§ Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other Act to the contrary, the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, Schedule 1 (c) (Provisions applicable to retailers' off-licences, Spirits (2) Minimum quantity of spirits to be sold), shall be deemed to have effect as if, in lieu of the words "one reputed quart bottle," there were inserted the words "one reputed pint bottle," and accordingly the minimum quantity which may be sold by a person holding the off-licence to be held by a retailer of spirits shall be, in England and Wales, one reputed pint bottle.—[Sir F. Meyer.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Sir FRANK MEYERI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In this new Clause we are travelling a considerable way from the question which the Committee have been discussing during the past hour. We have been dealing with families and children. Now we come to the question of half bottles. The Committee will agree with me that to discuss the question of half a bottle may be a very pleasant occupation, but perhaps this place is not the most suitable one for discussing half bottles. Nevertheless, this new Clause, which has been moved on many occasions, is one to which I and a number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House attach 1548 considerable importance. It is somewhat in the nature of a hardy annual. Hitherto, this hardy annual has been withered by the cold blast of Government disapproval. I am hopeful that after hearing the arguments in favour of the change and what I believe to be the overwhelming sentiment in all quarters of the House, the Government may see fit to make some concession in the matter. Hitherto, in my requests for any concession I have met with very cold comfort. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—whose absence we all deplore, and who has worked very hard during the past few days and deserves a short and very well earned rest—considers this matter of very small importance. After all, it is only a question of half a bottle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man of large ideas, and perhaps if we had been discussing a magnum or even a rehoboam we might have had a more satisfactory answer.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has indicated to me that he views this proposal with disapproval. From what he has told me, and from a careful study of the Debates on this question during the past few years, I have not been able to gather what is the real reason that prevents the Government from granting this request. The answers that are given remind me somewhat of a remark in that 1549 well-known book, "Alice in Wonderland." The Committee will remember a certain poem where a messenger was sent for fish and the little fishes' answer was: "We cannot do it, Sir, because." That is as far as it goes. The reasons which have been given in reply to this proposal in the past remind me somewhat of that inconclusive answer. When the proposal was brought forward in 1924, and pressed to a Division, during the period of office of the Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, adduced several reasons against it. Those arguments were not quite up to the usual standard of his admirable logic and clarity, because he combined the two arguments that this proposal would be contrary to temperance and would be a reduction of revenue. How those two arguments can be combined at the present time I am unable to see.
The Committee probably know fairly well what is the present law on the matter. If I briefly re-state it, hope they will pardon me. The present position is that an on-licence holder, better known as a publican or a restaurant keeper, is allowed to sell any quantity of spirits for on or off consumption, however small. The off-licence holder, the wine merchant or the grocer, is not allowed to sell less than a reputed quart of spirits at a time. Anybody who desires to buy less than a bottle of whisky or a bottle of brandy or a bottle of any other spirits is obliged to go to a public-house. If he buys a bottle of whisky at the grocers he can at the same time, buy a half bottle of whisky or a half bottle of brandy, and he might buy two half bottles of whisky or two half bottles of brandy, but he must not buy a half bottle of whisky and a half bottle of brandy at the same time. That seems to me a very curious and anomalous law. Some people may think that that is one of the Regulations made by that tiresome lady known as "Dora," to whom I have sworn implacable opposition. It is not.
This law dates from a period considerably before the War. The supposed justification for it is, that the on-licence holder pays a considerably higher rate, of duty than the off-licence holder for the privileges he has, and that it would not be right for the off-licence holder to poach on those privileges by being able to sell 1550 for off consumption very small quantities of spirits. In other words, people should not be able, to use a vulgar expression, to go to an off-licence holder for a nip. In the days when whisky cost 4s. a bottle—those happy days which the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) would like to bring back, but I am afraid they will never come back; it is more than we can expect—there was, perhaps, some reason in preventing the grocer or the off-licence holder from selling something that cost only 2s. That might have trespassed somewhat on the preserves of the publican. Even in those days I should not have been in favour of that restriction on the rights of the public, because I do not consider that the rights of the public, if they are entitled to buy spirits at all, as I believe they are, should be limited in any way for the benefit of any one class. There might have been some justification in those days but now when whisky costs 12s. 6d. a bottle and brandy anything from 15s. a bottle, and a half bottle costs 7s. or more, nobody can say that permission to go to the grocer or the wine merchant to buy a half bottle of spirits will encroach severely on the rights of the publican to sell small quantities for on or off consumption, for which he pays a higher duty.
