HL Deb 11 May 1927 vol 67 cc209-24

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.


My Lords, in view of the late hour at which the debate on this Bill begins, I will be as brief as possible in moving the Second Reading. It is perhaps not necessary to remind the House at the outset that it is a purely Welsh Bill, and it is, I submit, an expression of the views and convictions of the majority of the people of Wales upon the temperance question. It is long since a Welsh Temperance Bill came before this House. It was in 1881, more than forty years ago, that the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill was passed through all its stages in this House. That measure has resulted in undoubted benefit to the life of Wales. The claim of Wales for special legislation was further recognised in the sphere of education in the passing of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889. This Bill raises two questions. It is the expression of the dominant views of Wales in regard to licensing legislation but it is also something more than that. This Bill really raises the issue of the right of Wales to secure legislation upon a question of vital importance to the welfare of the people as to which there is unmistakable evidence of popular support. Let me very briefly set before the House the main provisions of the Bill, and after that I hope I may be able to show by a few facts something of the strength of the support which this Bill has from Wales itself.

The Bill deals with two points. It confers in the first place upon the electors in prescribed areas control over the grant and renewal of licences, and it amends the law relating to clubs. There is no need for me to endeavour either to explain or to justify the necessity of dealing with these two questions of licences and of clubs together. It is quite obvious that a reduction in the number of licences cannot be effective so long as drinking facilities in clubs continue unrestrained. I think this is common ground. It was admitted by the Home Secretary himself to a deputation which waited upon him in November, 1925, upon the question of clubs. Speaking of the reduction of licences under the compensa- tion provisions of the Licensing Act, 1904, he said:— I entirely agree we have to see that the reduction is not minimised or the proportion altogether reduced by the springing up of another method which enables the same quantity of drink to be consumed. This, therefore, is, I think, a point on which we can, claim fairly general agreement—namely, that no measure of licensing reform which is designed to secure a reduction in liquor licences can be effective unless accompanied by adequate regulation of the consumption of drink in clubs.

The local option clauses in the Bill follows in the main the lines of the Scottish Temperance Act. I will give one or two figures as to the rate of reduction of licences in Wales and Monmouthshire under the Licensing Act, 1904. What I want to show the House from the standpoint of Wales and Monmouthshire is that the present position in regard to the reduction brought about by the operation of the Licensing Act of 1904 cannot be regarded as satisfactory. Let me take as an illustration the position in regard to the on-licences in Wales and Monmouthshire. On January 1, 1905, there were 7,276 of these on-licences in Wales and Monmouthshire. On January 1, 1925, there were 5,780. That means that in a period of twenty years there has been a reduction in Wales and Monmouthshire of 1,496 licences, not all of them, as a matter of fact, owing to the compensation provisions of the Act. Only 1,168 were due to the compensation provisions of the Act, the others being lapses and refusals without compensation.

May I take one further illustration afforded by the last six years—1920–1925? The number of licences reduced under the licensing Act, 1904, during those six years was 256, an average of forty-three licences per annum. I have made a calculation that at this rate it would take something like twenty-seven years to secure that reduction in the number of on-licences in Wales and Monmouthshire which would bring them down to the scale recommended by Lord Peel's Report—namely, one to every 750 inhabitants in urban areas and one to every 400 inhabitants in the rural areas. It is not surprising, in view of these facts, that temperance reformers in Wales are not satisfied with the existing situation and that they should continue to press for special legislation and for the larger powers contained in such a Bill as this.

I will be as brief as I can in describing the local option provisions of the Bill. As I have stated, they follow the lines laid down in the Scottish Act and provide first of all a time limit of seven years, and then for a triennial poll, the voting areas to be the licensing districts and the voters to be the local government electors. Three options are to be placed before the electors at the poll—namely, no-change, limitation and no-licence. In the event of a limiting resolution being passed the licensing justices are to prepare a scheme determining in what way a reduction of a minimum of twenty-five per cent. in the number of existing licences is to be achieved. The Minister of Health is to make rules as to the conduct of the poll and other incidental matters.

