- (1) The holder of a justices' on-licence shall not knowingly sell or allow any person to sell, nor shall any servant of his knowingly sell to be consumed on the premises any intoxicating liquor to any person under the age of eighteen years; and no person under the age of eighteen years shall purchase or attempt to purchase in any licensed premises any intoxicating liquor for his own consumption therein: Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall prevent the sale, supply, or purchase of beer, porter, cider, or perry to or by a person over the age of sixteen years where such liquor is sold, supplied, or purchased only for consumption at a meal to be consumed at the same time in such portion of the premises as is usually set apart for the service of meals, not being a bar as defined in Section one hundred and twenty of the Children Act, 1908.
- (2) The holder of a justices' on-licence shall not knowingly allow, nor shall any servant of his knowingly allow, any intoxicating liquor to be consumed by any person under the age of eighteen years in any bar as defined above on his licensed premises; and no person shall purchase, or attempt to purchase, any intoxicating liquor for consumption by a person under the age of eighteen years in any such bar.
- (3) If any person acts in contravention of this Section he shall be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding in the case of the first offence twenty shillings, and in the case of any subsequent offence forty shillings.
- (4) In the application of this Section to Scotland references to a certificate as defined in Part VII of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be substituted for references to a justices' on-licence, and references to exciseable liquor shall be substituted for references to intoxicating liquor.
- (5) Section sixty-seven of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, and Section fifty-eight of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, are hereby repealed.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir M. ARCHER-SHEE
Before the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London, moves his Amendment, I should like your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to the Amendment which I put down to Sub-section (1)—to insert the words "red or white Bordeaux." 1760 The Amendment was on the Paper for some time, but I see this morning that it has disappeared.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
We have already passed that point. The right hon. Member for the City of London is now moving a later Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I say, before I move my Amendment, that the only really important Amendment would be to reject the Bill on Third Reading? I have not the slightest doubt that if a Vote by ballot be taken by the House on that issue the Bill will be rejected on Third Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] However, I hope I shall have an opportunity of moving the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading and to give my reasons for so doing. I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "eighteen" ["age of eighteen years"] and to insert instead thereof the word "seventeen."
§ Sir F. BANBURY
It is the Amendment which I was moving when the Debate was adjourned some days ago.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
We have got beyond that point. The right hon. Baronet will see that by his Amendment on the Paper.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg your pardon. I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the wordswhere such liquor is sold, supplied, or purchased only for consumption at a meal to be consumed at the same time in such portion of the premises as is usually set apart for the service of meals, not being a bar as defined in section one hundred and twenty of the Children Act, 1908.The object of this Amendment is to allow a person to be supplied with certain liquors, but not spirits, without being obliged to eat something. This is a very good day on which to move such an Amendment, because it is clear that there are very few people but would not be glad to be able to obtain something to drink in the form of beer, porter, cider or Perry, without being obliged to eat a meal with it. I cannot understand why the promoters of the Bill should subject young persons under eighteen to the necessity of eating something in the form of a meal when they only desire to quench their thirst. People do not always want to eat when they drink. I saw the Noble Lady 1761 the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) in the bar of this House the other afternoon, when I happened to look in. I did not see her eating anything. Therefore, I conclude that she must have been drinking something. Take the case of some young persons, typists or clerks in the City, cycling along the country road on Saturday afternoon and arriving at an inn and desiring to obtain a drink.
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
Will the right hon. Baronet speak up. We want to listen to him, and we cannot hear a word.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I was saying that some young persons who work in the city might be cycling along a country road and arrive at an inn, where there is no incentive to get drunk, or to lose one's moral sense. One of these young persons may be eighteen years and one month of age, and the other seventeen years and eleven months. They might wish to have a glass of beer, cider or shandygaff. I suppose hon. Members know what shandy-gaff is? I do not know whether the Noble Lady understands it. The person who is eighteen years and one month of age could get off his bicycle and have a drink, but the person who is only seventeen years and eleven months of age would have to stay in the road or go inside and order something to eat with his drink. I suppose he would go inside and order something to eat, consume a bit of it and leave the rest, in order to get a drink. The Noble Lady (Viscountess Astor) recognises the force of my arguments. She is putting her hands to her ears, in order that she may not hear me, and be convinced by my arguments.
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
On a point of Order. Is it right for any hon. Member of this House to deliberately point to another hon. Member as the right hon. Baronet is doing? Is that a gentlemanly action? He claims to be a gentleman of the first water.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
It is not an uncommon thing for a girl under 18 among the working classes to marry. Will you tell me that a girl is fit to marry, and yet not fit to know whether she should have a glass of beer or not? Therefore I content myself by moving the omission of these words, because, while I think their omission would improve the Bill, I am 1762 more anxious to have the Bill rejected on the Third Reading.
§ Sir M. ARCHER-SHEE
I beg to second the Amendment.
These words are really part of the so-called compromise which was come to in the Committee by the promoters of the Bill. Nothing shows the absurdity of this Bill so much as the results which may follow if these words remain in it. If a young person goes into a public-house or bar and orders beer, porter, cyder or perry he commits an offence for which, under a later Sub-section, he may be subject to a fine or, alternatively, to imprisonment if he does not at the same time order a meal to be consumed not in the bar, but in some other part of the house. If he goes in with bread and cheese in his pocket, and orders a glass of beer, he does not commit an offence, but if he has not bread and cheese or a sandwich or whatever the meal may be, he does commit an offence. No matter what the feeling for this Bill, it is unwise to allow legislation of this sort to go through. The young person is not obliged to order a meal. He has only got to consume a meal in the public-house, so if a boy or girl goes in with a biscuit in his pocket he is entitled to order, not one glass of beer under this Bill, but as many glasses as he likes, while if he does not have a meal or order a meal he commits an offence. We ought not to allow legislation under which it is possible for such anomalies to take place.