Various arguments have been adduced against what appears to most of us to be a very reasonable change, and a change which is demanded by a large section of the public. I have no idea what arguments the Financial Secretary will bring forward on this occasion. I can only judge by the arguments which have been brought forward in the past. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government said that the change might affect the revenue. Let us consider, coolly and calmly, how this proposal could affect the revenue. If people were allowed to buy a half bottle of spirits from the grocer as well as from the publican, where they can buy it already, and were not forced either to buy a larger quantity at a time than they desire or to go to a public house to get it, surely it cannot seriously be put forward that that would affect the revenue. When the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury opposed this argument last year. and he brought forward his battalion of arguments, he did not mention that the 1551 change might in any way prejudice the revenue. I do not think that is a position which is tenable for one moment.
A second argument that can be brought forward is the question of temperance. It seems to me a very curious suggestion as a temperance argument, that people should be compelled either to buy more spirits than they intended from the off-licence holder or, alternatively, should go to the public-house for what they want. I see the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), for whose opinion and sincerity I have the greatest respect, but, with all respect to him, I am bound to say that the argument of the temperance people always seems to me somewhat to lack logic, and if it is to be put forward as an argument that this will lead to intemperance, it will surprise me very much, though I am bound to say it would not surprise me if the Noble Lady (Viscountess Astor), who is not here, were to bring that argument forward. If driven to its logical conclusion, such an argument would lead the temperance reformers to say that the best way to secure temperance would be to make the minimum quantity that you can buy at one time as high as possible, and if it be wrong to let people buy half a bottle, that the best way would be to say that nobody should buy less at one time than a gallon or hogshead, and that that would lead to temperance. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman is going to adopt that line of argument, but I do not think it can be sustained for one moment in the view of commonsense people.
I come to the argument which was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman last year, and on which, no doubt, he will rely this year, namely, the argument that this Clause would upset the balance of our licensing laws. That is a high-sounding phrase and one which, perhaps, requires rather careful analysis. I take it it means that the balance as between the on-licence and off-licence holders would be unfairly affected, but the Government—not this Government, but all Governments since the War—have already upset that balance. As I have explained, in former days the publican was protected against the sale of 2s. worth of spirits by the grocer, but by 1552 putting on the enormous duties that have been put on spirits in order to raise revenue, during the past few years the Government have already upset that balance. Where as formerly you could not get the 2s. worth, you are not now allowed to get 7s. worth, and whereas formerly the minimum quantity was 4s. worth, it is now 12s. 6d. worth. By that very means all this question of balance between the on- and off-licence holder has already been automatically upset.
In this connection, there is one point to which I would like to draw attention. You often find that our friends from over the border have some advantages, and it will not surprise the Committee to know that in Scotland a man may buy a half-bottle of whisky from a grocer or any off-licence holder. I have no reason to believe that this very ordinary and commonsense privilege has led to any extreme degree of intemperance in that country. In Scotland there are many people who are anxious for temperance reform, but I have never known any of them, even in the most extreme legislative proposals put forward, to bring forward as a temperance proposal, that in Scotland this privilege should be done away with. All we poor dwellers south of the Tweed ask is that we should be granted the same privileges in this matter as exist in Scotland.
