicinal purposes on market day and cannot get it. He cannot get a certificate from a doctor, and goes home disappointed to find his patient worse, perhaps really dying for want of a little stimulant. Brandy is a most valuable stimulant. Port wine is an extraordinarily useful medicine. It has saved many people's lives. This same Board has just issued an autocratic decree that all spirits shall be reduced to 30 per cent. under proof. Anyone who has ever seen whisky is aware that it should be bright and brillant. You cannot reduce it to 30 per cent. below proof without making it muddy, murky, and unattractive to the people who want to drink it in perfect moderation, and who are none the worse for so doing.

I thought it was necessary to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, because I thought every single argument he used admitted of immediate and complete refutation. If I have not succeeded in that effort I sincerely hope that somebody else will do so. I do not think the hon. Member's speech was relevant to my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion. If it was relevant it did not address itself to the point which we, who are supporting the Motion, wish to have brought forward, and that is that there should not be expenditure of large sums of money on alcoholic control without matters coming under the control of Parliament. I am astonished that those who are so democratic as some of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the other side do not see that to accept this Motion would be a proper step to take for democratic as well as for other reasons.


I am only going to intervene for a few moments because this subject has been dealt with in all its aspects by people who are far more qualified to deal with it than I am. Sitting on this Bench and listening to the Debate all the afternoon, one felt rather like, I imagine, a person might feel in "No Man's Land" when nobody is actually shooting at him, but whom an occasional chance shot may hit. I would like, first of all, to remove an impression given in an intervention by the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady), that the Minister of Munitions attributes all bad time-keeping to drunkenness. I would deprecate most earnestly any remark of that kind going forth from this Debate. It was not the intention of my right hon. Friend to make any remark of that kind, and to my recollection he did not. At a moment when great changes are going on in industrial conditions, I think it would be very regrettable that any remark of that kind should he attributed to my right hon. Friend. I have listened to the speeches this afternoon and evening, and I think I may say, without fear of much contradiction, that the general policy of the Control Board has been approved. The exception which has been mentioned by many speakers has been the case of Carlisle. Carlisle was not an experiment. Carlisle was a particular system which was introduced to meet particular circumstances.

I do not think I am giving away any great secret if I refer to the gigantic factory at Gretna. A year ago Gretna was a rural district connected in our minds principally with romance. Another page has been written in its history which is perhaps as romantic as any that has been written before. Within ten months, owing to the labours of several thousand workmen, a great factory has sprung into being, which is already contributing its quota to the munitions of war. It was to meet the state of affairs which thousands of newcomers into Carlisle might possibly create that this particular system was set up. I may go further and say that all the neighbouring local authorities thoroughly approved of the scheme. But I think that I may be permitted to state to the House on this particular point that it is quite clear that no general application of State purchase to any large area can be made without Parliamentary and Treasury sanction.

There is another complaint which I have heard this afternoon—that is, the method which the Board have adopted to hear evidence on any particular question. I heard one speaker regret that his evidence was not heard in public. There is in the method followed by us nothing in the nature of a hole-and-corner inquiry. The local representatives of the trade are met, and though it is true that the proceedings are not published in the Press, there is no question of any great secrecy. But I would remind hon. Members that if it had to be publicly announced that owing to the intention of the Government, either to quarter a large body of troops in that particular area or to start to build a factory for munitions in a particular area, this Order was probably going to be scheduled, it would give an indication which might not be desirable from the point of view of the enemy. It seems to me that really the groundwork of the opposition to this Board is that it is considered to lack Parliamentary control. I should have thought that this Debate rather disposed of that idea, because every action of the Board has been the subject of the most minute and searching criticism, and at the same time, in my judgment, has made the most adequate defence, and I do not think that we can say that Parliament has no control over it. One cannot help feeling that under the guise of this constitutional argument there is a wish to stop the activities of the Board in a policy which the Board has carried out. We are not in normal times. In ordinary times we should have a Commission of Inquiry which would sit for many months and take evidence at portentous length, ultimately giving its decision to the House, which decision might or might not be adopted after considerable debate. That is wholly impossible in these times, and the same argument applies to every Department. During this War every Department connected with the War—and no one can deny that the Ministry of Munitions is very intimately connected with the War—has to carry through things which would be unthinkable in ordinary times.

