Skip to main content

Sale Of Intoxicating Liquors To Children Bill

Volume 91: debated on Friday 22 March 1901

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Petitions in favour, from Redditch; Walworth; Stratford: South Woodford (three); Burnage; Edinburgh (three); Reading; Ince-in-Makerfield; Codicote; Ayr; Newcastle-on-Tyne (four); Kippax; Barnstaple; Four Elms; Glasgow (two) Govan; Cambridge: Peekham: Guildford; Leytonstone (six): Walthanistow (two); Leyton; Woodford; Bristol; Middlesbrough (three); Bedminster; Viewforth; Sedbergh; Littleborough: Ledbury (two); Newbury (three); Clitheroe; Sheffield (ten); Birmingham (five); Brixton (two); Kennington (two); Pemberton; Plymouth; Elland; Ripon; Carlisle (four); Allonby; Brynn (two); Longtown; Waverton; Holbeek; Wortley; Armley (three); Bramley; New Wortley; Leeds (twelve): Bradford (Yorks.); Bispham); Leith; Ash-ton-in-Makerfield; Sutton-upon-Hull; Egremont; Hyde (two); North Ormesby (two); Withington; Hereford; Paignton: Longsight; Burnham; Weston-super-Mare; Milton; Beverley; Kendal; Nailsea; Wade bridge: Port Isaac (three) Fulham (two); Aberdeen City; St. Andrews: Jarrow (fourteen): Durham; Norwood; South Norwood; Staly-bridge; Marylebone; Manchester (three) Square; Truro; West Hampstead; Ealing; Alford (two); Deeside; Poyn-ton; Openshaw; Hull (five); Dunferm-line; Burnham; Windsor: Spilsby; Horncastle (two); Barradon; Widdring-ton; Seghill; Lanivet; Penzance; Newlyn; Liverpool; Shanklin; Derby; Warrington; Hanworth; and High-bridge; to lie upon the Table.