I should like to call attention to what occurred in 1924. In that year an identical Clause was brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon), and that was the only time during the past few years on which it was pressed to a Division. The Labour party, officially, opposed it, and they put on their Whips. The proposers of the Clause were not sponsored by the official Opposition Whips, but they put on two private Members. Therefore, it was not incumbent on any Member of the Conservative party to vote for the Clause if they did not desire to do so, and yet practically the whole of the Conservative party voted solidly in the Lobby in favour of it. Seven Members of the present Government voted for it, including, I am bound to say—and I think I may not unfairly say—the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Ten junior Members of the present Government also voted for it, and of the staff 1553 of very able, charming and courteous Whips whom the Conservative party enjoys, no less than eight also voted for it. In addition to that, 93 Conservative Members of the present House, who were in the House at that time, voted for it. That seems to me to show very clearly what was the view of the Conservative party on that occasion, and I must say that a number—not a very large number —of Labour Members on that occasion disregarded the official Whip and voted in the minority. A few of the Liberal party did, too, and I have every reason to believe that had there been a free vote on that occasion the proposal would have been carried by a handsome majority, and it seems clear what is the general feeling of the House on this matter.
I want to emphasise that there is considerable demand from the public for this proposal. I bring it forward, not because I have any particular feeling for the grocer or the wine merchant, and still less any hostility to the publican. I bring it forward in what I believe to be the interests of the public and of the man-in-the-street. I do not see why he should be harassed and fettered by petty restrictions of this kind. I may be told that there is no evidence that the public demand it. It is one of the features of politics at the present time that it is only highly organised bodies which are able to impress upon the politician any strong feeling in favour of or against a Measure. You can always get a show of very strong feeling from a body such as a trade union, a trade association, associations of chambers of commerce, municipal corporations and so on, but surely no one can suggest that anyone would be likely to form an association of members desirous of buying half-bottles? The man-in-the-street, on this subject, just as on other subjects which I have been able to put forward, such as the question of purchasing cigarettes within certain hours and so on, cannot form fresh bodies. He can only express his views in ordinary, every-day conversation, and he does so very forcibly. From some of the letters I have received on this subject, and from conversations I have heard, I am convinced that this is a reform which is desired by a very large number of people.
This is not a party question. Why should it be made a party question? It 1554 is essentially a question of commonsense. I am utterly unable to see why the Government, if they are unable to make this concession, could not at any rate test the feeling of the Committee by giving a free vote. It is essentially a non-party, commonsense question, and until I hear some evidence stronger than has been given in previous Debates, I am bound to say, unrepentingly, I am in favour of pressing this Clause to a Division. I plead for the middle classes and the man-in-the-street who is harassed by taxes and restrictions. I do ask the Government to do something which can do them no harm, and no harm to anyone, especially as it will give some pleasure and satisfaction to the ordinary, common working and lower middle-class man—men going about their business who do not worry much about politics, but who ask to be free from harassing restrictions.
One of the most popular things the Labour party did when they came into office was to allow the taxi-cabs to go through the parks. That was a sensible change, and a concession—not to the very rich class or very poor class, but to large masses of people who were annoyed by what was rather a petty restriction. I do plead with the Government most earnestly and sincerely on this subject, and I ask them to hear the views of many of my hon. Friends and to take the opinion of the Committee by allowing us to have a free vote, and to grant this very minor but, I think, somewhat important reform, which will give satisfaction on a very large scale, which will do no harm, and which will give pleasure to a great many people.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURAs a prohibitionist, I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) that the question whether a bottle of whisky is to be a pint or a quart has no real significance to any man or woman who objects to the provision of intoxicating beverages. During the War a stipulation was made in Scotland under which it was necessary to purchase a larger bottle, and all that happened was that the people arranged among themselves who should purchase the bottle and the whole of them provided the funds. We can agree with the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth when he points out that what he complains of is unquestionably an anomaly, and it is not 1555 confined to any particular class of the community. The real question is whether the provision of the thing itself is right. Of course, that is not what we are going to divide upon, but it is worth while emphasising that point. It is often asserted that the line of argument adopted on temperance platforms in regard to this question is that our object is to make it difficult for a person to get the so-called commodity. That is a gross injustice. The temperance party, having supported the providing of a so-called commodity, there can be no objection raised by them on the score of the size of the bottle, the time it is sold, or the people who provide the bottle if you have once agreed that there shall be this particular provision and that you are going to extract from it a certain amount for the national Exchequer. When you raise that difficulty you are not dealing fairly with the general body of the public for whom this provision is said to have been made.