I do ask the House to consider the argument seriously that though the Ministry of Munitions are perfectly prepared to be saddled with any responsibility for what this Board may do, it would really hinder its activity very considerably in a way of which I really do not think the majority of members would approve if every action which it wished to perform had to be submitted for the approval of this House. Since I have come back to England I have been dealing largely with the labour side of the Ministry of Munitions. I have seen a great many of the trade union representatives, not only in this country but in Scotland, and I can assure the House that from not one single trade union representative have I heard any complaint made against the Liquor Control Board. I am perfectly prepared to agree with hon. Members that no support would be found for objects of this kind in peace time, but when it is said that the Board is exceeding its statutory rights, is exceeding what it is meant to do, I would urge once more, for consideration, that the great mass of the workers in munition factories whose representatives I am constantly seeing, have never uttered a single complaint about that. I do not know whether the Mover of the Motion is going to carry it to a Division. I sincerely hope he is not, because I think that at a time like this, when the opinion of the House is asked, that opinion should be unanimous, but I am afraid that it will not be unanimous if a Division is taken. What are we asked to vote about? The activities of the Liquor Control Board, even in our scheduled areas, are nothing to cause them to reproach themselves. I think that if you were to ask our soldiers what their thought was of the hardship of only getting alcohol at the hours at present fixed, it would be that they would regard it as a very great luxury indeed. I do earnestly urge the House to deal with this matter impartially, to realise that it is an independent Board, with no axe to grind and with no self-interest; and, in my judgment, as I believe in the judgment of the majority of Members of this House, it is doing its work well and for the utmost good of the country.


Neither the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down nor the right hon Gentleman the Minister of Munitions has really dealt with the Motion before the House. That Motion does not deal with the merits of the action of the Central Control Board; it does not mention anything as to their action at all; it only says they should be responsible to this House through a Minister. The Minister of Munitions said the Control Board was responsible to this House, and that he did not accept the Motion because there was a Vote of Credit. But a Vote of Credit gives no power to this House in that direction. I took the opportunity of consulting the book of Sir Erskine May, and I find that it would be impossible on the Vote of Credit to move an Amendment limiting the direction in which money is to be spent. Under these circumstances, the only power of the House is to refuse to give any Vote of Credit. Let the House consider what that would mean and what the answer would be. We would be told that the Government have come down to ask for three or four hundred millions, or whatever sum was necessary to prosecute the War, and that we were refusing to give them that sum because we had some small grievance in connection with the Control Board. Therefore, it is perfectly evident that the House of Commons, as matters stand at present, has no control whatever over the Board. This is a constitutional question and nothing else. The Board may have been like angels from Heaven and may have done their work in the very best possible manner, but that does not allow them to be free from the control of this House. All we want is that there should be a responsible Minister who could control the Board and who would be responsible to this House. All we are asking for is that the old constitutional system, which said that every part of the Government and every action in the country of the Government should be under the control of this House., should be maintained. It is a very simple question, and I am surprised that a democratic Government can refuse it. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Coalition Government!"] I am not a Democrat and I have never pretended to be, but I have always maintained that the power of the House of Commons should be supreme over everything. It is a democratic Government which flouts the House of Commons. A short time ago they brought in an Order without consulting the House of Commons, and when the House of Commons was consulted they had to alter the Order. This is exactly the same thing.


Would you repeal the Defence of the Realm Act?


No, but I would not give the powers conferred by that Act to the Government if I understood they were going to use them in this way. What I got up to show to the House was that neither of the Members of the 'Government who have answered has really dealt with the question at all. They have endeavoured to confuse the issue by trying to make out that what we ask for is an investigation into the actual acts of the Control Board, whereas what we ask for is that the old constitutional principle should be maintained and that whatever Department exists that that Department should be subject ultimately to the control of this House.


The best comment on the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is the speech delivered early this evening by the hon. Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex (Mr. Nield). The right hon. Baronet said he had no desire to enter into a discussion of the decisions or procedure of the Control Board. The speech of the hon. Member for the Ealing Division was an illustration of the undesirability and futility of such discussion as they wish to have. What was the case of the hon. Member? He complained, first, that a special public house because it belonged to the Publichouse Refreshment House Association should be dealt with exceptionally and specially and not as other public houses in the area were to be dealt with. His other complaint was that the Board in their discretion had declined to accept the services of this company to manage the whole thing for them.


No, no! I read Lord Lytton's own note on the subject.


The next complaint was that the amount of compensation given in the case of this particular house was insufficient. But the amount of compensation has not been settled, and it will not be settled by this Board. The criticism should not be applied to the Control Board at all, but to the Commission which settles the compensation in case of war loss. How does the hon. Member know that the compensation will not be sufficient? He is criticising an award which has not yet been given, and he is criticising the wrong body. That is an indication of the kind of thing we should have. A great constitutional question is raised! Yes, and in every case it is raised by a critic and opponent of the Board. It is only a disguised attack. We have the Government and Government Departments dealing with many matters in this country, besides the liquor trade. They are acquiring other property without the sanction of this House and without any special inquiry. But these hon. Members who are so anxious for constitutional procedure and propriety, have never felt moved to bring forward a Motion until you have touched what is to them practically the Ark of the Covenant. They want to know what are the salaries paid to the officials. There is no such inquiry in connection with any other Department. They do not want to know what are the salaries of the hundreds and thousands of other men who are employed in other directions. This constitutional complaint is pure fudge. They dare not openly attack this Board; therefore they resort to this method.

