HC Deb 01 July 1937 vol 325 cc2293-307

Section thirty-four of the Finance Act, 1936, is hereby repealed and shall cease to have effect after the passing of this Act.—[Mr. H. G. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

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

I hope that I may have the attention of hon. Members for this rather substantial constitutional issue. Last year some of us tabled an Amendment for the deletion of the Clause. Unfortunately, a public engagement in my constituency prevented my being present and the debate on that Clause did not take place. For that, I was largely to blame.

The proposed Clause raises a substantial constitutional issue. We are all familiar with the fact that there are greater checks in respect of financial legislation than of any other. Before a new tax can be imposed we have to have a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. That has to be reported to the House, and it is only after the report has been accepted by the House that permission is given to Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce his Finance Bill, which is then read a First time. Then we have the Second Reading, the Committee stage and the Report stage of the Bill, and, unless we suspend our rules, those stages and the Third Reading have to be taken on separate days. With regard to expenditure, proposals have to originate in Committee of the whole House. Later in the Session, right towards the end, we have an Appropriation Bill or a Consolidated Fund Bill, according to the circumstances, and that is passed through its various stages. After Parliament, chiefly this House, has sanctioned the raising of money by taxation and sanctioned the expenditure of money out of the Consolidated Fund, there is a very elaborate procedure to make sure that in the expenditure of the money there are no abuses.

When we pay our taxes, they are entrusted in the first place to the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He is the custodian of public funds. The second part of our Income Tax is due to-day and we are supposed to have paid it. Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot spend a penny of the money because it is not in his custody. It is in the custody, in the first place, of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer, working through the various Departments of State, and the Paymaster-General, desires to expend money, it is first of all necessary that that money should be placed in an account on which they can operate: Until last year, the law, dating back a good many years, was that no money could be expended until two of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury signed a requisition which they sent, at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and when he received it, he tranferred from the sums under his control to the account under the control of the Treasury, the requisite fund.

In existing circumstances, we are entitled to assume that our Ministers will not dip their fingers into the till, and that our civil servants are, as we know they are, scrupulously honest. This may not matter, but the checks were imposed long ago when things were not quite as nice as they are now. None of us can say that the time will not come when circumstances in this country may be such that we can no longer accord to Ministers—I am not now thinking of political parties—the same degree of trust, or we may not be able to afford civil servants the same degree of trust, as we can to-day. Those checks, imposed by our ancestors because of corruption which existed in their day, are not likely to be removed.

I remember, many years ago, walking in St. James's Park and meeting a gentle- man, now dead, who was a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury. My wife had not met him, and I made him acquainted. I said, addressing this gentleman, who happened to sit for a Welsh constituency: "He is a very agreeable man. Without his assistance or that of his colleagues not one penny of public money could be expended." This gentleman, who was of most meagre means and never had very much more than his Parliamentary salary, turned to my wife and said—I will not use his actual words, because I do not remember them very well—that he remembered the day on which he had signed a chit for £250,000,000. I remember the gusto with which he made that remark. The Chancellor of that day could not have expended one penny piece on the pay of the soldiers or on the purchase of munitions till two of the Lords Commissioners had signed the necessary requisition.

Last year, in Section 34 of the Finance Act, this ancient check was abolished, and I think I know why it was abolished. During the Parliamentary Recess it is necessary for the Treasury to send documents to the Lords Commissioners in order that they may sign them. We often see their signatures in these days on Orders made by the Treasury on the advice of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Those Orders are always signed by two Lords Commissioners. In the ordinary way the bulk of us never see any signs of the administrative activities of the Lords Commissioners, but day by day they are required to sign a great number of documents, and without their signatures a great many things cannot be done. These Lords Commissioners are Members of this honourable House. They are not civil servants—and I do not want any civil servants to think that I am reflecting on them in what I say—but it is a valuable check that two people who are not normally in the ordinary pay of the State can, if they wish, resign and refuse to sign if the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the days wishes to do something improper. The resignation of two Lords Commissioners because they did not wish to do something which they knew to be wrong would be a public scandal; it would be something which would obviously imperil the continued existence of the Government of the day.—[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear.") I hope that hon. Members opposite will not treat with levity something which I am raising, not for amusement nor through any hostility to His Majesty's Government, but as one of the defenders of those constitutional and financial principles which our Parliament has established, which very few other Parliaments outside the British Empire have established, and which are one of the reasons why democratic institutions work in this country.