There is only one further point in connection with the local option clauses of the Bill to which I should like to draw the attention of the House and that is that under Clause 19 of this Bill licence holders in Wales and Monmouth are to be exempted from the payment of the compensation levy during the seven years period. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to arrive exactly at the proceeds of the compensation levy, but as far as I can calculate it that sum in relation to Wales and Monmouth would be something like £90,000 per annum. Therefore, at the end of the time limit of seven years there would be, with interest, a sum of something like £650,000. There would be a credit available for the purpose of meeting the financial consequences of the Bill. I know very well that it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to arrive at any agreement with regard to such a financial provision, but I think it fair to the framers of the Bill that that point should be made clear as an indication of their view that such a provision should be made in that way.

I should like to deal briefly with the club clauses of the Bill. I think this is a question upon which in principle there is a great deal of agreement. There is no difference of opinion, I think, as to the important part played by clubs to-day in our social life. They are most valuable institutions as centres of recreation and comfort. The sole point with which we are concerned here is the consumption of intoxicating liquor within their walls. It is evident to all who have studied this question that the rapid growth of clubs, both in numbers and in membership, renders it necessary so to amend the law as to secure the effective regulation of the consumption of intoxicating liquor upon club premises. The situation in regard to clubs in Wales is, briefly, that in January, 1905, there were in Wales and Monmouth 234 clubs. There were in 1925 550 clubs, an increase of 316 in twenty years. It is not very easy to get precise figures with regard to the membership of the clubs, but there are as a matter of fact in Wales and Monmouth to-day 125 clubs affiliated to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. The number of members of those clubs is 37,300. I estimate that the total membership of clubs in Wales and Monmouth would be something like this:—members of clubs in the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth, 121,000; members of clubs in the rest of Wales, 30,000; making a total of 150,000 members.

The club provisions of this Bill provide that the supply of intoxicating liquor in clubs in Wales and Monmouth should be subject to the grant of a licensing justices' certificate. The Bill provides for a difference in procedure between existing clubs and new clubs. As to existing clubs, the Bill provides that the same procedure should be followed as at present, but as to new clubs the procedure would be practically the same as in the case of an application for a new licence. The Bill also provides that the hours for the consumption of intoxicating liquor in clubs should be the same as upon licensed premises in the same district. In passing let me point out the special urgency that exists in Wales for similarity of hours for drinking purposes in clubs and upon licensed premises. As things are now, public houses in Wales are closed on Sundays but clubs are not closed. Your Lordships will understand that that is a point of special seriousness from the standpoint of those for whom I speak to-day. Under the Bill clubs will come under the operation of the local option clauses.

Before I sit down I should like, if I may, to put very briefly before the House some of the main facts in connection with the history of this Bill, in order to show, if I can, how strong and how continuous support of the measure has been over a period of at least forty years. In 1883, more than forty years ago, a local option resolution was passed in the other House. In 1891 Wales indicated its support of the local option principle in a very remarkable way. It indicated it by resolutions passed by local bodies and, more than that, by a resolution passed by all the county councils in Wales in favour of the local option principle. After that had been done a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in 1891. It passed by a small majority, and I would like your Lordships to note the fact that twenty-two Welsh members voted for that Bill and not a single Welsh member voted against it. In 1893 the Bill was again introduced in the other House and it passed its Second Reading by a majority of thirty-five. Twenty-eight Welsh members voted for it and one against. If I may be allowed a personal reminiscence, I remember that occasion somewhat vividly because it was the first occasion upon which I ventured to address the other House, and I voted for the Bill in that year. The Bill was introduced then year by year until the War, but those interested in the measure were not successful in obtaining time for its discussion.

There are two additional evidences of the recognition of the strength of the Welsh case for special licensing legislation that I should like to mention. The first is the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing, 1899, presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, which recommended that at the end of a given period, say of seven years, a wide measure of popular control might be applied with a proper safeguard to Scotland and to Wales. Scotland has received those powers, Wales has not. The second evidence is the fact that, in the Licensing Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, then Mr. Asquith, as Prime Minister in the House of Commons in 1908, there were special clauses giving to Wales and Monmouth-shire a very considerable measure of popular control in regard to licensing.