The different stages for the consideration of a Bill have been laid down as the result of experience of generations of our people for the purpose of thoroughly sifting every Clause and every word in the Bill. That is why our legislation, as a rule, has been carefully drafted, although we have some exceptions, and therefore the laws are respected by the people of this country. A great many of the United States have passed an enormous number of laws dealing with every conceivable subject, with the result that nobody pays any attention to them, because you reduce legislation to a farce, if you pass laws which are absurd, as is the wording of this particular Clause. I do not say that it is altogether the fault of the promoters. I have not been one of those in favour of this compromise. I think that the principae opponents of the Bill on my right and on my left are almost 1763 as responsible as the promoters of the Bill for altering the Bill in this way and making it so absurd. I disagree with the objects of the Bill, except as regards spirits, which I think a very excellent object. I think that the Bill is not bad altogether, but only in parts, but to alter the Bill by a proposal like this, which is ridiculous and was only accepted by the opponents because they know it makes the Bill ridiculous, is an abuse of parliamentary procedure. Legislation coming before us should be reasonably simple and at the same time in consonance with public opinion. If this Bill goes through, letting a person with a biscuit in his pocket get beer the result will be worse than negative; it will make the Bill ridiculous in the eyes of the public and do harm to the cause which the promoters have at heart. As regards spirits I think that we could have had a simple Bill.
§ Sir M. ARCHER-SHEE
In the case of an Amendment of such wide scope as this, it is difficult not to allude in some places to matters not strictly within the scope of the Amendment. I am trying to explain the reason for passing this Amendment. If these words stand part the result will be that the new law will be made ridiculous and do harm to the cause of real temperance. We are getting more temperate every day, thanks to the common sense of the people of the country, but this punitive legislation, which may be necessary in more backward countries than this, is calculated to harm the cause of temperance. I urge all hon. Members he are not biased in favour of this Bill, but simply want to have a reasonable, decent Bill, to support this Amendment.
I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman who moved it simply desires to kill the Bill. The seconder of the Amendment was a member of the Committee. He delivered there a speech in the same terms, and even more elaborate, but the Committee did not take his view. As far as our party are concerned, we are unanimously in favour of the Bill as a whole. It is only fair to say that the compromise was a real one, for both sides gave principles away. The 1764 promoters of the Bill are very keen on some of the things that they were asked to give up. Opponents of the Bill were equally keen on other things. A fair compromise was reached as between both sides, and every view had an opportunity for expression in Committee. The progress of the Bill to-day may be delayed. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment know perfectly well that they cannot kill the Bill. All that they are doing now is merely taking Government time. It is not true to say that if a private ballot were taken the Members of this House would reject the Bill. If a ballot of the country were taken, there would be no doubt of the result. We do not propose, as a Labour party, to take part in the general debate, and we are content to urge the Government to facilitate the passing of this Bill as speedily as possible.
§ Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE
I am in favour of this Amendment, but am not in the least opposed to the Bill. It seems to me that the Bill is one which is good for the rich and bad for the poor. It is the poor people who will go with a biscuit in their pocket and ask for a drink in a public-house. It is not the rich man who does that. He has his cellar. He can drink as much as he likes or carry it with him. The poor man cannot afford a cellar, and he is the man who is injured by this Bill. I have not the smallest desire to kill the Bill, but there are one or two Amendments which I think it would be good to ventilate and to get the opinion of the House upon. I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not think I shall press the Amendment to a Division, but I shall certainly divide against the Third Reading of the Bill. In reply to the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), I would point out that he was the Chairman of the Standing Committee, and I have nothing to do with the compromise reached in the Committee. I do not know whether the compromise was made in the interests of the promoters or of the opponents of the Bill. The Committee consisted of only about 60 Members, probably not more than 40 were ever in attendance. On Report we are entitled to express our opinions on the Bill. It is a new doctrine to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite are so solicitous of the time of the Government 1765 that they are anxious no one should talk. They have not carried out the principle during the present Session. Over and over again they have taken up the time of the Government. I presume that there is now to be a change. It is a most extraordinary doctrine that Members of the. House, on what is a most important matter dealing with the liberty of the subject, are not to move Amendments. If that is the doctrine of the Labour party, it is another reason why they should never get into power.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)—to leave out Sub-section (2)—is really part of the same proposal, the one cannot stand without the other.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
That is not quite the case, but I do not know whether it would be worth while to move it. If you look at Sub-section (2), you will see that it practically repeats the whole of the first part of Sub-section (1), and that the only new part is at the end, where it saysNo person shall purchase or attempt to purchase any intoxicating liquor for consumption by a person under the age of 18 years in any such bar.The proper way would be to move out all the words except those words, but I do not propose to do it. This is only another instance of the absurdity of the Bill and of the bad drafting.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Sir M. Archer-Shee), to leave out Sub-section (3), would not make sense.
§ Sir M. ARCHER-SHEE
If you look at Sub-section (3) you will see that the result of leaving it out is that people would not be fined or imprisoned.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Clause defines certain things which shall not be done, and if the Amendment were carried there would be no penalties prescribed.