What is the alteration made? The Section passed last year says that if not more than one of the Lords Commissioners is available, the requisition can be signed by one of them and one of the Secretaries to the Treasury—that is to say, by a civil servant—or by one of such other officers of the Treasury as the Treasury may prescribe. It goes on to say that if no Lord Commissioner is available, then it can be signed by two of the Secretaries to the Treasury or by one of the Secretaries and one of the other prescribed officers. In other words, by Section 34 of the Act of last year the House of Commons, without realising it, sacrificed its effective control over the money paid in taxes, in one sense. Up to that time not a penny piece of money could be spent in this country by the Government unless two hon. Members of this House who happened to be Lords Commissioners signed the requisition. By what we did last year during a holiday period, when quite properly Lords Commissioners had gone away, we sacrificed our control. But in the old days arrangements were always made that at least two Lords Commissioners should be available, I do not say in London, but could be easily obtained. That check, which does not matter at this moment, has gone.

I am not concerned with this moment. I do not think the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) is going to run away with the till, and I do not think any of those gentlemen, whom many of us know, who are civil servants in the present Treasury, will do that kind of thing. One can never tell in this life what changes may come, and I think the Government were wrong last year in putting that Clause into the Bill. I myself was blameworthy, because I did not take more trouble to see that I was here to protest against it, for I had the notice on the Order Paper. It was my fault, and I blame myself. This is the first opportunity of raising the matter that has arisen since. It is a first-class constitutional issue in the long run, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whether he is willing to accept my proposed new Clause I do not know; I hope he will—will take the most serious note of the points I have placed before the Committee. This has nothing to do with party divisions; it is the abolition of a check which was inserted in our Constitution, I think 150 years ago, and which by chance was swept away last year without any hon. Member, broadly speaking, realising what happened; and I hope that, even at this late hour, hon. Members will take notice of the point I have raised. It is not of immediate importance, but one cannot say when it may not become of fundamental constitutional importance to make sure that the public funds of this country are not to be expended, at some conceivable time in the future, in a manner which in fact would be to disobey the orders of the House as expressed in the Consolidated Fund 13iIl. For these reasons, I beg to move.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth

I attached my name to this Clause at the request of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), and I want to take this opportunity of congratulating him on a speech that ought to interest Members in every quarter of the Committee. I do not want to go over the historical ground of the safeguards in regard to expenditure, but I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we have seen in the last few years dictator governments of different complexions arising in all parts of the world. I am not going to suggest for a moment that there will be such a government in this country, but I think we ought to do nothing that would encourage the exercise of greater bureaucratic powers without control by the House of Commons.

We are placing civil servants in an impossible position. I believe we have the finest Civil Service in the world. Like the hon. Member for South Croydon, I would not like it to be thought for a moment that I was thinking of the present Civil Service. Men who are dependent for their living on obeying the behests of a Ministry must find it very difficult indeed to refuse the request of any Ministry, but I believe that, under the Clause of last year, these men must give way if they are requested by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may be said with some degree of truth that the Lords Cornmissioners—I do not say it in any insulting way—perhaps act purely automatically, and do not examine the chits which they are signing; but at least it remained, up to last year, a fact that the real control resided in the House of Commons, whereas the Amendment made to the Finance Bill last year, while not in the full sense of the word taking away the control of the House, at least took away a safeguard which had been in existence in previous years whereby the House had a greater amount of control.

I want to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The new Clause last year was probably put in for administrative reasons. Probably at some time in the Recess all the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury may be away. Surely there could be some arrangement for one of them to be present in order that we might keep in being the safeguards which have been given us as a heritage froth the past. I do not want the Clause to be treated as if it was a party question of no serious import, and I beg the Committee to persuade the Chancellor, if he is not already persuaded, to let us keep in this Mother of Parliaments every safeguard we can to see that the privileges we now enjoy shall not be thrown away but shall be retained in their entirety.