Let me add one or two words as to the recent history of the Bill that we are debating to-day. In 1920 a favourable place was obtained in the ballot in another place and the Bill passed its Second Reading by a small majority, 24 Welsh members voting for it and 4 against. The last time that this Bill was discussed in the House of Commons was three years ago, in 1924, under the Labour Government. On that occasion the Second Reading was defeated by 26 votes, but there was no substantial alteration in the majority of Welsh members voting for it, for 22 were in favour of the Bill and only 6 were opposed to it. I think I may claim that these facts show something of the strength of the feeling that lies behind the Bill. They show that for a period of forty years and more a measure of local option for Wales has had the support of Welsh public opinion, which has been exhibited in a manner and to an extent that I venture to call remarkable in the history of temperance reform.

My second point is of cardinal importance. It is that the Bill has been supported, on every occasion on which it has been debated in the other House, by the overwhelming majority of the Parliamentary representatives of Wales, who have supported it whenever an opportunity occurred to consider the question. I think it would be difficult to find a clearer case of decisive and continuous support of a measure on the part of those directly interested. I do not want to put this point too high, but I would ask Your Lordships to consider what would have been the effect of such a Bill as this if it had received such support from English constituencies. It is not perhaps altogether surprising that, in view of the experience of Wales in regard to this Bill, there is growing up to-day in certain quarters in Wales a demand for such a change in our legislative machinery as will enable such a measure as this to obtain legislative recognition by Parliament.

I have said all that I have to say as to the grounds upon which I submit this Bill to the House. I have endeavoured to state the case for the Bill as clearly and fairly as I can. I am fully aware that the views of those who support this Bill in Wales in regard to local option are not the views that are held by the majority of your Lordships, but I would venture in conclusion to press the point that the claim of Wales for separate treatment in licensing is one of exceptional strength and is one which, I think, it is entitled to have considered by Parliament. It is on the ground of the exceptional strength of the support for this measure in Wales and Monmouthshire that I submit the Bill to the judgment of the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clwyd.)


, who had given Notice to move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down commenced his speech by saying that he would be very brief owing to the hour. I also will be very brief, and I hope that I shall not take up more than four or five minutes of your time. The noble Lord did not on this occasion bring forward any examples from foreign countries who had taken action in this particular way. On former occasions we were always told that all foreign countries and our own Colonies were doing something of this sort. I was rather surprised that nothing of that kind was said to-day, but on looking at some papers that were sent to me this morning I found the reason. It is that in practically all foreign countries and in our Colonies they are reversing the very principle that the noble Lord wishes to enforce.

The noble Lord says that this Bill is practically the same as the Scottish measure. I would point out to your Lordships that Wales is not Scotland—that Wales is, in fact, in a very different positron regarding licensing, from that of Scotland. I am not going to influence you by expressing my own opinion, but I will quote Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, a Liberal and a member of the Government in 1920, when he spoke in the House of Commons on a similar Bill. He said:— There is a difference between the position-of Wales and the position of Scotland, and it is this: The Licensing Act of 1904, which establishes property in a licence, does not apply to Scotland, but it does apply to Wales. … After all, facts are facts, and we must accept them. This Act of 1904 was applied to Wales, and on the strength of that Act licenses have been bought and sold properties have changed hands and a fabric of legitimate expectations has been built up. Therefore, to come down to the House now and to propose, as this Bill does, that licenses should be extinguished without any compensation at all after an interval of six years would be to inflict a manifest injustice. The noble Lord says that the opinion of Wales is in favour of this Bill. I will quote the opinion of a Welshman whom, I am sure, the noble Lord will respect.

Mr. Lloyd George, answering a deputation of Welsh Calvinistic Methodists on October 22, 1920, said:— Rightly or wrongly, a property has been conferred in England and Wales with respect to licences. You cannot go behind that, because if you do you may depend upon it, especially in the present atmosphere, there are people who will quote that as a precedent for other property. You may say that property ought not to have been conferred. There are people who will say the same thing about all sorts of property, and therefore it is a very dangerous atmosphere in which to challenge legal property. Again, speaking at Walsall on October 20, 1924, Mr. Lloyd George said this:— We do not believe in confiscation. If you commence confiscation, you do not know where the end will be. You will convert this country into another Russia, and one Russia is quite enough in this world. I do not often agree with the right hon. gentleman, but on that occasion I think he spoke extremely well and told the truth.

