HC Deb 18 July 1927 vol 209 cc109-21

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.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House will recollect that during the Committee stage this new Clause was moved and that I endeavoured to withdraw it on the assurance of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that in the meantime the subject of the Clause would be reconsidered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and possibly that a different view might be taken. I was not permitted to withdraw the Clause, and I should like, very briefly, to deal with the arguments which were advanced against it on that occasion. I do not want to go over the whole ground which I then stated in its favour, because I believe the House is fully aware of this. I think that the short Debate we had then at least had certain advantages. We now know definitely, as far as the Government are concerned, that two of the arguments advanced on previous occasions against this Clause have been dropped. The right hon. Gentleman did not in any way advance the argument that this might affect the revenue, nor was the temperance argument advanced from the Government side. Therefore, I maintain that from now onwards those two arguments have been dropped as far as the Government are concerned.

Dealing briefly with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, the main argument used was that this change would create a great deal of trouble, and in the course of his speech he said: All Governments for a long time past have rejected this proposal on the principle that what we want is a quiet life. …. We want to avoid difficulties if we can."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1927; col. 1562, Vol. 208.] It seems to me a very extraordinary argument to put forward, in opposing any proposal in this House, to say that the Government want a quiet life. I must say if it has been one of the main objects of the present Government to live a quiet life and to avoid trouble, they have been singularly unsuccessful. That may not have been their fault, but if it has been one of their main objects of policy, I cannot, on that score, congratulate them. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was no public demand for this change. It is a very difficult thing to prove, and his argument that there was no public demand has been reinforced by a circular sent round on behalf of the licensed victuallers, who also said there was no public demand. That argument comes very strangely from them for this reason. Not very long ago the licensed victuallers had reason to give evidence before a Committee of which I was a member—the Shops Act Committee—on the question whether they should be entitled to sell cigarettes and tobacco after eight o'clock. It was put to them by certain members who cross-examined them that there was no public demand for this change for which they were asking. They said, "Oh, yes, there is a public demand. We know it, for it comes through us. If the public want this, they do not write to the Government but they come to us and ask us for it, and that is where the public demand comes from." Yet, it is these same gentlemen who said that there was a public demand at that time, who deny that their confreres, the off-licence holders, are as good witnesses as they were and say there is no public demand through them for this change.

I say now, as on the last occasion, that it is very difficult to prove a public demand of this kind. You cannot get bodies of associations formed for the purpose of permitting the purchase of half-bottles, but it is quite evident that the off-licence holders would never have asked for this change unless there was a public demand. It is surely much more to the interest of the off-licence holder to sell a whole bottle and to say to a prospective purchaser, "I can only sell a whole bottle," unless there is such a demand for half-bottles that in refusing it he would lose customers and turn away trade. The very fact that it is during the last few years, since the increase in the price of spirits, that this demand has sprung up, which never existed before the War, is a convincing argument that there is a public demand. Quite apart from that, many indications in the form of letters I have received and personal interviews I have had, convince me that such a demand exists.

In the course of his speech the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made what is, undoubtedly, the strongest point which can be made against this change, and that is the very sharp difference in the scale of duties imposed on the on-licence holder and the off-licence holder. In doing so he rather over-stated the case, for he said: The reason this particular restriction is placed upon the off-licence holder is that the off-licence holder pays a very much higher duty "— —he should have said the on-licence holder— for his licence to sell at all. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1927; cols. 1564–5, Vol. 208.] That is begging the question, because everybody knows that the real reason for the distinction and differentiation in the licences is because one has the right to sell quantities, however small, from open vessels on the premises and the other may only sell inclosed vessels and bottles for consumption off the premises. That is the reason for the differentiation and the restriction as to the minimum quantity which may be sold by the off-licence holder is only a very minor point. It is because it is a minor point and an unwarrantable restriction on the public, and because it will do no harm to the public if the change be made, that I am moving this Clause.

