HC Deb 20 June 1921 vol 143 cc985-97

The powers of the Treasury under Section sixty of the Finance Act, 1916 (which empowers the Treasury to carry out arrangements for the exchange of securities issued under any War Loan Act) may be exercised at any time unless and until Parliament otherwise determines, and the said Section shall have effect as if it formed part of Section one of the War Loan Act, 1919, and the provisions of the said Section one shall apply accordingly.


I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add: Provided that such powers shall in no case be exercised by the Treasury until and unless the proposed exercise thereof has been specifically submitted to Parliament and Parliament has expressed by resolution its consent thereto. The Government should by now be aware that control in matters of finance should be within the power of the House of Commons and not within the power of a Department. It is surprising, therefore, that in Clause 34 the Government propose to make permanent the power that was given to the Treasury purely as a war measure under the Finance Act of 1916. Under Section 60 of that Act, Parliament gave to the Treasury the power of varying any War loans which had been issued during the War. That is to say, the Treasury could exchange any securities for securities of different value, and by that means increase the amount of the National Debt and the amount of the taxation of the country without coming to the House of Commons for sanction. In regard to the proposed Clause, which makes this power permanent, we have the danger shown by the example of the recent War Loan Conversion. In presenting the Budget, the Leader of the House announced that he had made a reduction of £259,000,000 upon the National Debt. Then, at the end of his speech, he announced that the Treasury had decided to have a 3½ per cent. War Loan Conversion; that they would consequently increase the National Debt, if that Conversion were successful, by £400,000,000, and that they would increase by the operation of the Sinking Fund the taxation of the country by £7,500,000 a year. That increase of taxation was laid before the House without the House having any opportunity of discussing it, or any power whatever of dealing with it. In fact the opinion of the House was flouted, because the Leader of the House announced that the public terms of the Conversion would be available in the Vote Office immediately he sat down. Before the House had passed any Resolution on the subject whatever, the stockholders in these War Bonds had had posted to them a notice which carried it into operation and inflicted this very serious burden upon the taxpayers of the country.

Fortunately, that conversion scheme was not a great success. What has been the effect; even of its comparative failure? The amount converted has increased the National Debt by £100,000,000. It has involved, by the operation of the Sinking Fund, that Parliament has to collect in taxes £2,000,000 more during the next year than it would otherwise have to have done. If we were to make permanent a provision such as this, we should give to the Department powers of increasing the National Debt and of increasing the burden on the taxpayers. Surely we are not going to carry out this proposal and to prevent the control remaining in the House of Commons, a thing which has been talked about as being so necessary and so reasonable. This is one of those questions upon which it is unfortunate that the Government ignore the feeling of the House and of the country. They ought to pay more attention to bringing within the scope of his House matters of finance which are so important, and on the ground that it is unwise, and that there is nothing to justify it, to make this Clause permanent I beg to move this Amendment.


I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not a good one, but I rose to draw his attention to the fact that some of his statements are incorrect. He stated that under the new Loan the liability of the country would be increased by £100,000,000. There is no liability for repayment under the new Loan. All that has been done is to create an annuity of 3j per cent., but there is no increase in the capital charge.


Two and a-half per cent. must be provided under the terms of the conversion. That is a liability of £2,000,000 which is imposed by this conversion.


It is a permanent sinking fund which is bound to redeem the loan. Consequently it is not a capital charge upon the taxpayer but merely an annuity. But leaving that out of the question, I disagree with the hon. and learned Member when he said that the Government gave too much. My opinion is that the Government did not give enough and that that is why the loan failed. Some Members of the House of Commons do not seem to understand that the financial situation is very serious and unless you are going to break your obligations you must have a high rate of interest in order to be able to renew. The view that you can renew at low rates of interest is absurd. It is the fault of the Government. Instead of having a 3 per cent. loan issued on terms which I think would represent 5½ per cent. with 40 years before the first redemption took place there should have been a 6 per cent. loan at par compulsorily redeemable in 20 years. That might have been a success and then if things were better in the meantime we should be able to borrow at a lower rate. But the real question is whether the Government should have power to make arrangements for the repayment of debt without the sanction of Parliament. On that I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member, and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST

I would like to pursue the point to which the right hon. Baronet referred, namely, that the issue before the Committee is not whether the recent process of conversion initiated by the Government is sound or unsound. The object of this Amendment is to secure Parliamentary control over any system of conversion or exchange initiated in time of peace by the Government. The great majority of Members of this Committee will be of opinion that my hon. Friend (Mr. Waddington) enunciated the soundest constitutional dectrine, definitely aligning himself with Pym, Hampden, and the other pioneers and pathfinders of our constitutional liberties. During the War the Government was given power to exchange War stock in such manner as it thought fit, without consulting Parliament every time, for reasons for which the War itself was responsible. In time of war the old Latin adage applies "Inter arma silent leges." When war is going on you cannot have long debates about every single act, whether military or financial, done by the executive Government. This Clause purports to give the Government wide powers of conversion and enlarging the National Debt in time of peace, which is a power very distinct from that which Parliament vested in the Government during the War.

The Amendment ought to commend itself to the Committee and the country on two grounds. First, it is bound up with the control of the House of Commons over all matters of finance, which is something much more than a newspaper stunt and is a constitutional ideal for which Parliament fought for many centuries. Secondly, it is a matter of convenience to the people that proposals of this sort should be fully discussed by Parliament before being published to the country as effective offers on the part of the State. In consequence of financial proposals of this sort going to the country without any previous Parliamentary discussion there is a great deal of ill-informed criticism. If there is a full discussion in the House beforehand on a financial operation of this character it means that the merits of the scheme will be explained to Parliament and through Parliament and the Press to the people, and if any criticism is found to be well established in the House the Government will be able to meet that criticism by amending the scheme before it is put before the country. Not only because this Amendment commends itself to sound canons of constitutional law, but also because it really makes it more convenient and easy for the Government to effect many of these necessary processes of conversion, I hope it will be supported.