Now let me point out the difference, and a very important difference, between this Bill and the Scottish Act. The Scottish Act says that a poll can only be demanded if there is a requisition of ten per cent. of the electors in the district. This Bill says:— Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Part of the Act the local authority shall cause a poll …. to be taken.… The people of the district may not want it, but there is perhaps a busybody on the local body who is a temperance man, who may not care to drink anything but water and who may not think anybody else ought to drink anything but water, and who therefore may ask for a poll. Although the electors do not want a poll, a poll has got to be taken, and the expense incurred.

Let me point out what may happen. I was going to say something about the areas, but as it is getting so late I will not do so. Three questions are to be put to the electors. In the first place they can vote for a no-change resolution; or (2), a limiting resolution; or (3), a no-licence resolution. We will suppose there is a poll. We will suppose that something like 2,000 people vote. A thousand people vote for no-change; 700 people vote for limitation; 301 people vote for no-licence. One would have thought that as 1,000 people voted for no change and only 700 for limiting and 301 for no-licence, the 1,000 people would win. Not at all. The noble Lord knows a trick worth two of that. He takes the 301, adds them to the 700, and says there is a majority of one in favour of limitation. As a reactionary Tory that seems to me to be an extraordinary kind of local option.

The Scottish Act says there must be, I think, a vote of 35 per cent. of the electorate. The decision in Scotland does not go merely by a majority of one. I would also point out that there is no authority on the part of the 301 people who vote for no-licence that their votes should be tacked on to the 700 voting for limitation. Apparently, because they do not believe in allowing people to drink liquor containing alcohol at all, they are to be added to those who think that you may drink liquor containing alcohol but in a smaller number of places. Then there is to be a poll taken every third year. People are never to be left alone. Everybody is to be interfered with and I suppose when the people of Wales have been told by certain people who hold one opinion what they may drink, and by others how much they may drink, they will next be told that ladies should have their skirts a little longer. If the noble Lord does that I am not sure that I will not go with him.

I will leave out the other clauses, which are extremely bad, and I will come to the last part of the Bill, which is not local option at all but which says there are only to be certain clubs, which have to be registered and can only supply liquor in certain circumstances. In fact, it is an alteration of the licensing law. Other parts of the Bill alter the powers of the justices, and therefore this Bill is really two Bills. One part deals with local option and the other with alterations in the licensing law. I venture to say that an alteration in the licensing law ought not to be allowed, in conflict with the powers given under the Act of 1904, under which people have invested their money. I am afraid I have spoken badly, but my excuse must be that I have endeavoured, owing to the lateness of the hour, to condense within a speech of four or five minutes what should have taken a quarter of an hour to say.

Amendment moved— Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)


My Lords, as the time is getting on, it may perhaps be convenient if I state as clearly as I can what is the position of the Government on this matter. I do not propose to follow the eloquent speech of the noble Lord opposite. I have no doubt his Bill does embody the opinion of his followers. Still less have I any intention of debating the question whether you make people more sober by telling them what they may or may not drink, or whether you do not. In one or two words I will explain the position of the Government on this Bill. Detailed criticism, as I have said, is unnecessary, because the position of the Government is that whatever the merits or demerits of the proposals in this Bill may be, they are not prepared at the present time to embark on any legislation involving amendment of the licensing law. My noble friend Lord Banbury said there were two main principles in this Bill, but I make out that there are at least three; They are:—(1), local option; (2), hours of licensing for clubs; and (3), the question of the abolition of compensation when licences are taken away. I propose to say a few words on each of those three points.

As your Lordships are aware, the whole question of licensing was very carefully considered by the Government last year, particularly in connection with the question of the hours for the supply or intoxicating liquor in clubs, and the Home Secretary stated the decision of the Government in the following reply to a Question:— As I promised, I have placed this matter fully before my colleagues in His Majesty's Government and we have decided to await the Report of Lord Southborough's Committee which is now sitting on a branch of the licensing law—namely, disinterested management, and if it he necessary after consideration of such Report, the Government will direct a full inquiry into the whole of the questions raised before me by the various deputations. The reasons for this decision were that the Government were convinced that the various aspects of the licensing problem are so closely interlocked that it would be impracticable to deal with any one portion of the question without a review of the whole field.