There was one advantage which accrued to the supporters of the Clause which came from the Debate we had the other day. When this subject was raised in 1924, the Labour party voted against it. Therefore, it could be said that even if there were a very large body in favour of it on the Conservative side, it was a party question and not supported by the Opposition. Inasmuch as it was the Opposition who refused to allow me to withdraw my Amendment the other day, and 80 of them—the majority of those in the House at the moment—voted in favour of it, we can now say that far the more substantial portion, and indeed the majority of the parties, are in favour of this change. I do genuinely believe that to be the sentiment of the House if it were given a free vote.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his representatives have stated that there is no necessity to stir up a hornet's nest on this matter. The Chancellor is a man of great courage, as we all admit, and it seems to me to come strangely from him that on this small matter he should be afraid to stir up a little opposition among the very praiseworthy class of on- licence holders, when he has had the courage to stir up a great deal more trouble among such even more important classes as the racing and sporting communities and those large sections of the business world who have been very troubled by his action in regard to Clauses 29 and 31, or as they now are, Clauses 31 and 33 of the Finance Bill. I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should burke this fence when he has taken so many fences far stiffer and more difficult. I hope that when he comes to reply he will indicate some better reasons than those which in the past have been vouchsafed to the House for refusing to accept this minor but none the less important new Clause, which affects the comfort and wishes of a large section of the community.


I beg to second the Motion.

My name does not appear on the Paper in connection with this new Clause, but I second the Motion, because I think it ought to be seconded, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to go some way to meet, it. It is said that one class of traders is in favour of it and that another class of traders is opposed to it. From my own experience I do not feel that either class of trader concerned is particularly anxious about it from its particular point of view, but I do feel that there is a wider public point of view which is apt to be lost sight of when we talk about the controversy in the branches of the trade concerned; and it is solely on that ground that I think the proposal merits the consideration of the House. Why is it that the ordinary householder who desires to keep on hand, it may be brandy or whisky, in small quantities for quite occasional use, should be compelled to buy a full bottle and be debarred from buying a half bottle unless he buys two. When it is urged that the granting of this concession might detract from the business of the ordinary on-licence holder, I ask the House to consider, does the selling of one bottle of beer by this off-licence holder prejudice the business of the on-licence holder? Can it be shown that the on-licence holder's trade, over the country as a whole, has suffered in the past or in recent years because the consumer of beer can go and buy one pint bottle from an off-licence holder?

The thing is ridiculous. Does the possibility of buying a half bottle of port or of any kind of wine from an off-licence holder prejudice the sale of the same thing in the on-licence premises? Of course it does not. People do not go into the on-licence holder's house merely because they can get these smaller quantities. I do not for one moment believe that the granting of this concession in regard to spirits would have the slightest ultimate result on the ordinary business of on-licence premises. Certain it is that I have never heard any form of opinion expressed, even from that quarter, against this proposal, which has been brought up time after time, at election times and annually on the Finance Bill. Therefore, I think the time has arrived when we should consider this question on its merits, when the convenience of the greater public which is the general public at large, should be considered, and when we should realise that it is utterly unreasonable that the ordinary householder who desires to keep an emergency supply of brandy or whisky should be compelled to buy twice the quantity which he need keep for such a purpose. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to meet us in this proposal, if not in the form proposed, at least in a way which will give the general public some relaxation of the present irksome and unnecessary restriction.


I regret that I was not present on the Committee stage when this matter was discussed, but I understand that my hon. Friend who moved this new Clause and my hon. Friend who seconded it, have renewed, with suitable variations, the cogent arguments which they then employed. I am afraid it will not be possible for me to produce any novelty of argument in justifying the position which the Government feel bound to take up upon this question. The arguments which my hon. Friend the Member for the Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall) has used about the householder, who for medicinal or other purposes wishes to keep a small quantity of brandy in his home and is forced to buy a whole bottle, whereas he might conveniently buy only half of this quantity, would equally justify a demand for a quarter bottle. Why should the householder be compelled to have a full half bottle of this commodity in his house when a quarter bottle would probably serve the purposes of a serious emergency of a nature to threaten health? If it comes to that, I say that all the more would you affect the position of the on-licence holder. After all, the on-licence holder may be a very unpopular figure and is the subject of denunciation in many quarters, but he is subject to the strictest legislation and regulation in every way. He pays a very heavy licence duty, and that duty has remained constant, although the hours of sale have been greatly reduced and the consumption of alcoholic liquors is steadily declining, and although restrictions and Regulations of every kind have been attached to the licence.