11.11 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

I take great interest in constitutional discussions and I hope I am as anxious as any Member of the Committee to secure our ancient heritages and to prevent us from taking any step in the direction of dictatorship and to insist on the supremacy of the House of Commons in matters of finance. All these propositions are of very great value and I respect them as some of the most important propositions in public life. But I think a little more is being made of this provision than it deserves. There might be an occasion when it was of the greatest possible importance that prompt authority should be given in the name of the Commissioners of the Treasury for the carrying out of a decision already arrived at by Parliament. In the ordinary way that authority would be given by the signature of two Commissioners of the Treasury. The First Lord of the Treasury, the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be available. Other Lords of the Treasury, who also act as Government Whips, will probably be available. That is the ordinary way in which it is done. But it was realised that a situation might conceivably arise in which you might not have two of these Commissioners available and the Act provided that the signature of one of them and of one of the Secretaries to the Treasury would do. My hon. Friend was mistaken in thinking that the Secretaries to the Treasury referred to are necessarily civil servants. The Financial Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary under this provision might sign. You might conceivably have a case in which they will not be available, in which case there is the third Secretary to the Treasury, the permanent head of the Department. It is even possible for the Treasury to appoint officers from time to time to fulfil the duty.

The Section having been passed, the Treasury on 17th August made a minute directing who all the persons referred to should be. I hope my hon. Friends will be gratified to know that no single instance has occurred up to date when it has been necessary to take advantage of these arrangements. In no single instance, up to the present, has the Constitution been seriously undermined. But no sort of injury having happened, and this being the Section which was passed last year, now, 12 months later, without the slightest difficulty ever having occurred, we are invited to cancel what we did last year. The tombstone which ought to be erected over Section 34 of the Finance Act: 1936, is the tombstone which was erected over the baby which died soon after birth: If I was so soon to be done for, I wonder what I was begun for. I cannot take the solemn view about this which was suggested. I think that the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) went so far in his speech as to speak of civil servants who depend upon the whim of the Minister for their livelihood.

Mr. Holdsworth

If I did, I withdraw the remark. I do not think that I used those words, and if I did I certainly did not intend to do so.

Sir J. Simon

I only meant by this that I wanted my hon. Friend to realise that the civil servants have the most secure position in this country that anybody could have. They do not depend upon the whim of any Minister at all. The fact that a Chancellor of the Exchequer may not always approve of the advice given to him by a permanent civil servant does not entitle him to give him a month's notice or a month's wages. They have the most carefully guarded rights which, of course, everybody respects, and I think that it is a highly artificial idea to suppose that if this emergency did arise, which I do not suppose it would, it could be imagined that it would be better for the public service to suffer, perhaps, because although Parliament had authorised a payment it could not be done in two or three days for the reason that it was in the middle of a holiday. Yet all the time you have the most responsible civil servants in the Treasury, who, if necessary, could join in carrying out that desire. I agree that these constitutional questions have far more importance than many people are willing to give them credit for, but I still think that it is hardly a case for reversing the decision which Parliament made last year, and made quite deliberately, I hope that the Committee on this occasion will be prepared to preserve the Section and regard it as purely a provision in case of emergency for the general public good.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I am frankly appalled at the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This provision was passed 71 years ago by a Liberal Government, and for 70 years there was not a single case where it was necessary to depart from it except for a certain amount of occasional inconvenience because they had to send a Treasury bag by train to some place at which a Lord Commissioner was then staying. There are five of these gentleman who can serve, and certainly there ought to be two of them within a reasonable distance. We passed through the great War when there were far greater emergencies than had ever before been experienced without the necessity of breaking this rule, which a Liberal Government thought it proper to incorporate in an Act 71 years ago. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reproved the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) because, he said, Civil servants were subject to the whim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to suggest that the civil servant is protected against the Minister. Normally he is, but I would remind the Committee that the civil servant holds his office at pleasure. He can be dismissed at a moment's notice. The fact that nothing has happened during the last 12 months has nothing to do with it. I am looking to the time—I hope it will never come—when we may have profound changes in this country. We may have something in the nature of a dictatorship. In those circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer may advise His Majesty to dismiss a civil servant and that civil servant will be dismissed. No civil servant has the faintest security in those circumstances. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer says to the other prescribed officers: "You are to resign," can anyone imagine a civil servant refusing a point blank order of that kind? On the other hand, suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that to two Lords Commissioners, Members of this House, holding a position not dependent on the Government circumstances in which their resignation would imperil the existence of the Government. Those two Lords Commissioners resign, and if it is stated that the reason was because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked them to authorise the expenditure of public money, improperly, the life of that Government would not be worth two minutes purchase. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not in the least faced up to the constitutional position. No one expected that this would make the slightest difference in the last 12 months. I must say this to the credit of the Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Liberals did try to defend this principle—[An HON. MEMBER: "Always try to speak well of the dead!"] The hon. Member must not be too much concerned over what he has seen in the evening papers about St. Ives. We are up against one of those really permanent things. Why at the beginning of each Parliamentary Session, after we have listened to the King's Speech in the House of Lords, do we introduce a Bill about Select Vestries or Outlawry? It is an assertion of our rights to consider our business irrespective of His Majesty's requests. Why do we bang the door in the face of Black Rod? Not because we are afraid of that genial retired General who comes to deliver a Gracious Message, but because we are reminded of a certain event that happened. I am not sure whether it was Charles I or Cromwell. Cromwell came with his soldiers to arrest the five Members. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. Charles came with his soldiers to arrest the five Members who had escaped by boat. Cromwell came and was much more effective. He escaped with the Mace. I am never quite certain why we bang the door in the face of Black Rod. We did it to-day, when we had a Royal Commission. He interrupted my speech. I take the view that at this time when the principles of democratic Government are challenged we should not let go one of these things. Therefore, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing to give further consideration to this matter than he has indicated in his speech.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Ede