No one who takes up the ground that the provision of the thing itself is wrong is consistent in advocating any question about the size of the bottle being larger or smaller. Therefore those who are concerned about the continuance of crime, which includes the temperance party, must be subject to the criticism of those who have spoken on previous occasions before this Debate took place. Those who represent the prohibitionist aspect of this question contend that to take revenue from that source is objectionable. The hon. Member who made this Motion asked that it might be left to a free vote of the Committee—I know he is very much concerned about tied houses and free houses—but he does not want to place hon. Members in the difficult position of having to vote against the Government. The predecessor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden) took up the same attitude, and he argued against this proposal upon the basis that it would not in any way operate in favour of temperance. I submit that this proposal has nothing whatever to do with the real moral question, and whatever may be the decision it is a question of the Government selecting the line which they think will operate in favour of the revenue. This proposal does not affect the working classes from the standpoint 1556 of those who are really concerned with the working classes, and you can make the price of the bottle whatever you like.
The people whom the Mover of this new Clause seems to be so anxious about will put out the last piece of furniture in the house to get that bottle, and therefore the business will come in the direction of those about whom my hon. Friend is so much concerned whether it is a free or a tied house. No question of the price enters into this matter at all. It does not matter at what cost because the man who wants the drink says, "Let me have the contents," and he lets everything else go smash. To me it is a very sad spectacle indeed to hear a representative of the Conservative party pleading on behalf of working people to make this provision a pint bottle so as to allow the workers to get that which will satisfy their thirst. The policy advocated seems to be: "Stand by the worker on this occasion; let him have a bottle as frequently as possible, until he is not able to stand at all."
§ Mr. McNEILLMy hon. Friend who moved this new Clause very properly recalled the fact that a great many of us, including myself, voted in favour of a similar proposal on a former occasion. I have no objection to stating how I came to take my present view of this matter. The reason was that I did not know the facts. I doubt whether my hon. Friend who has moved this Clause, and a good many of my hon. Friends, know the facts. When I say I did not know the facts, I must explain what I mean. The difficulty that many Governments have had in dealing with this particular subject is that there is no principle involved. When my hon. Friend put forward the apparent absurdity—and it is easy to make an apparent and superficial absurdity out of the existing law—it is very natural, when those who are very much interested in one way or another, that they should go into the Lobby in support of it, because they have no strong reason against it. The fact which I did not know then, and do know now—and I think a good many of my hon. Friends are in the same position—is simply this—I want to be perfectly frank—that all Governments for a long time past have rejected this proposal on the principle that what we want is a 1557 quiet life, and they know perfectly well that if they gave way to the proposal made now they would find themselves in a very great number of difficulties. Nobody wants to go out of his way to look for difficulties. We want to avoid difficulties if we can.
The first difficulty is to know quite why the proposal is made, My hon. Friend said he came forward with no particular interest one way or the other. He was the champion of the public and, anticipating that people might say, "How did you know there is such a strong public opinion?'' he said, "You cannot have an association or a league formed for the defence of the half-bottle." It is quite true you cannot, but if that be so, I am rather forced back to the question that jumps to my mind: How is my hon. Friend to know there is any public demand if there is no way of assessing it? After all, we have got at the Treasury certain means of knowing the views of people outside, and I can say honestly, to the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no sort of public demand. I do not think anybody cares about it one way or the other.
§ Mr. GROTRIANI have had largely signed petitions.