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the wordsbut nothing in this Act shall be deemed to reduce the amount of any fine or penalty which may be imposed under Section sixty-eight of The Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, or Section fifty-nine of The Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, for any contravention of either of those Sections.There is an overlapping of the penalties under this Bill and under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910. This Amendment was submitted to those who were on the Standing Committee as parties to the compromise. It stands in my name and in that of the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) whose legal skill was of great assistance to us in the Standing Committee.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
I should point out that the Noble Lady who introduced this Bill, and a number of those who supported the Bill, made certain statements in a previous Debate as to the effect of stimulants on people under a certain age. I wish to call the attention of the Noble Lady and of hon. Members who support the Bill to the speech made by the hon. Member for London University (Sir S. Russell-Wells) only a few days ago, in which he said that beer was a food and contained a certain quantity of nourishment and also that tea was a pure drug. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] Therefore, the supporters of this Bill are endeavouring to prevent young people from getting what a medical authority declares to contain nourishment, and to make them take, instead, something which is, after all, merely a drug. I quote from the speech made by the Noble Lady on the Second Reading:—If alcohol is a bad stimulant for girl adolescence it is equally bad for boy adolescents. Sir James Crichton-Browne, a distinguished anti-prohibitionist, says 'It is during adolescence that the taste for alcohol declares itself. Then it is, when so many 1767 habits are formed, that a habit of some degree of dependence on alcohol may be contracted and it is a noteworthy fact that in nearly 90 per cent. of cases of confirmed inebriety the addiction to drink began between fifteen and twenty-five years of age. That is the danger period.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1923; cols. 917–8, Vol. 161.]Let us see what Sir James Crichton-Browne really did say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"] He is the gentleman whose opinion was quoted by the Noble Lady as one of the chief reasons in support of this Bill, and this is what he said in a letter to the "Morning Post":Sir, I quite agree with Lady Astor in her letter which appeared in your issue of the 17th inst., and which I have only just seen on my return from Scotland, that some folks have prohibition on the brain and I would go further, and say that that painful obsession sometimes impels its victims into ridiculous intolerance and self-assertion and may even betray them, when they ought to know better, into vulgar personalities. Only a prohibition-ridden brain can see any inconsistency, as Lady Astor does, in my objection to a general and forcible restraint on the consumption of a particular kind of food, at certain ages, with my recommendation of self-discipline and abstinence in regard to that particular kind of food for a season to a group of youths under special circumstances. Compulsion is one thing and free choice is quite another.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
He says that the attempt to induce people to do the right thing is one thing, but compulsion by force of law is quite another. That is apparently the one thing about which the people who pretend to stand for freedom are really concerned. The letter proceeds:Lady Astor does not apparently realise that alcohol is a food and under some circumstances, a very valuable food, and she has not acquainted herself with recent researches on the subject. Her countryman, Professor Raymond Pearl, of the John Hopkins Hospital, has just demonstrated with guinea pigs and fowls that individuals which throughout life—adolescence included—receive daily doses of alcohol by inhalation were much longer lived than others not so treated.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
Hon. Members should remember that this is a letter from au eminent man whose opinions were quoted by the Noble Lady in quite a wrong sense in the Second Reading Debate, and were then cheered by hon. Members opposite. They cannot now listen when 1768 the gentleman in question shows that the quotation was inapt and inaccurate. He writes:From 1569, family history records carefully collected in the vicinity of Baltimore, Professor Pearl concludes, that while heavy and steady drinking lowers the expectation of life, the moderate and occasional consumption Of alcohol has no such effect in either sex. How confirmatory is this of the conclusion of that eminent surgeon, the late Sir James Paget, as a result of life long experience, that the habitual use of alcohol is on the whole, and generally, beneficial.That is better than all the fulminations and cackle of foolish women. The letter continues:Lady Astor correctly interprets my attitude. I am out against her Bill even in its emasculated state. I retain the old British prejudice against any infringement of personal liberty and believe that vexatious restrictions are sure to prove futile and mischievous. She ascribes to me, however, absurdities which are the product of her own confused thinking, when she suggests that I would require the publican to make out the trade of each of his youthful customers. What I said was that for growing lads engaged in certain kinds of labour, a glass of beer may be beneficial, but my contention is that all growing lads, no matter what their occupation, when sober and well conducted, should be able to get that under reasonable conditions of time and place, when so 'dispoged.' It is Lady Astor who would demand superhuman discernment in the publican in gauging the age of suppliants for liquor. My age, to which Lady Astor so courteously refers, is surely—seeing I have never practised self-prohibition and drank beer regularly between the ages of 14 and 18—an argument against the policy she has espoused. As she treats my professional opinion contemptuously, I am rather surprised that she should have made use of it in the House of Commons to bolster up her silly Bill. The House of Commons has administered a quietus to prohibition, but not yet, I fear, to Lady Astor.So much for the Noble Lady's quotation of Sir James Crichton-Browne, a person whose opinion she says ought to be taken, as he deals with this matter on a scientific, spiritual, and moral basis. On the Second Reading of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was present on behalf of the Government, and said that he rather rogretted that his position in the Government compelled him to be present. He went on to say that he could make no promise on behalf of the Government of facilities for any further stages of the Bill, and he went into the Lobby against the Second Reading of the Bill. Now, to our astonishment, we find that 1769 the Government, notwithstanding what was said by my right hon. Friend, have succumbed to the charms of the sex which generally succeeds in influencing men, and, contrary to the statement of the Minister who was here in his place for the Government, they have given facilities for this Bill. Quite apart from this Bill, I want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that, as the Government are starting on a career, which I hope will last for the full time, it is not right lot them to star private Member's Bills.
This is the second private Member's Bill which has been starred by the Government, and I maintain that it is not right to do so except under very exceptional circumstances, as in the case of a Bill of which every single Member is in favour, and to which no man or woman has raised any objection. The effect is that the Government take advantage of the time at the disposal of private Members in order to advance their own Bills, and that is not right. I remember a distinguished Member of this House, not a Member of my party, Sir James Caldwell, a Member of the Liberal party, who once said to me: "Private Members' Bills are all bad, and our Bills, the Bills of my party, are the worst of the lot." He was a man of very great experience, a shrewd Scotsman, and I think he was right in what he said. It was necessary, in order that this particular Bill should become law, that the Government should star it and give it facilities. It could not otherwise have passed. One of the arguments which the Noble Lady advanced was that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) put down a question with regard to the number of boys and girls who were arrested for drunkenness, and she seemed to think that the answer to that question was in favour of her Bill, whereas it had exactly the contrary effect, because, in 1921, the last year for which figures were available, there had been a considerable decrease in the number of people arrested for drunkenness.
Let me point out the absolute absurdity of this Bill and the effect which it is going to have upon different classes. The rich man and the rich girl and boy will net suffer under the Bill. I do not know whether any hon. Member of this House is going to Lords. I have not been there 1770 for a good many years, but in the old days, when I regularly went there, I used to find there were luncheons served round the ground, and the general consumption in the way of things to drink on a hot day like this would probably be champagne cup, or something of that sort, and all the boys at Eton and Harrow had it, and enjoyed it. They are probably going to have it now, and I would not be surprised, if the Noble Lady had a tent there, if there was champagne-cup there for her friends. I have seen it in her house in St. James' Square. The result is that the young person of the poorer class, the class which hon. Members opposite claim to represent, cannot get anything of this sort. They cannot even get a humble glass of beer, at the price at which it has been sold of late, unless they carry it with them in their pockets, which would be a very uncomfortable thing to do on a day like thin, or unless they pay for something to eat, which is undoubtedly absurd and practically prohibitory of their obtaining that which they want.