One hon. Member has revealed in his last few sentences why he has taken this sudden interest in this subject. I regret that his speech was interrupted earlier in the day. At this late hour Black Rod would have no nefarious designs on him or anybody else. I do not subscribe to the principle laid down by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) that we are in a less safe constitutional position because certain secretaries of the Treasury and other high officials have been invested with this power. These people are as much amenable to this House if they obey an order of a Minister who is acting contrary to the desires of this House, as any Minister. The resignation of a permanent civil servant on the ground that he had been ordered to do an illegal act by a Minister of the Crown who was acting in defiance of the authority of this House would attract far more attention than the resignation of a junior Whip who may have been disappointed that he had not received promotion. I guarantee that if the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, who is the head of the Civil Service in England, failed to do the necessary things on an order he had received from a Minister and resigned or was dismissed by the Minister because he had refused to act, it would be a first-class sensation in the present constitutional position. I do not imagine that if we have to face a dictatorship, the kind of safeguard which is provided by this procedure is going to help us at all.

I think the Committee may be grateful to the hon. Member for South Croydon for raising the issue, and, suspicious as I am of His Majesty's Government, and willing at all times to believe the worst about them, I think the hon. Member has attempted to make our flesh creep on an issue which is purely artificial, and that we must rely, not on a couple of junior Lords of the Treasury, but in the end upon the honesty and integrity of the civil servant who now has to advise them, and who in future will have to advise them. Are we to understand that hon. and right hon. Members who are promoted to that Bench because they are of no use elsewhere really do anything in these matters other than act on the suggestions of highly placed civil servants to sign a particular document on an imaginary line and without having any dots to guide their signature? I hope that if we have to face a dictatorship, we shall have something stronger upon which to rely than a safeguard inserted 71 years ago in an Act of Parliament which lasted until last year. I think the Committee may very well pass to the next business after thanking the hon. Member for having confused Cromwell and Charles I in a way which shows that his Liberalism has never been very robust.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

Without contradicting what my hon. Friend has said, I am wondering what would be the position if the present occupants of this Front Bench had been on the Government Front Bench and moved last year to remove this safeguard. I wonder what they would say if they were in the position of the right hon. Gentleman in defending the removal of that safeguard. We should have all kinds of sinister motives imputed to us. I must confess that when I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer replying, I had the impression that had he not been so absorbed in the details of the Finance Bill, he might have taken a different attitude, and certainly had he been sitting upon this Bench, I believe he, would have taken an opposite view. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) stated that it would create a much deeper impression upon the public mind if a civil servant resigned than if a Lord of the Treasury resigned, and I do not dissent from that view; but the point is that civil servants are not so likely to resign when their whole living depends upon their remuneration as the Lords of the Treasury, whose living is not supposed to depend entirely upon such remuneration as they receive for their Parliamentary duties.

One of the reasons which the Chancellor gave in favour of allowing the law to remain as it is was that it had not been necessary to put this new procedure into operation during the last twelve months. That appears to me to be a Stronger argument in favour of its removal than of its retention. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there were difficulties about the availability of the Lords of the Treasury. I believe it is not wrong to say that there are ten officials who are able to sign these documents under the old procedure. We have many important functions of State in which we rely upon one Minister or at any rate two. Therefore, I suggest that it is not too much to ask that at least one out of the ten should be present to carry out these tasks.