Whatever may be the faults of the on-licence holder, he at any rate plays his part in a system which now is interdependent and inter-related, and I think it would be extremely unfair and unjust if we were to pick out one particular item which happens to command a certain amount of support and to alter our system of licensing the sale of alcoholic liquors in such a way as to favour one particular section to the corresponding detriment of the other kind of licence holders. What is the use of saying that the on-licence holder will not suffer by this change? He believes most strongly that he will suffer. I have been at pains to inquire as to the view which is taken in these quarters, and I certainly understand that they would regard it as extremely detrimental to their interests. I am not prepared to open up the question of the licence duties piecemeal. I am sure it would be extremely detrimental to our discussions if we were to attempt to do so. The day may come when the licence duties can be overhauled and examined. There is no doubt that in some respects they are extremely heavy, having regard to the changes which have taken place in the habits of the people and in the hours of sale and other restrictions which are now enforced.

If it were possible at any time to examine the question of the licence duties from the point of view of making some mitigation, then would be the moment when the corresponding advantage to the off-licence holder might be given—the privilege of selling a half bottle. The two matters might well stand together and be treated together. At any rate they can only be treated together and be dealt with in conjunction with a general review of the burden of these licence duties. In the meantime, I am not in a position to do either. I am not able this year to reduce the duties of the on-licence holder, nor am I able to agree to a change which I am sure would be felt to be an aggravation of the burdens that the on-licence holder bears. We have not the funds at our disposal to make the remission, and, in the absence of ability to do that, I say that it would he altogether inequitable to make the change now proposed. I very much regret that I am not able to go further to meet my hon. Friends. I am only adhering to the position which Government after Government in the last four or five years has consistently maintained to those who advocated this concession. Some have done it for one reason and some for another, but the main reason on which we base ourselves to-night, and the reason which has been the underlying structure of the arguments of all Governments since the War, is that you should not in a partial or piecemeal way affect the general equilibrium of the licence duties.


The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this concession has been refused many times before and that he does not wish to go into the matter piecemeal. Surely the reason why this concession is demanded now is that the price of a bottle of whisky used to be 4s. 6d. or 5s. and now it is vastly more. This change is desirable in the interests of the general public. Suppose that a woman is suddenly faced, as practically every household in the country is faced from time to time, with the necessity of having some stimulant in the home. Suppose that she has not the 12s. 6d. or 15s. to buy a full bottle of spirits, and that in a sudden emergency she wants to buy a smaller quantity. That is the reason why this new Clause is desirable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, why should we not ask for the concession to go further and to apply to a quarter bottle of brandy? Quarter bottles might be used for the very reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks they may be used, for the purpose of people who want to drink. It is absurd to suggest that these half bottles would be used by people who want to buy whisky or brandy for intemperance or drinking. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer even now to grant something which is desired by the public in the general interest.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that there is no diminution of revenue involved, and as it seems that many Members support this contention when they are in opposition but not when they are supporting the Government of the day, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer allow this Motion to go to a free vote of the House, so that each Member can deal with the trade interests of his constituency in such manner as he likes. The public are the ones who are interested and I think that if the question were left to the free vote of the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be relieved of the responsibility which he is at present assuming not only for himself but for all of his supporters.


I can speak again only by the indulgence of the House. Such a proposal in many ways seems attractive as meeting the individual point of view of Members who represent constituencies where this or that opinion may be predominant on the subject. As my hon. Friend justly says, the Exchequer would be no serious loser as the result of such a vote, but I must remind the House that we consider it would be inequitable in the present state of the licence duties to touch one part without reconsidering the whole. I should like to be in a position to reconsider the whole matter and make some mitigation. If I were in such a position then I think the time for this concession would have arrived. It has not arrived now and, in the interval, having said that we should consider this proposal to be inequitable, it is ob

viously not possible for the Government to take a course which, on every other ground, I should be delighted to commend to the House.


I wish to add a few words in support of the Clause. I have listened with careful attention to the arguments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has placed before the House and I cannot see that they have any real weight. I am not going to pretend that this subject is of vital importance to the nation but I think the small portion of the community who are affected deserve our consideration. I hope my hon. Friend the Mover of the Motion will press this matter in order that those who consider that this point, although a small one, involves questions of freedom, of liberty and of common sense may have a chance of expressing those opinions in the Division Lobby.