The hon. Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton), in moving the Motion, carefully avoided details. Every comment he made upon the Board was one of disapproval. He said that he neither approved nor disapproved. He certainly did not approve of a single thing the Board has done. But he did indicate where he disapproved. It is the old story: they are all in favour of promoting sobriety, but not thus, and not now. Who in this country is the worse for the restrictions which the Board has imposed? Go to any of the great munition districts—Newcastle, the Clyde, Liverpool—and ask employers, police authorities, medical officers, and trade union leaders if they have any complaint. No; they will tell you that they approve.


Go to the recruiting sergeants, too.


Certainly. What is the real trouble? This Control Board is not a temperance organisation.


But very much like one.


Hear, hear!


There are thirteen members.


A very unfortunate number.


Hear, hear!


Now we are getting to the real point. Now we see what is at the back of the Motion. There are thirteen members of this Board, and ten of them are not teetotalers. Has the work of the Board been justified? Look at the diminution in the arrests for drunkenness in these areas. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That has nothing to do with it."] It has everything to do with the real issue. And under what circumstances has there been this diminution? In most of these areas there are more men to-day than there were in peace time, and they are earning much larger wages. Yet the arrests for drunkenness have gone down by about one-half. It is not isolated. It is universal. Take districts like Newcastle and the North-East Coast, rough districts, where there are seamen, dock labourers, coal-miners, shipbuilders, and others, who have hard work to do in exposed conditions. The climate is cold and raw. Wages are high. The convictions during he War, before he Order was made, increased by 40 per cent. After the Order they diminished by 50 per cent. The police, the justices, medical officers of health, and the employers all report favourably.

We have heard a good deal about home drinking. That is an old story! We have had it in connection with every Sunday Closing Act promoted for Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. In every case we have had Commissions and Committees appointed specially to inquire into the allegation, and it has been in every instance disproved. It is a most difficult charge to deal with and disprove, but careful inquiries show that it is without foundation. Fewer women have been proceeded against for drunkenness. Take Newcastle. In the first six months of 1915 the average per month of charges was 67. In the first six months of 1916 the sixty-seven had dropped to thirty-nine. In Gateshead, during the same period, the charges of drunkenness against women have fallen from thirty-three per month to eighteen. There is no evidence whatever of an increase in that direction. Then as to the taking of the liquor home. The House will pardon me if I read a statement made by the manager of a large lodging-house for about 400 men in Newcastle. He reports that drunkenness amongst these men has gradually decreased; the number of bottles found there has enormously decreased.


What has become of the corks?


What is the charge? That when the public-houses are closed, men buy the liquor in bottles and take it home. Here it is disproved. What about the Carlisle experiment? Personally, I do not at all wish the Board of Control to acquire public-houses in districts and manage them. In my judgment, they are not the best body for the purpose. Further, it is not a favourable opportunity for trying an experiment of the kind. In the third place, I think, if we ever attempt anything of the kind, the basis of purchase ought to be distinctly laid down by Parliament. I am not, therefore, anxious that they should make this experiment. But, as I understand the position, the necessities of the case in Carlisle, and in one or two districts of the kind, forced them into it. It was, practically, their only alternative. As to the compensation to be paid, that is to be settled by the Commission for awarding compensation for war losses. As was stated, the Board cannot make any of these purchases until they have been approved by the Ministry of Munitions or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Further, the Board cannot schedule any district for restrictions unless the proposal has been sanctioned by the Ministry of Munitions. There you have Parliamentary responsibility. You can tackle as you like the Minister of Munitions for his responsibility in this matter, and you can tackle the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But that is not what they want. From the kind of speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield)—ex-parte statements made about particular cases of which we have no knowledge here and cannot have any knowledge—we cannot come to a proper decision.

There is one difficulty in connection with this matter, and that is the difficulty of enforcing the law. If the justices and the police would enforce those Regulations more stringently—aye, if the Board itself had been a little more strict than it has been! The Board itself has closed forty public-houses for infringement of its Regulations, but those Regulations are infringed, and the great difficulty of all our licensing legislation is to get it enforced. And why cannot we get it enforced? Because of the financial interest, and we should not have had this Motion to-night but for the financial interest.


rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.