I think that this is worthy of the consideration of every hon. Member. The officials who are now empowered to sign these Orders are officials who are appointed by Treasury Minute. It is true that under our present system the Secretary of the Treasury is immune from all suspicion; he is a man of the highest integrity; but if our system began to change in any unfortunate direction—hon. Members may take it as going either towards the Right or towards the Left—it would not only be a Parliamentary system that would be changed, but gradually there would be broken down the system and safeguards which may change the integrity of our civil servants. In the hour Of safety we are always inclined to despise and minimise precautions which, in the hour of danger, we regret having removed; and although I do not consider that we are confronted with any immediate dangers, I think we ought to be extremely slow in removing those safeguards under which our financial system has worked so well. If the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) presses this to a Division, I shall in all sincerity give him my support.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 163.

Division No. 255.] AYES [11.33 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett) Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Parker, J.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Parkinson, J. A.
Adamson, W. M. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Price, M. P.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Harris, Sir P. A. Pritt, D. N.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Banfield, J. W. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Ridley, G.
Barr, J. Hollins, A. Ritson, J.
Bellenger, F. J. Jagger, J, Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Rothschild, J. A. de
Buchanan, G. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Rowson, G.
Burke, W. A. John, W. Seely, Sir H. M.
Cape, T. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Silkin, L.
Charleton, H. C. Kelly, W. T. Simpson, F. B.
Chater, D. Kirby, B. V. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cluse, W. S. Kirkwood, D. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cocks, F. S. Lathan, G. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Cove, W. G. Lawson, J. J. Sorensen, R. W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leach, W. Stephen, C.
Daggar, G. Lee, F. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Leslie, J. R. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lunn, W. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Day, H. McEntee, V. La T. Thurtle, E.
Dobbie, W, McGhee, H. G. Tinker, J. J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) MacLaren, A. Walkden, A. G.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Watkins, F. C.
Foot, D. M. Mainwaring, W. H. Westwood, J.
Frankel, D. Marshall, F. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Gallacher, W. Mathers, G. Wilkinson, Ellen
Gardner, B. W. Maxton, J. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Garro Jones, G. M. Messer, F. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Grenfell, D, R. Noel-Baker, P. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Oliver, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Paling, W. Mr. H. C. Williams and Mr.
Holdsworth.
NOES.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Donner, P. W. Hepworth, J.
Albery, Sir Irving Drewe, C. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Higgs, W. F.
Apsley, Lord Duggan, H. J. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Aske, Sir R. W. Duncan, J. A. L. Horsbrugh, Florence
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Eckersley, P. T. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Ede, J. C. Hutchinson, G. C.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Edmondson, Major Sir J. Keeling, E. H.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Ellis, Sir G. Leckie, J. A,
Bossom, A. C. Elliston, Capt. G. S. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Boyce, H. Leslie Elmley, Viscount Liddall, W. S.
Brass, Sir W. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Entwistle, Sir C. F. Loftus, P. C.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund Erskine-Hill, A. G. Lyons, A. M.
Bull, B. B. Everard, W. L. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Bullock, Capt. M. Fildes, Sir H. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Butcher, H. W. Fremantle, Sir F. E. McCorquodale, M. S.
Carver, Major W. H. Furness, S. N. MacDonaid, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Cary, R. A. Ganzoni, Sir J. Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Castlereagh, Viscount Gluckstein, L. H. Magnay, T.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Goldie, N. B. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Grimston, R. V. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Colman, N. C. D. Gritten, W. G. Howard Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs) Guest, Maj.Hon.O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Guinness, T. L. E. B. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Cox, H. B. T. Gunston, Capt. D. W. Munro, P.
Cranborne, Viscount Guy, J. C. M. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Craven-Ellis, W. Hannah, I. C. Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Crooke, J. S. Hartington, Marquess of Patrick, C. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Peake, O.
Cruddas, Col. B. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Petherick, M.
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Pilkington, R.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Procter, Major H. A. Savery, Sir Servington Touche, G. C.
Radford, E. A. Scott, Lord William Tree, A. R. L. F.
Raikes, H. V. A. M. Selley, H. R. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Ramsbotham, H. Shakespeare, G. H. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Rankin, Sir R. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Turton, R. H.
Rayner, Major R. H. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Wakefield, W. W.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead) Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Remer, J. R. Spens, W. P. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld) Watt, G. S. H.
Ropner, Colonel L. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Ross Taylor, w. (Woodbridge) Strickland, Captain W. F. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Rowlands, G. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Salmon, Sir I. Sutcliffe, H. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Samuel, M. R. A. Thomas, J. P, L.
Sanderson, Sir F. B. Thomson, Sir J. D. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Cross and Captain Dugdale.

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