The right hon. Gentleman in his reply has dealt with the proposed new Clause on lines which the quite foreign to the motives in the minds of some Members of the House. It would be very unfortunate if a question of this sort were to degenerate into a battle between two separate interests fought out on the Floor of the House with the Chancellor taking one side against the other. The right hon. Gentleman has thrown out hints that the Government may at some future date deal with the whole question of licence duties and he has suggested that this question might be considered then among other matters. Perhaps one of his colleagues in the Government will take an opportunity of telling us before we divide, whether the Government actually do contemplate any such consideration and readjustment of these matters during the lifetime of the present Parliament.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 223.

Division No. 268.] AYES. [7.33 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Bondfield, Margaret Cave, W. G.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Crawford, H. E.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Broad, F. A. Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Attlee, Clement Richard Bromley, J. Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Day, Colonel Harry
Baker, Walter Cape, Thomas Dennison, R.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Cluse, W. S. Duncan, C.
Barnes, A. Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Dunnico, H.
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Connolly, M. Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Mackinder, W. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Gardner, J. P. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Sitch, Charles H.
Greenail, T. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Smillie, Robert
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Montague, Frederick Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Grotrian, H. Brent Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Stamford, T. W.
Grundy, T. W. Mosley, Oswald Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Murnin, H. Sullivan, J.
Harris, Percy A. Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Sutton, J. E.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Naylor, T. E. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Oliver, George Harold Thurtle, Ernest
Hirst, G. H. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wallhead, Richard C.
Hore-Beilsha, Leslie Ponsonby, Arthur Whiteley, W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Potts, John S. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
John, William (Rhondda, West) Purcell, A. A. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Kennedy, T. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Womersley, W. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred Ritson, J.
Lowth, T. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lunn, William Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Sir F. Meyer and Major Courtauld.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Elliot, Major Walter E. Looker, Herbert William
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Ellis, R. G. Lougher, Lewis
Albery, Irving James Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Lumley, L. R.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Allen, Lieut. -Col, Sir William James Fairfax, Captain J. G. MacIntyre, Ian
Ammon, Charles George Falle, Sir Bertram G. McLean, Major A.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Fermoy, Lord Macmillan, Captain H.
Atholl, Duchess of Fielden, E. B. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Balniel, Lord Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Macquisten, F. A.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Foster, Sir Harry S. MacRobert, Alexander M.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Fraser, Captain Ian Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Malone, Major P. B.
Bennett, A. J. Galbraith, J. F. W. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Betterton, Henry B. Gates, Percy Margesson, Captain D.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Boothby, R. J. G. Gillett, George M. Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Brass, Captain W. Goff, Sir Park Merriman, F. B.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Grace, John Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Briant, Frank Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Briggs, J. Harold Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Moreing, Captain A. H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Greene, W. P. Crawford Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Buchan, John Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Buckingham, Sir H. Groves, T. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) Nuttall, Ellis
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Oakley, T.
Campbell, E. T. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. O'Connor. T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Carver, Major W. H. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Cassels, J. D. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hanbury, C. Penny, Frederick George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Harland, A. Perring, Sir William George
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Harrison, G. J. C. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hartington, Marquess of Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Pilcher, G.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hawke, John Anthony Pilditch, Sir Philip
Clarry, Reginald George Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Price, Major C. W. M.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Radford, E. A.
Compton, Joseph Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Raine, Sir Walter
Cooper, A. Duff Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Cope, Major William Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Remer, J. R.
Couper, J. B. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Remnant, Sir James
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ropner, Major L.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Hunter-Weston, Lt. -Gen. Sir Aylmer Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Huntingfield, Lord Rye, F. G.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hurd, Percy A. Salmon, Major I.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hurst, Gerald B. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Sandeman, N. Stewart
Curzon, Captain Viscount Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Dalkeith, Earl of Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Dalton, Hugh King, Commodore Henry Douglas Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Lansbury, George Skelton, A. N.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Lawrence, Susan Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Lee, F. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Dawson, Sir Philip Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Dixey, A. C. Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Drewe, C. Loder, J. de V. Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Edmondson, Major A. J. Long, Major Eric Sprot, Sir Alexander
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. Varley, Frank B. Winby, Colonel L. P.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Viant, S. P. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Steel, Major Samuel Strang Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) Wise, Sir Fredric
Storry-Deans, R. Warrender, Sir Victor Withers, John James
Strauss, E. A. Waterhouse, Captain Charles Wolmer, Viscount
Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Wells, S. R. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)
Tasker, R. Inigo. Westwood, J. Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Templeton, W. P. Wiggins, William Martin Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) Bowyer.