That only bears out what all this sort of legislation does. Prohibitory legislation reacts against the working classes, and does not injure the richer classes. The children of the richer people have, and have with great advantage, everything which this Bill is going to prohibit. All that will be necessary will be for them, when they go for an excursion during summer weather, to arrange to be met by a servant with the liquor which they cannot obtain at a public-house or, rather at the village inn where they intended to stop, or they can take it in their motor car, or in their boat on the river, and they will not pay the slightest attention to this Bill. But the children of the working classes will be prohibited from having what is very often vitally necessary at the present moment. Take the young labourer in a hay field. It is very hard work in a hay field at the present moment, and there are many boys under 18, some of them strong and powerful men, perfectly able to do a good day's work in the hay field, but the Noble Lady will not let them have a glass of beer. It is too absurd. I do really beseech the House not to be led away by statements of teachers or women's societies. To what does it all come? "The Society for the Prevention of the Consumption of Liquor, 1771 which embraces every woman in your constituency, will vote against you at the next Election if you do not pass this Bill." Do not believe it for a moment! By the time the next Election comes, they will have forgotten all about it. There will be many more important matters to be considered, and if my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary had only hardened his heart, and not succumbed to the charms of the other sex, we should never have heard another word about this Bill, and nobody would have been any the worse. In those circumstances, I appeal to this House to reject the Bill, and pass to more sensible legislation.
§ 12 N.
In the course of a maiden speech, I assure the House I do not intend to detain hon. Members more than a very few minutes, because I am well aware that this Bill has been fully dicussed both in this House on Second Reading and also in Committee. It is a Bill which, I believe, has at the present time the support of the bulk of ale people of this country, and one of the reasons for that is that a good deal of the sting has been taken out. The sting to which I refer is that the Bill as it comes from Committee renders the licensed victuallers much less liable to prosecution than it did in its original state. I should like to discuss one or two of the main principles which this Bill directly affects. I was very much interested during the Second Reading to listen to the speeches that were delivered. Anyone might have imagined, as the right hon. Baronet just said, that insobriety amongst the young people of this country was becoming a great evil. The right hon. Baronet has also just told us that figures show that drunkenness amongst the young people of this country is decreasing at the present time. That is an extremely satisfactory feature. The young people are, in fact, becoming more and more sober every year, and are becoming less dependent on the State for interference. I think that the great development of sports of all kinds has contributed a great deal in that direction. In no country in the world will you find as many playing-fields fully occupied on every half-holiday as you will in this country, and I think hon. Members will agree with me when I say that the 1772 training for sports of all kinds is synonymous with physical and mental fitness, and it is no doubt these two great characteristics of our race which have done so much towards building up our national character. What does this Bill enact? It will deprive, as the right hon. Baronet has said, any young man under 18 years of age of the opportunity of having his glass of beer in the barroom of licensed premises. Whatever work the young fellow may accomplish during the day, whether it be hard work in a mine, or in a shipyard, or in the harvest fields, he will not be able to go into a licensed house to pay for his drink, and consume it in the company of his fellow-workers. The young fellow who has been playing an arduous game of football during the afternoon will not be able to take such a perfectly harmless drink as a glass of shandy-gaff. I believe the Noble Lady knows what that is, and that it is not an American cocktail.
These examples I have given represent, I believe, the most objectionable features of this Bill. There are, as a matter of fact, two redeeming features in the Bill. The first is the fact that the Noble Lady who is responsible for this Measure has certainly impressed me, as I believe she has a large number of Members of this House, with her sincerity of purpose, and also-with her very large experience of the juvenile population of this country. The second redeeming feature is to be found, I believe, in the benefit that I hope a small section of the younger people of this country may derive. I refer to the orphans, the boys and girls who find themselves, unfortunately, without any parents, practically without home life, and it is that lack of home life that may eventually drive them into public-houses. If only on account of these younger people living in the world without parents, I feel I should be justified in supporting the Third Reading of this Measure. In my opinion, true temperance—the one thing, I believe, all hon. Members wish to see as much as possible—will never be brought about by State interference with the liberties of the people.
I ask the Noble Lady—and I hope she will enlighten us before we finish this Debate—if this Bill is to be the foundation stone of a new Statue of Liberty which is to be erected within the City of London, or if it is to be followed by other 1773 Bills of a similar kind, until the whole edifice is complete, and the unhappy people of this country find themselves in the heat of summer, and during the foggy darkness of winter, confronted with nothing more interesting than a glass, say, of ginger-pop or ice-cream and soda. I hope that the Noble Lady will tell us about that too.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
A Noble Lord (Viscount Astor) in another place has already brought in a Bill further to amend the licensing law.
I am sorry to hear that that is so. I am rather tempted now to oppose this Bill, but out of consideration for the Noble Lady I will not. I am sure, however, the House would like an assurance from the Noble Lady that she does not intend to bring forward any further Measures of this kind. I am in favour of temperance. We all want to see it spread further in this country, but we want to see the work done by the various temperance organisations and by hon. Members and others at public meetings carrying out a reasonable propaganda and explaining to those who listen the evils of excessive drinking, and encouraging sport of all kinds. I am sure if the Noble Lady and those who are helping her will work along these lines, no one will give a more hearty support to the movement than I myself shall.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I wish to mark as clearly as I possibly can the distinction between a Measure of this kind, and what I reckon ought to be the only proper way of handling this question at all. This, of course, has nothing to do with prohibition. This, as has been said, is a licencing Bill, the question of simply taking part in the regulation of an iniquitous traffic. It is the concurrence in and the adoption of a system which, by all the arguments which have been employed, ought not to stand. I recollect on the occasion of the Second Reading that we heard the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) speak in support of the case, although I was unable to obtain an opportunity of speaking at the time. The whole trend of the case submitted for the support of this Bill was that licensed places were a centre of contamination to young people, but on all the evidence submitted, the case of the young person under 18 years of age 1774 is given completely away by a simple rearrangement of the geographical position. You take such person, a friend, into another place in the same establishment and provided it is not a drinking bar and by arranging at the same time that he gets something in the way of food you regularise the position.
I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House and I desire to be as brief as I can to put forward what I have to say, but I should like to state that Sir James Crichton-Browne failed to answer the case put before him in the "Forward" Journal. It is a most astounding feature of the case for the Bill, a central fact, that you have very nearly unanimity in this House of Commons. As the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London said there is a variation as to the position of the Government. They first of all said that they could not give any promise with regard to the Bill, then that they would give it their protection, then you have the expression from this side of the House of the leaders of both parties that they are willing to agree to the passing through of this Measure. That is the most important point that could be established in proof of the Bill's weakness. In spite of the anxiety of hon. Members on the other side about Measures of this kind I have no difficulty in stating that Measures like this constitute a safety valve for the continued existence of the liquor traffic. What have you got? An expression of delight and satisfaction by many of the organisations throughout the country and their backing in this House, from the very forces that are the backbone of the liquor traffic, and the power that controls the Government, that they are conceding this because they know that all parties in the House will thereby identify themselves with what is known as the temperance movement.