§ Mr. McNEILLThis question goes back to an Act bearing the picturesque title of the Maraschino Act, and the matter has been troubling different Governments in one way or another ever since. What happens is that those who are interested in this particular proposal naturally write to their representative, and get some of their friends to write to their representatives, and it is quite well known how easy it is to get the appearance of a body of opinion pressed upon the representative of a constituency. But many of us are so accustomed to it that we are becoming a little more inclined to scrutinise these evidences of public opinion, and it is my view that there is little or no evidence of what you can call a sense of grievance or any public demand—I mean by a public demand, public from the point of view of those who, in the economic sense, are consumers. I agree that the off-licence holders, probably all over the country, are keen to get this particular restriction swept away, but that does not amount to what can be called public opinion; and these gentlemen who 1558 hold off-licences, when they put their case forward, always put it on all sorts of grounds. They have all a certain amount of weight, but they are not generally the perfectly obvious, face-value grounds.
I had a deputation before me at the Treasury on this very subject more than a year ago, and there were all sorts of reasons put forward. One specially put forward was that in time of genuine sickness, very often a person was ordered a little brandy, and it was very hard lines if he could not get a small quantity at a grocer's shop, and had to submit to the indignity of going to a public house for it. When I suggested to the deputation that it would be possible to meet their view by making an exception in the case of brandy, that was immediately swept away, and I was told that brandy had no particular medicinal value. My well-meant effort to meet this grievance was swept away, and I did not find then, and I do not find now, that there is any real grievance of which they are entitled to complain in not being able to sell a half bottle.
Let me remind the Committee a little as to how this matter arose. My hon. Friend suggested this reductio ad absurdum—why should you not put the limit at a hogshead? The limit was two gallons up to 1861. A change was made by Mr. Gladstone, and no off-licence holder was entitled to sell less than two gallons. That has been, at various times, altered. If my recollection be right, it was fixed at the present minimum in 1909, or some such date as that. You may say it is very easy to make it look absurd by saying: "Why should you be allowed in one place to buy a quart bottle, or a pint bottle, or half-pint bottle if you like, and in the other place you can only buy two pint bottles?" It is really easy to make it absurd and illogical, but you have got to remember that, first of all, the history of it goes back a long time, and it has had some reason in it; and the reason this particular restriction is placed upon the off-licence holder is that the on-licence holder pays a very much higher duty for his licence to sell at all. The off-licence and the on-licence rest on quite different systems of valuation, and in many cases a man who holds an on-licence has to pay double and sometimes, I think, more than double what his competitor across the street who has a grocer's or off-licence 1559 pays. The man who has an on-licence also has to submit to restrictions with regard to the premises where he sells his liquor and is subject to all sorts of regulations, supervision, and control. The advocates of this change, the champions of the off-licence holders, and the champions of the half bottle, have never suggested that if this little remaining difference of privilege were swept away the off-licence holder should pay the same licence as his rival does. In that case, there would be no reason why there should be any difference in the cost of the licence. Under these circumstances, whatever is the logic or lack of logic—and I grant there is very little logic about it—obviously, if you deprive the on-licence man of a difference, which you may say is of no value but which, at any rate, he values, you cannot retain the present position.
I have had communications not merely from individuals but from associations repesenting this trade and industry, and they have let the Treasury know what their views are on matters of this sort. I know perfectly well that if the Government, moved by the advocacy of my hon. Friend and by what I admit is the absurdity of this difference, were suddenly to sweep away that difference and decide that a half bottle might be sold indiscriminately by off- and on-licence holders, I do assure the House that very great difficulties would arise for all of us. It is not a party question, and in all our constituencies you would have stirred up something which at the present time is in the nature of a sleeping dog. Everyone knows, who knows anything of the licensing question in this country, that there is no more thorny question than the licensing law, and men of all parties, once they begin to operate on the licensing laws will find themselves in all sorts of pitfalls and difficulties and hornets' nests, which they would do much better to avoid.
I am not going to suggest that this Clause should be rejected on the ground of any loss of revenue. I do so from the point of view that I have put quite frankly before the Committee, that we do not want to raise this question unnecessarily. I agree with my hon. Friends that, if there was a serious grievance, or if any great branch of 1560 traders were unjustly suffering because of the existing law, then I would say, "By all means let us take our courage in both hands and remove this anomaly, whatever the difficulties may be." That is really how the matter stands and why, year after year, each Government in turn, after looking into the matter and having sources of information as to public opinion upon it, have said, "Leave it alone." I want to leave it alone. I think we ought to follow the lead of those who have gone before and refuse to make this particular change.