For this reason they decided to wait till they had received the Report of the important Committee which was considering disinterested management and then to consider not only this Report but the various other aspects of the licensing question. The Report of Lord Southborough's Committee has only just been received. It has been presented to Parliament; it is at present in the press; and it is expected that copies will be available in a few days. The Government have not yet had an opportunity of considering it and consequently their present position with regard to the licensing question is still the same as it was when the Home Secretary gave the reply last year which I have quoted. They are not at present in a position to make any announcement as to the policy which after consideration of this Report they may think it right to take. It may, of course, take the form of a fresh inquiry or even of a Royal Commission.

The present Bill deals not only with the question of the supply of intoxicating liquor in clubs so far as Wales is concerned, but also with two other important matters—namely, the system of local option and the question of compensation funds for extinguished licences. As regards local option, the Bill would introduce into Wales and Monmouthshire as from October, 1934, a system similar to the local option system which was introduced by the Temperance (Scotland) Act of 1913 and has been in force in Scotland since 1920, with certain modifications in the details as to the system of voting and other questions. On this point I would only say that the Government could not commit themselves to an extension of the principle of Scottish local option to Wales, at any rate without further inquiry. I do not propose now to express any definite opinion as to the results of the local option system in Scotland. Opinions will no doubt differ as to the value of this system, but I think at any rate it may be said that experience of the Scottish system is not conclusive at all events in its favour.

Supporters of the system of local option will, I think, recognise that the use which has been made in Scotland of the Act of 1913 is very limited. I have obtained some information as to the number of areas in which resolutions are in operation that no licence shall be granted and I understand that such resolutions are at present in force in eight small burghs, in three of the wards of Glasgow, in five wards in the towns of Greenock, Kilmarnock and Rutherglen, and in twelve parishes of rural counties, including one parish in Orkney and three parishes in Zetland. Returns are presented periodically to Parliament summarising information with respect to the polls taken under the Act of 1913 in Scotland. The last of these Returns was published in March of this year. It showed that in 1926 polls had been taken in 113 areas and that in none of these areas had a no-licence resolution been carried. In two areas in 1926 no-licence resolutions had been repealed. Out of 637,000 electors entitled to vote, only 387,000 had voted—a percentage of about 61 per cent.—and the cost of polling in 1926—I would like to direct the attention of my noble friend behind me to this—amounted to £9,119. Some people, I believe, question whether the trouble and expense involved by these polls is commensurate with the value of the results. As, however, I have already said, I merely put these points before your Lordships as indications that the use hitherto made of the Scottish Act is comparatively small and that it cannot be said that experience has demonstrated in any conclusive manner the desirability of its extension, though I do not express any opinion as to the value of local option or its effects upon drinking or otherwise.

The second main object of this Bill is to put clubs in Wales under the same restrictions as public houses with regard to the supply of intoxicating liquor. That would mean, as regards clubs, total Sunday closing because I understand that in Wales the Sunday Closing Act is in force.


So far as drinking is concerned.


Yes, so far as drinking is concerned. It would not close them altogether. Suppose, too, you had an area which went in for total prohibition, that would equally apply to a club in that area. That is to say that if the public houses were closed no drinks would be supplied in the clubs at all. That is the effect of the Bill with regard to clubs. The position of the Government on this matter is this. They have received many representations—and from Wales—in favour of relaxing the present restrictions on the hours of supply in clubs. The effect of the Bill would be to tighten those restrictions. The importance of the question of clubs is fully recognised by the Government. These institutions throughout England and Wales have a very large membership and the Government have considerable evidence that members of these social clubs feel considerable resentment against the existing restrictions and are anxious that clubs should have greater liberty to regulate their own hours in acordance with the convenience of their members. In Wales, I think, there are 550 clubs. This question of clubs is one which deserves, and will receive, the very careful consideration of the Government, and in the meantime I can only say that they could not contemplate giving assent to the proposals in the present Bill.

The third object of the Bill is abolish, as from its passing, the compensation funds and levies in Wales and Monmouthshire and to hand over the balance, if any, of the compensation funds to county or borough funds, and to expose all on-licensed premises to extinction at the discretion of the Licensing. Justices without compensation, as before the Balfour Act of 1904. The strong objections to this proposal are obvious. The effect would be that on-licences in Wales and Monmouthshire would, without any time limit or other opportunity of preparation, be cast back from their present position of comparative security—a security for which they have paid since 1904—and be forthwith exposed to the risk of extinction without compensation. I would point out that there appears to be no justification for transferring the balance, if any, of the compensation funds to county or borough funds. The money in question has been levied from licensees, counties and boroughs have contributed nothing to such funds, and it is difficult to see on what grounds it can be suggested that county or borough funds have any rights to the balances.