I submit that the propagation of such Measures is treachery to the great cause of the drunkard, his wife and family. Take the case before us that is embodied in the Bill. How is a man, given to handling the liquor behind the bar of the public-house with men and women present in numbers and confronted with the question of age, going to decide Perhaps some of those then present are excited by participation in the drink, and the barman or the publican are trying to 1775 get round to serve everybody. The Bill says that the man must not order liquor on behalf of his friend who is under age. But the customer is assumed to know exactly what is the age of his friend, of his companion. Would any hon. Members identified with the temperance movement ask their own guests at their own table their age under such circumstances as mentioned by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London regarding the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth, in regard to provision of intoxicants in their own home circle? Would they, I ask, discriminate between guests of different ages? They would never so insult their guests. You serve them indiscriminately, and why not? You are not agreed on the abolition of the liquor traffic. The Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth is totally opposed to anything in the nature of prohibition, as emphatically declared in her election address. It was said on the other side of the House that we must not have any legislation which is going to interfere with the liberty of the subject. What are you doing now? What right have you to interfere with a person of the age of 18 or under? Here we have one of the best proofs that we are doing the very thing that we ought not to do, for whenever you have anything in the way of a comic story or some comic interlude, as we had in this House the other week, it only throws a little light upon what lies behind it. Every hon. Member in any quarter of this House knows perfectly well that this is only playing with the subject. If there is no case against the liquor traffic why do you not give every man and every woman a chance of engaging in this business, and why should you confer this monopoly on a small section of the community. Why should you give to a limited number the chance of making huge profits by allowing greedy, selfish, cold-blooded people to exploit mankind.
You welcome the efforts which are now being made by the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth because she is a valuable acquisition to you in this matter. She stands between you and the trade as a barrier to Prohibition, and you are able to shy that the Noble Lady is a leader of the temperance movement, and is doing a great work in the cause. On the other 1776 hand, she stands as a candidate for Plymouth and puts in black type in her election address.I am not in favour of prohibition.The Noble Lady as a private Member introducing a Bill had no chance of passing it until the Government took it up, and therefore I congratulate her upon her deep-seated and far-seeing wisdom, because there is now a fair hope of this Bill passing through this House. It did not matter to the Noble Lady how miserably ridiculous this Bill was made, and it is now hailed as an achievement for the temperance movement in the name of the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth. This is no real progress towards the situation which has obtained in the United States, and it has no association with the position of America. America has arrived at the conclusion that, from every substantial point of view, whether you regard disease, health and everything else that we consider of any importance, it is necessary to cut this thing out like a cancerous growth. Do not associate that great movement in America with this ridiculous piece of humbug which ought never to have been introduced.
§ Mr. GREAVES-LORD
I rise to express the hope that the House will give this Bill a Third Reading. I want in a very few minutes to explain why I take up an attitude now which may appear inconsistent with a course which I adopted on the Second Reading. I opposed the Second Reading of this Bill in the main for two reasons. Firstly, because in my opinion it was absolutely ineffective to carry out the expressed objects of its promoters; and in the second place, because it neglected what is a very important principle in the administration of our law, namely, that a man should not be convicted unless he knows that he has committed an offence. Both those objections were removed from this Bill during the Committee stage.
The hon. and gallant Member for Southern Norfolk (Major Hay), who spoke a few minutes ago, seemed to be rather afraid and obsessed with the idea that this Measure was the foundation of a statue of Liberty. I should regard any idea of the foundation of a statue of Liberty within the three mile limit of these shores as a tragedy. This Bill as it stands now is, in my opinion, certainly a bulwark against a large portion of 1777 moderate opinion in this country going over to the side of prohibition. I say that because there is a large body of moderate opinion in this country which will never be perverted to prohibition so long as they see that reasonable reforms, in connection with the liquor traffic, receive attention at the hands of this House. In this matter I cannot speak for the trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Any hon. Member opposite who suggests by an interruption of that kind that I am speaking for the trade makes that suggestion with an entire disregard to what is in fact the truth, for I speak for no section of the trade.
I understand that there is a section of the trade who regard this Bill with discomfort, and think it should be opposed, but I think they are wrong, and I believe they would really be doing a good thing for the trade if they supported this Measure. First, this is a Measure which may be administered without the slightest risk of injustice to anyone engaged in the licensed trade. Secondly, it is, in my opinion, absolutely effective for the one purpose which it seeks to serve, and that is keeping young people out of the purely drinking part of licensed premises. I hope there may be a time when we shall not have a purely drinking part of licensed premises, when the whole of those premises will be constructed so that young people can go with their parents into any part of licensed premises; but so long as they are constructed as they are at the present time, I think it is a valuable thing that we should provide something to keep these young people out of that part of licensed premises.
While I should have liked to have seen this Bill limited entirely to spirits, I think, on the other hand, that those to whom we were opposed on the Second Reading, while they gave up a great many principles, at any rate obtained something which was very valuable in the interests of the young people of this country, when they got into this Bill provisions which do effectually keep young people out of the drinking part of licensed premises. As this Bill now stands, the two objections which I put in the forefront on the Second Reading have been removed, and it can never be used as a jumping off ground for any measure of prohibition. Under these circumstances, I hope the House will give 1778 this Bill a Third Reading practically with unanimity.
§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
In regard to this Measure I wish to make two protests. My first protest is with regard to the action which the teachers' organisation has taken in this matter. I have been circularised repeatedly by teachers' organisations endeavouring to persuade me in forcible terms to vote for this Measure, and I think it will be a sad day for this country if those in the employ of the State or the ratepayers should be allowed to take an active part upon questions such as this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members belonging to the Labour party disagree with that statement, but I repeat that I think it will be a most regrettable day for this country when those in the employ of the State or of the ratepayers are allowed to take sides on questions that come before this House, because I think it will do a great deal of harm. Officers in the Army or the Navy dc not take an active part in such questions, and I have never known the case of an officer either in the Army or the Navy supporting such Measures on public platforms whilst he is holding an active commission.