10.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend has made a very strong appeal, and I know that there are Members on both sides of the House who feel that there is a strong case for making a change in this matter. But I am in this dilemma for reasons which I am sure the Committee will appreciate. I have got rather a heavy responsibility upon myself to-day. I am only a subordinate Minister; I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a very powerful Minister, who after the strenuous days he has passed through is not available to me for consultation at this moment. My hon. Friend suggested that I should leave this matter to a free vote of the House. I believe myself if the House realised, as I have tried to make it realise, the real facts of the case, that in a free vote it would support the Government in leaving this matter as it is. At the same time, there is this to be said. I do not think that any Government in dealing with a matter of this sort ought to shirk their responsibility, and having regard to our Parliamentary procedure and traditions, to take off the Government Whips would be shirking the responsibility' in a matter which ought to be shouldered by the Government one way or the other. Therefore, I cannot do that. If my right hon. Friend were here, he might choose to do so, but I cannot do it. But I will do this, if it will help to meet the difficulty of my hon. Friend and other Members. If my hon. Friend will be content to withdraw this Clause now, or allow it formally to be negatived, I will promise to urge upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the whole matter. Up to now he has strongly felt that there was really no case, but I will urge it, and I think I can undertake that he will give reconsideration to this 1561 subject before the Report stage is reached, and, if he finds that it is possible for him to do so, he will then come to a definite decision.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLI would like to say that I am entirely in favour of the removal of the embargo with regard to the sale of half bottles of spirits to the public, but I do think that after the magnanimous manner in which my right hon. Friend has appealed to us we should give him some consideration. I only want him to know that there are a great many Members in the House who are entirely in favour of this new Clause, and I do sincerely trust that it will not only be a question of bringing the matter before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that on the other hand my right hon. Friend will give it careful consideration and bring the matter up again on the Report stage.
§ Dr. WATTSI am exceedingly sorry to take up the time of the Committee at this stage, but I have strong feelings on this matter. I am not concerned with the on or the off-licence; I am only concerned with the comfort of the people. An hon. Member who spoke earlier in the Debate referred to the value of whisky or brandy in the treatment of disease. When I was in active practice some years ago, I met with numerous instances of the difficulties which are entailed by the operation of the law which this Clause seeks to remove. I have seen in my practice in days gone by scores of people, as in the great influenza epidemic, whose lives were entirely saved by the free administration of whisky or brandy. I am speaking from experience. I have known poor people who, in times of stress and illness, have had reason to get a small quantity of spirits, but they have had to go to off-licence premises and pay for a whole bottle. When the crisis was over, they have been left with a large quantity of whisky, and, in their natural satisfaction, they have consumed the whisky, I am sorry to say in some cases with bad consequences.
§ Colonel GRETTONI have no interest in this business, and I can speak from the point of view of the public. I do not believe that there is any real opposition in the on-licence trade to this change. The general body of opinion in the on-licence trade, according to my 1562 experience, is that the public convenience ought to be met. In this case I am convinced that there is a real public grievance. The case for the half-bottle of brandy, I think, is quite unanswerable. The case for the half-bottle of whisky may be more difficult, but I suggest to my hon. Friend who has raised the matter that, if this question can be raised again on the Report stage, he will be well advised to withdraw his new Clause and raise it again on the Report stage.