On these grounds, so far as the Government are concerned, I must ask your Lordships not, to give a Second Reading to the Bill. They admit, and they are quite alive to the fact, that the whole temperance question is one of the very greatest importance. They have received this Report of the Southborough Committee and before anything is done they will have carefully to consider whether there should not be most careful inquiry into all these difficult matters. In the meantime they are strongly opposed to a Bill of this sort being carried.


My Lords, I understand that my noble friend who introduced this Bill claims to speak on behalf of Wales and Monmouthshire. If by that he means on behalf of Liberalism in Wales and Monmouthshire I would remind him and your Lordships that not so many years ago the Liberals could claim 98 per cent. of the seats in Wales, but that a considerable change has come over Wales lately. There are now thirty-seven seats allotted to Wales, but the Liberals cannot claim even twelve out of that number. Liberal supremacy in Wales is a thing of the past. My noble friend may or may not be speaking for North Wales, but I do not think he can speak for South Wales. North Wales is a thinly-populated area, mostly agricultural. South Wales has a large industrial population, in which the towns are ever increasing. Some of those increasing towns may in the future require more licences, not fewer.

This Bill says that there is to be a poll on this question every three years. Who is going to pay for those polls? The Bill says the county councils, out of the county rates. I do not know what the rates are in North Wales, but in South Wales numbers of districts have a rate, at the present moment, of between 20s. and 30s. in the £; in some cases it is even between 30s. and 40s. in the £. My noble friend suggests that these rates should be still further increased by this Bill. I gather that the counties are to be cut up into squares, rather like a chess board, and if any of those squares vote "dry" you will at once have to increase your police in those areas, and to put a cordon of police right round those squares, in order to prevent the creeping in of what my noble friend wants kept out.

Why is every county in Wales and Monmouthshire to be obliged to hold polls every three years, whatever the emphasis with which it may have spoken at the last election? The Bill says that if by chance a poll is declared by the High Court to be void—I suppose for malpractices—the county council then is immediately to hold another poll; so that still further expense would be put on the rates. No compensation is to be given to the dispossessed licensees, although they may have paid quite lately huge sums in Death Duties—up to 40 per cent. of their capital value. My noble friend suggests that the State should step in and squash the remaining value of those licences. I hope your

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) St. Davids, V. Hemphill, L.
Northington, L. (L. Henley.)
Worcester, L. Bp. Parmoor, L.
Chesterfield, E. Rathcreedan, L.
Arnold, L. Shandon, L.
Allendale, V. Ashton of Hyde, L. Shaw, L.
Astor, V. Clwyd, L. [Teller.] Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Haldane, V. Denman, L. Ystwyth, L.
Leverhulme, V. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Howard of Glossop, L.
Peel, V. Kilmaine, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Kylsant, L.
Annaly, L. Lambourne, L.
Askwith, L. Lamington, L.
Sutherland, D. Banbury of Southam, L. Lawrence, L.
Blythswood, L. Lovat, L.
Airlie, E. Carew, L. Middleton, L.
Cranbrook, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Newton, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Oranmore and Browne, L. (L. Mereworth.)
Malmesbury, E. Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Midleton, E. Cottesloe, L. Southwark, L.
Morton, E. Danesfort, L. Sumner, L.
Onslow, E. Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Templemore, L.
Plymouth, E. [Teller.] Desborough, L. Teynham, L.
Stanhope, E. Dynevor, L. Vestey, L.
Westmeath, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Wargrave, L.
Gage, L. (V. Gage.) Wavertree, L.
De Vesci, V. Hampton, L. Wharton, L.
Elibank, V. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Lordships will not give a Second Reading to this most unjust and ill-conceived Bill.


My Lords, in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, who moved the rejection of the Bill, there was only one point to which I should like to make a reply. That was with reference to the views expressed by Mr. Lloyd George. It is quite sufficient for me to say that Mr. Lloyd George supported and voted for the Second Reading of the Bill in 1924 in the other House.

On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 51.

On Question, Amendment agreed to; Bill to be read 2a this day six months accordingly.

House adjourned at seven o'clock.