The second protest that I want to make is with regard to this type of legislation. I do not believe that we are going to become a better country by this fussy kind of Prussian restriction upon our liberty. Temperance is growing in the country owing to public opinion and to education. I cannot help thinking that to introduce Measures of this kind, where you are going to have all sorts of suspicions where liquor is sold, is not going to help that healthy reform in the habits of the people. The influence on the people of the country with regard to questions such as these comes down from leaders of public opinion and also from the classes. I can remember when, on coming down from the University, I joined an ordinary club in London, it was the habit of every gentleman to have two or three whiskies and sodas at 11 o'clock. You can now go into a club without seeing any of the upper classes drinking any liquor except with their meals. Hon. Gentlemen laugh, and I am perfectly willing to grant that in the House of Commons or anywhere else in days like these gentleman do take a tonic with, perhaps, something in it. I am, 1779 however, speaking of the general habits of the people, and everyone knows that I am right when I say that right through all sections of the community you find that public opinion is against the drunkard and the extreme drinker.
I therefore regret that this Measure was brought in, because I do not believe you are really going to help the young people of this country by preventing them from drinking a shandygaff when 17¾ years of age. You are simply going to excite their curiosity and increase their desire to consume these things when they become 18. I do not believe that in the end you are going to improve the moral of the country by trying to remove temptation. You are going to improve the moral of the country by teaching your people of resist temptation, and I hope that we are not going to have any more Measures of this description. I need not apply any adjectives to the Bill, because the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has described it so fully and forceably. I can only say that it is a ridiculous Bill, and that I do not think it is worth anybody's while to go into the Lobby either for or against it.
§ Colonel GRETTON
I do not want to occupy the time of the House for more than a very few moments, and I hope that hon. Members opposite, by their interruptions, prolong what I hope will be a very short intervention in this Debate. This Bill, as it has come down from the Committee upstairs, is a very different Measure in every respect to the Bill which received Second Reading in this House at an earlier period in the Session. That Bill was one of the most flagrant, clumsy, and incomprehensible pieces of drafting that has ever been presented to this House. The first Clause of it had references, cross-references, and cross-references again to previous Acts, and it was almost impossible for those who are more or less expert in licensing legislation to make out exactly what was intended. It was perfectly impossible to administer. The only part of the Bill which was clear and definite and unmistakable was the penalty Clause with its very heavy penalties on those of the licensing trade who might not steer their way through the maze presented to them. Now, at any rate, the Bill says what it means, and bears on the face of it what 1780 it purports to do. I believe that the penalties and inflictions, which certain sections of the teetotal party are only to glad to inflict upon the holders of licences, are now not excessive, and that the licence holder has nothing greatly to fear in the administration of this Bill. For these reasons, I do not intend to offer any opposition to the Third Reading of the Bill.
I would like to add a very few remarks. We are told that this is an agreed Bill. Is that so? Will the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), when she gets up to wind up the Debate, say that this Bill settles the question and that she and her supporters will be satisfied to leave it where it stands without alteration and amendment? I do not think that they will. If that be so, what becomes of the case that this is an agreed Bill? If that be so—and I want to learn—it is only agreed so far that the promoters will take this Bill as a step towards some further Measure which they have not at this stage revealed to the House. Then what becomes of the case that this is an agreed Bill? It is a Bill agreed for this Session only, and the question can be reopened at the first opportunity. If that be the case, then I have to say to those Members of the Committee who made this compromise and who have been induced to support the Bill by this compromise that it was an agreed Bill have been grossly deceived. The Bill is no longer an agreed Bill, but it is a stage in what is intended to be the progress to some end which has not been revealed.
The real objections to this Bill are the same as those to the whole class of licensing legislation which Parliament has been promoting during recent years. It is legislation of a fussy, interfering, and—I use the word without any offensive meaning—effeminate kind. There is a pathetic idea that the people in their habits, their lives, and their morals can be regulated by Act of Parliament. If only some Acts of Parliament can be got through, everything will be all right, and a great reform will be accomplished. The history of mankind gives no support or weight to any contention of that kind. There is another class of opinion which supports legislation of this kind, and I think we shall find that that class of opinion, so far as it is represented in this House, will give hearty support to 1781 this Bill. That is the Socialist, Bolshevist opinion which desires to put the whole of mankind and the women and children into a strait-waistcoat of regulations, beyond which they will trespass at their peril. That class of legislation is very much to be regretted. It is far better in all these social matters to rely upon the robust common sense—it is not too common nowadays; it is becoming more and more rare—and character of our people to examine into the bearing of these various problems and to decide for themselves what course they will take and how they will order their own lives and those of their families. For these reasons I do not propose to support the Third Reading of this Bill, but I do regret that the country should be troubled with legislation which is quite unnecessary and which will not bear any good fruit.
I have listened to the rambling eloquence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and it has led me to recall the text—Blessed is the man that endureth temptation, for when he is tried he shall receive the crown of life.I shall not attempt to answer the right hon. Baronet, because I know quite well that no argument of mine will change his mind. He has come to the time of life when he only changes to be born again. He is known throughout the country as one of our ablest obstructors, and if that be a good thing, then I take my hat off to him. I should like to answer the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Southern Norfolk (Major Hay). It was a charming speech, and I am sorry it was not longer. He asked me if I could not promise that those who are at the back of the Bill will rest satisfied with the Bill, and not bring in further legislation. I want the House to remember that this Bill is not my Bill. I was very proud to introduce it, but it is a Bill drawn up by the teachers of this country and backed by the vast majority of right-thinking people in the country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but let them remember it is a private Member's Bill which passed its Second Reading with the largest majority obtained by any private Member's Bill in the House of Commons. It was not passed, as one hon. Member suggests, because of my eloquence—that is an easy way of explaining 1782 it—but it was passed because of the progressive thought of the people of this country and the determination certainly of the women, and, I think, also of the men, to protect, as far as possible, the children of the country. I would like to say to the hon. Member for Southern Norfolk that I can give no promise as to what the people interested in the children of the country are going to do.