I suggest it is impossible in this case to dissociate the constitutional point from the point of policy. If the policy of this Control Board has been good, then why raise the constitutional point during the War? But with regard to the constitutional point, the Minister of Munitions has said that he is the Minister responsible to this House. With regard to the policy of the Control Board, the Board have been peculiarly fortunate in having as one of their defenders the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth. His speech on the policy of the Control Board, I am certain, carried conviction to every Member of this House. There may be a Division. How will that Division be regarded by the people of this country? They will look upon a vote for this Resolution as a vote for the extension of drinking facilities during the War. Do it if you dare to do it. This trade is a trade that is injurious to the interests of the country during the War, and that is why the Act was passed to control this trade, and it is a trade that needs controlling. What has this trade done to help the War? Has it helped the man-power of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] How? Has it helped the finances of the War? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Let me tell the House a tale of Mark Twain. Meeting a lady who had lumbago, Mark Twain said, "I will cure you of the lumbago, Madam." She replied, "I am very much obliged; what am I to do"? "You must give up drinking and smoking," he said. "I neither drink nor smoke," the lady retorted, "and I hope

you don't want to insult me." "Madam," he said, "your case is a very bad one; you have no margin to pull up on." In this War we have a big margin on which to pull up, and that is the drink traffic;£180,000,000 is equal to 4 per cent. on£4,500,000,000 of War Loan. Take, if you like, from that the taxes that are deducted from this trade, leaving, say,£120,000,000, which is equal to 4 per cent. on a£3,000,000,000 War Loan. This trade is the one trade that is hampering and hindering the finances of this country. Let me take another point. Members on the other side say this trade pays a lot towards the taxes of the country—


rose in his place, and clamed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.

It being after Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER poceeded to interrupt the business,

Whereupon SIR FREDERICK BANBURY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) should no longer be independent of the control of Parliament, and that its proceedings and expenditure should be made subject to the control of a Minister responsible to Parliament."

The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 97.

Division No. 62.] AYES. [11.0 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Dixon, C. H. Mills, Lieut. Arthur R.
Baldwin, Stanley Doris, William Neville, Reginald J. N.
Banbury. Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Duffy, William J. Newdegate, F. A.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Newman, John R. P.
Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.) Fletcher, John Samuel Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Bellairs, Commander C. W. Ganzoni, Francis John C. Nield, Herbert
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Grant, James Augustus Nolan, Joseph
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C W. Gretton, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Boyton, James Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Brookes, Warwick Hackett, John Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)
Broughton, Urban Hanion Hewins, William Albert Samuel Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Burgoyne, A. H. Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Perkins, Walter F.
Butcher, John George Hunt, Major Rowland Peto, Basil Edward
Byrne, Alfred Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Pollock, Ernest Murray
Carnegie, Major D. G. Ingleby, Holcombe Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Cator, John Jowett, Frederick William Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cautley, Henry Strother Joynson-Hicks, William Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Keating, Matthew Remnant, James Farquharson
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole Loyd, Archie Kirkman Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cosgrave, James Lynch, Arthur Alfred Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)
Crumley, Patrick Mason, David M. (Coventry) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Denniss, E. R. B. Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth Stanton, Charles Butt
Swift, Rigby Whiteley, Herbert James Younger, Sir George
Thomas-Stanford, Charles Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Tickler, T. G. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Edward Goulding and Mr. O'Grady.
Touche, George Alexander Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Walker, Colonel William Hall
Alden, Percy Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Astor, Hon. Waldorl Hanson, Charles Augustin Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Baird, John Lawrence Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Hodge, John Rendall, Athelstan
Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N. Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Barnett, Captain R. W. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) Hudson, Walter Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Beale, Sir William Phipson Jacobsen, Thomas Owen Roe, Sir Thomas
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) Rowlands, James
Beckett, Hon. Gervase John, Edward Thomas Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Bliss, Joseph Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Samuel, Rt. Hen. H. L. (Cleveland)
Bridgeman, William Clive Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Brldgeton)
Brunner, John F. L. Kellaway, Frederick George Sherwell, Arthur James
Byles, Sir William Pollard King, Joseph Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)
Chancellor, Henry George Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Stewart, Gershom
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Layland-Barrett, Sir F. Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.
Coote, William M'Callum, Sir John M. Thomas, J. H.
Cowan, William Henry Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Mackinder, Halford J. Toulmin, Sir George
Crooks, Rt. Hon. William M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs, Spalding) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) M'Micking. Major Gilbert Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Mallalieu, Frederick William Watt', Henry A.
Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Wllloughby H. Marks, Sir George Croydon Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Wiles, Thomas
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Essex, Sir Richard Walter Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Finney, Samuel Pratt, J. W. Wing, Thomas Edward
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Pretyman, Ernest George Yeo, Alfred William
Forster, Henry William Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Galbraith, Samuel Primrose, Hen. Neil James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.
GlanviTle, Harold James Radford, Sir George Heynes
Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.