§ Sir F. MEYERI feel that I must make my position clear before I state what I am prepared to do. I put this Amendment down some weeks ago, and, at the time I did so, I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would see a small deputation of Conservative Members who wished to explain their views to him. He refused to see us; he said it did not concern him, but that we could see the Financial Secretary. I then approached the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, and he very courteously said that he would see me and my fellow Members, but that I must understand that he had no power to accept an Amendment, and that the Government were determined not to accept an Amendment. After that, I failed to see how any further approach to the Government could be of any avail, and, therefore, I think I was justified in bringing the question up at this stage. Now that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary has promised that if I withdraw this Clause he is prepared to give it further consideration between now and the Report stage, I shall be perfectly satisfied to do so, because I think that between now and then the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find the time, which he could not find before, to think the matter over. But I desire, not being well versed in Parliamentary procedure, to know how the position of this Clause can be safeguarded. If I merely put down the Clause again on the Report stage, can I have any guarantee that Mr. Speaker will call it? Therefore, I should desire that those who are more versed than I am in the procedure of the House should assure me that there is some way in which I can be certain of obtaining a discussion on the subject before I formally withdraw the Clause.
§ Mr. McNEILLSo far as the last point raised by the hon. Gentleman is concerned, of course I cannot give him any assurance as to what action Mr. Speaker may take. That is quite outside my power. I can only say that Mr. Speaker, knowing as he will know what has happened, would not deny to my hon. Friend the opportunity, under these circumstances, of bringing forward his proposal again. The only further thing I can say to assure my hon. Friend in regard to my own undertaking is, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will communicate with him before the Bill reaches the Report stage and tell him what his decision is. Therefore, there will be plenty of time for him
§ to put down his new Clause again, either in its present form or in an amended form.
§ Sir F. MEYERIn view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I propose to withdraw the Clause, on the understanding that the Government will not put any difficulties in the way of this question being discussed, again on the Report stage.
§ The CHAIRMANHas the hon. Member the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 170.
1565| Division No. 249.] | AYES. | [10.15 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hayday, Arthur | Potts, John S. |
| Baker, Walter | Hayes, John Henry | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Barnes, A. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Rose, Frank H. |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hirst, G. H. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Broad, F. A. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Scurr, John |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Sexton, James |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Cluse, W. S. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Compton, Joseph | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Connolly, M. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Cove, W. G. | Kelly, W. T | Sutton, J. E. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Kennedy, T. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lawson, John James | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Dennison, R. | Lee, F. | Watts-Morgan, Li.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Duncan, C. | Lindley, F. W. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Edge, Sir William | Lowth, T. | Whiteley, W. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lunn, William | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Gosling, Harry | Maxton, James | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Mosley, Oswald | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Murnin, H. | Windsor, Walter |
| Groves, T. | Naylor, T. E. | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Palin, John Henry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normaton) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Buchanan |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) |
| Albery, Irving James | Buchan, John | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Burman, J. B. | Cunliffe, Sir Herbert |
| Ammon, Charles George | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Curzon, Captain Viscount |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Dalton, Hugh |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Campbell, E. T. | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Atkinson. C. | Carver, Major W. H. | Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert |
| Balniel, Lord | Cassels, J. D. | Ellis, R. G. |
| Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Elvedon, Viscount |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | England, Colonel A. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) |
| Bennett, A. J. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) |
| Blundell F. N. | Chapman, Sir S. | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Fielden, E. B. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Christie, J. A. | Finburgh, S. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Clayton, G. C. | Foster, Sir Harry S. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fraser, Captain Ian |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Gadie, Lieut,-Col. Anthony |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Cooper, A. Duff | Galbraith, J. F. W. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Couper, J. B. | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. |
| Gates, Percy | Looker, Herbert William | Savery, S. S. |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Lumley, L. R. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Gillett, George M. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Goff, Sir Park | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Malone, Major P. B. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.) |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Meller, R. J. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Merriman, F. B. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Harland, A. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury, | Viant, S. P. |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Wells, S. R. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Penny, Frederick George | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Perring, Sir William George | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Price, Major C. W. M. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Hume-Williams, Sir W. Eills | Ramsden, E. | Withers, John James |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Womersley, W. J. |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Remer, J. R. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Rye, F. G. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Laurence, Susan | Salmon, Major I. | Major Cope and Captain Margesson. |
| Livingstone, A. M. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
Question put, and agreed to.