When hon. Members speak of "Lady Astor imposing her will on a free country," do they really think I am as powerful as that? Why, it almost turns my head when I see how I am held up as one of those aliens who come over here to enforce their will on the people of England. I may be an alien to some interests, but I am not an alien to the will of the women and men of this country in dealing with the children's question. I would not like hon. Members to think that I desire in any way to assume sole responsibility for this Bill. I take no credit to myself for the Measure, because it was drawn up by a set of people who know far more about the child population of this country en masse than I do.
The hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) said this Bill was the first step to a changed Bill. I do not know whether he meant that we were going to try and change it in the House of Lords, but I do not think there would be any chance of getting the Bill passed into law if that were attempted. The promoters of the Bill are very sorry that the word "knowingly" has been taken out. We think it has weakened the Bill, but still the only chance of getting a private Member's Bill through the House of Commons is by taking it as an agreed Measure, and so we have had to get agreement as far as we could. I do not think there is any other point I need deal with except, perhaps, the fact that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has given me a tremendous doing. I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that I get it both coming and going from all parties in the House. I am perfectly willing to take all that is coming to me, however, if I can do anything to help forward the general welfare of the children of the country.
I want to thank the Government for having given facilities for this Bill. After all, they were only listening to the 1783 voice of the great majority of the Members of the House of Commons, and certainly of the overwhelming majority of the people of the country. Still it was a very gracious act on the part of the Prime Minister to see at once what a popular Measure it is. He must have had pressure brought to bear upon him by certain Members of his party who live in constant terror of Prohibition. I would like to warn hon. Members, when they say that these vexatious restrictions are against the free working of a free people, that civilization is built up of vexatious restrictions. None of us are entirely free to do what we would like. For instance, every time I pass the pond in St. James Park I feel I would like to take a swim in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is dry."] I was speaking of when the water was in it I did not say I wanted to drink it, I said I wanted to swim in it. With regard to the fear of hon. Members of the imposition of vexatious restrictions, let me warn them that it is impossible, unless the country is behind us, to get Bills through this House. I would like to thank hon. Members of the Opposition for the splendid way in which they have helped to pass this Bill. When it is passed I think the whole House of Commons, with the exception perhaps of a few unreconstructed Members will be glad. The hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Sir M. Archer-Shee) of course does not agree with that, but we all know that his one object has been to destroy this Bill. I have known from the very first time that this Bill was introduced in the House of Commons that it could not be destroyed. You cannot destroy any legislation which is based on a real desire to help the children of the country.
§ Captain Viscount CURZON
I am much interested to hear the speech of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). I want to say one or two words before the Bill goes through, as I suppose it will, having served on the Committee to which the Bill was referred. One thing that struck me was that the moment one was put on that Committee, one became the target for circulars of every description, from every sort of extraordinary organisation throughout the country, in reference to the Bill. I regarded that as quite intolerable There was one circular 1784 which was so disgraceful that the Chairman of the Committee raised it as a question of privilege on the Floor of this House, and I am only sorry that it was not carried even further. To come to the merits of the Bill, as it has now come down to the House, there are hardly two words of the original Bill left. It went up to the Committee as one Bill, and it is entirely owing to the opponents of the Bill that it has come down as a more or less workable Measure; but hardly two words in it are the same.
The great reason for which we have been asked to vote for the Bill is to prevent young people under 18 from getting a drink, but I am sure that hon. Members must now have realised that the Bill as it stands at the present moment does absolutely nothing to stop a young person under 18 from getting a drink. A young person under 18 can go into licensed premises and buy beer, cider, perry, stout, or anything they like, and all that they need do is simply to go outside the door and drink it in the street, and make pigs of themselves in the highways and byways if they want to do so. The only people who have any control over them are the police. Again—and here I am sure I shall have the sympathy of hon. Members opposite—the Bill does absolutely nothing to prevent the employment of juveniles under 18 in taprooms. If the professions were honest that it is quite wrong to have young people in a taproom, and all the rest of it, surely it would have been equally correct for the Bill to provide that young people should not be employed in taprooms. I say it is a very serious thing—[Interruption]—hon. Members opposite are now beginning to observe the various loopholes and leaks that there are in this Bill.
The Bill also, to my mind, has another grave defect. It creates a new offence for young people, and I think we should examine very carefully any legislation which produces a new offence for young people. The hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) said that the great thing about the Bill was that it would keep young people out of the purely drinking part of licensed premises. I have tried to show that it will do nothing of the sort. The hon. and learned Member said that it would be effective and could be administered with justice. I am sure, from what I have 1785 heard, even from supporters of the Bill, that they do not consider it in the least likely to be effective. Whether they consider it likely to be administered with justice or not I do not know; it rather depends upon the justices who are called upon to administer it, and I should be very sorry for anyone who was hauled up under the Bill and had to appear before the junior Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts). There is one other question about which I am still not quite clear. I should like to ask the Noble Lady (Viscountess Astor) Is this Bill a stepping-stone to Prohibition, or is it not?
I would only like to say that Prohibition has nothing to do with me. It depends on the people of this country. I have always said that the people of the country have a perfect right to vote for what they want. It does not depend on me, omnipotent though the hon. and gallant Member thinks I am.
§ Viscount CURZON
What I want particularly to know is, will the Noble Lady, when a Measure for Prohibition is brought into this House, second our efforts to try to defeat it? My attitude towards this Bill is entirely determined by the fact that I regard it as a stepping-stone to Prohibition. I do not wish to oppose the Bill, but I do not intend to do anything to facilitate its passing. I think it is a thoroughly bad Bill. To be consistent, it should have dealt with consumption off the premises as well.
§ Sir M. ARCHER-SHEE
I desire to say a word or two on the Third Reading, especially because I have been accused, within the last few minutes, by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth, of wanting to wreck her Bill. It is quite true that I opposed the Bill in Committee, but I have said all along—on the Second Reading and, I think, on the first day of the proceedings in Committee—that, if the Bill dealt only with the question of spirits, I should be entirely in favour of it. I think the Bill, both as it stood first and as it has come down for Third Reading, is a thoroughly bad Bill. I believe it to be an absolute farce. I agree in this with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) who, although he is at the opposite extreme to myself, is quite sincere, and impresses the House every time he speaks 1786 by his sincerity. The hon. Member is in favour of prohibition, but he says that this Bill is utterly absurd and a piece of hypocritical nonsense. The publicans all over the country do not care twopence about the Bill, because they know that, with the word "knowingly" included in it, they are quite safe. The only people who will be in the least incommoded will be the young men and women of 17 or thereabouts, who, on a hot day, will be unable to get their beer, or whatever they want, unless they have a biscuit in their pocket or something of that sort.
There is also the point that was alluded to by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), that a new criminal offence for young people is being created. Not content with our existing laws, we are manufacturing a new crime, and if some boy or girl of 17 goes into a public-house and asks for a glass of beer, and does not produce a biscuit or order some food, they may be run in and fined £1, or £2 for a second offence, or imprisoned. I think that is perfectly absurd. Another thing which think is absurd is that a father will not be able to take his own child to a restaurant, if this Bill becomes law, and give his daughter or son a glass of claret. The father, if he does that, will be committing an offence. I put down an Amendment in Committee to exempt claret, for, surely, there is no harm in a glass of claret. It is very often prescribed by doctors for young fast-growing people of 17 or thereabouts. Because I think the Bill is ridiculous, because I am quite sure that it is unworkable as a Bill really to promote temperance—I think, on the contrary, that it may encourage people to drink more than they ought when they have arrived at the age of 18—and because I think it is a fraud and a farce, I shall certainly vote against the Third Reading.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL
I do not want to give a silent vote on this Bill, because I have received an enormous number of communications in regard to the subject. I intend to vote against it, because I will have nothing to do with interfering with the rights and liberties of the people, unless I am satisfield that such a Measure is advisable. I say that this Bill is a libel on the young people of this country. I challenge the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth to produce any 1787 figures that have shown any increase during the last decade with regard to committals of people under 21 years of age in consequence of intoxication. What is the idea of this Bill? It is to import from another country the ideas that are prevalent in that other country. I wish here and now to congratulate the Noble Lady on one thing, because I do not believe that there are many people in this country who would have succeeded in getting such a large number of people to support this Measure; and why? Because of the enormous amount of propaganda that there has been, and the enormous amount of money that has been expended on that propaganda. That can only be done by those who happen to be in the fortunate position of being well furnished with this country's goods. I well remem-
§ ber a certain newspaper proprietor boasting that he could make anyone in this country eat whatever he liked. The consequence was that standard bread was eaten. He did it by his propaganda, because he had the sinews of war. I protest against the libel that has been put upon the young people of the country. I shall vote against the Bill, and I hope those who hold the same principles as myself will not be afraid to go into the Lobby, and will not be thinking of what is going to be the result at the next General Election. It would be much easier for me to vote for the Bill, but I am going to vote against it.
§ Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 257 Noes, 10.1789
|Division No. 289.]
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
|Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
|Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
|Ainsworth, Captain Charles
|Dawson, Sir Philip
|Hewett, Sir J. P.
|Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
|Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
|Hiley, Sir Ernest
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
|Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
|Ammon, Charles George
|Doyle, N. Grattan
|Hillary, A. E.
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.
|Attlee, C. R.
|Duffy, T. Gavan
|Hirst, G. H.
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
|Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
|Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
|Hood, Sir Joseph
|Ede, James Chuter
|Hopkins, John W. W.
|Barnston, Major Harry
|Houfton, John Plowright
|Edmondson, Major A. J.
|Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
|Hudson, Capt. A.
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
|Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
|Hume, G. H.
|Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
|Emlyn-Jones. J. E. (Dorset, N.)
|Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
|Hurd, Percy A.
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman
|Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
|Hurst, Gerald B.
|Blades, Sir George Rowland
|Fairbairn, R. R.
|Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
|Broad, F. A.
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
|Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
|Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
|Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
|Fraser, Major Sir Keith
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
|Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
|Galbraith, J. F. W.
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
|Buckingham, Sir H.
|Ganzoni, Sir John
|Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
|George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
|Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
|Goff, Sir R. Park
|King, Captain Henry Douglas
|Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
|Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
|Button, H. S.
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
|Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
|Lawson, John James
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
|Cassels, J. D.
|Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
|Grundy, T. W.
|Lever, Sir Arthur L.
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
|Linfield, F. C.
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
|Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
|Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
|Chapple, W. A.
|Halstead, Major D.
|Lorden, John William
|Charleton, H. C.
|Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
|Clarke, Sir E. C.
|Hancock, John George
|Lumley, L. R.
|Churchman, Sir Arthur
|Hardie, George D.
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
|Harney, E. A.
|MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
|Harvey, Major S. E.
|Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
|Collins, Pat (Walsall)
|Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
|M'Entee, V. L.
|Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
|Cope, Major William
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
|Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
|Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.
|Darbishire, C. W.
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
|Malone, Major R. B. (Tottenham, S.)
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
|Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
|Margesson, H. D. R.
|Thorpe, Captain John Henry
|Marks, Sir George Croydon
|Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
|Tout, W. J.
|Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
|Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
|Trevelyan, C. P.
|Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
|Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)
|Millar, J. D.
|Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
|Wallace, Captain E.
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
|Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
|Wellhead, Richard C.
|Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
|Warne, G. H.
|Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
|Roundell, Colonel R. F.
|Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
|Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
|Muir, John W.
|Russell, William (Bolton)
|Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
|Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
|Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
|Nall, Major Joseph
|Salter, Dr. A.
|Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
|Newbold, J. T. W.
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
|Weir, L. M.
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
|Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
|White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
|Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
|White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
|Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
|Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
|Oliver, George Harold
|Shakespeare, G. H.
|Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
|Paget, T. G.
|Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
|Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
|Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
|Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
|Parker, Owen (Kettering)
|Singleton, J. E.
|Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
|Pease, William Edwin
|Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th, S.)
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
|Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)
|Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
|Perring, William George
|Smith, T. (Pontefract)
|Peto, Basil E.
|Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
|Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
|Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
|Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
|Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
|Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
|Spoor, B. G.
|Yerburgh, R. D. T.
|Potts, John S.
|Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
|Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)
|Pringle, W. M. R.
|Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
|Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
|Raeburn, Sir William H.
|Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
|Rankin, Captain James Stuart
|Sykes, Major.-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
|TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
|Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
|Viscountess Astor and Mr. Isaac
|Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
|Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
|Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
|TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
|Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
|Sir F. Banbury and Lieut.-Colonel
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
|Mercer, Colonel H.
|Sir Martin Archer-Shee.
|Murchison, C. K.
|Garland, C. S.
|Shepperson, E. W.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.