It may assist the Committee in coming to a decision on this matter if I refer to the Section which is made permanent by this Clause now under discussion. Section 60 of the Finance Act of 1916 gave the Government of that day, and subsequent Governments, very sweeping powers, but it carefully circumscribed them in these words: During the continuance of the War and six months thereafter the Treasury may for the purpose of carrying out any arrangement made with them for the exchange of securities issued under any War Loan Act passed during the continuance of the War provide for the issue of new securities, etc. The latter part of the Clause now before the Committee proposes that this Section which I have just read shall have exactly the same effect as if it were included in Clause 1 of the War Loan Act of 1919—another beautiful example of legislation by reference. Under Clause 1 the Government have wide and drastic powers. What they seek to do is to take away from the control of this House the power which is specifically given to it in the most carefully guarded way in 1916. I cannot imagine any reason why this power should be taken away from the House. The power is during the War and six months thereafter. Why not allow this to run on under the Act of 1916? No doubt it would give some extra trouble to the Departments concerned, but one of the functions of the House of Commons is to give trouble to the Departments concerned and to the Ministers who represent them. Unless we do that our functions very largely disappear. If the Government simply say that it is simply a matter of convenience, then in the present state of financial affairs, I am in favour of maintaining every barrier that exists as against the Departments concerned making any financial arrangements or getting money any more easily. I hope that the Government will allow the House of Commons to retain the power which it at present possesses over this not unimportant financial transaction to which reference has been made. I think that I am not misrepresenting the feeling of the Committee when I say that they ask not only for a case to be made out, but for an overwhelming case to be made out before granting the demand of the Government. If there is some real ground of urgent public necessity, I daresay that the Committee will give the power, but if no such case is made out I shall vote against the proposal of the Government.


The Amendment commends itself to those on this side of the House with whom I am associated. In the first place, Parliamentary control is to be retained in every detail. Then, as to the financial policy which has been pursued by the Government, shorn of all the technical phraseology, to plain men on this side of the House the financial operations of the Government seem something like this: During the War various steps were taken to persuade the school children of the country to take 20s. for 15s. 6d. on a five years' loan. By means of various types of advertisements these short-term loans were negotiated. We understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these short-term loans of about £620,000,000 are falling due between now and the end of 1925, and the conversion policy of the Government is to ask these people to suspend their calls upon the Government until 1961. Instead of receiving back £100 now, the Government promise payment of £160 in 1961, and if the whole of this £620,000,000 is converted into 1961 stock, we shall convert the £620,000,000 of debt into a debt of £1,000,000,000. If we pay 3½ per cent. on the 1961 stock, it brings a return slightly above the present rate of interest on the original investment of £100. I am for paying off the debt and for not increasing it. From this side of the House specific methods that could be adopted in order to relieve the country of debt have been enunciated. We are of opinion that the conversion policy pursued by the Government would not be accepted by the country at large if the country understood what was being done in its name.


I think the discussion upon this Amendment has really involved larger issues than the Amendment itself would justify. It has been said that the object of the Amendment was to secure Parliamentary control over the operations of conversion. In order to make it clear just how we stand, I have to point out that as a matter of fact the Amendment would fail to effect any such purpose, because the Treasury has, in the legislation to which reference has been made, powers already to deal with by far the greater part of the loans and securities in question. Under the War Loan Act of 1919 it has power to give security in exchange for the greater part of the big issues of the War loan securities, and it has in general ample powers already to give further security for securities that are maturing. The only difficulty in the first place has been in respect of certain exchanges as distinguished from the renewing of securities, and in the second place, owing to a slight gap between the two statutes, has been in respect of certain comparatively small issues of war securities over which the Treasury has no power of making these exchanges. Let me put it into figures. If this Amendment were passed it would make it necessary for the Treasury to come to the House for authority to deal with exchanges of securities amounting to only £220,000,000, but there would be still completely under the control of the Treasury and liable to no necessity for coming to the House for any authority, securities to the value of £2,832,000,000.


It is a step in the right direction.


It is a very small step, and I have to submit that it would be a step in the wrong direction. It is a general, normal, constitutional form that the House and the Committee should give authority to the Treasury to borrow on such terms and conditions as the Treasury may prescribe. That form of words will be familiar to every Member of the Committee. Let me recall the attention of the Committee to our present state and outlook regarding this matter. There are these large issues rapidly maturing now and in the immediate future from year to year. One of the most difficult, and without being unduly pessimistic, one of the most anxious operations which will have to be performed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury will be the making of arrangements for the conversion of these short-dated issues as they fall due. Does it really improve things at this particular moment to impose what would be new regulations on those responsible for successfully overcoming the difficulties of these big operations? I appeal to any Member who has practical acquaintance with issues in the city to envisage what would be the result of making it necessary, before any issue is made in the city of London, that the terms of the issue should be published and discussed and very likely altered in many respects here on the Floor of the House. I do not think that anyone would look upon that as anything but an extraordinarily unwise procedure.


When the late Mr. Goschen made the conversion of Consols into 2½ per cent. Consols was that not put before the House?


I speak with very great diffidence on the question of historical finance as against the authority of the right hon. Baronet.


I am not sure about the facts.


From recollection, I think it was not so, but that the terms of that great conversion loan were never altered from the first date of publication. At any rate, I believe the Committee will realise the importance of that practical consideration at the present time.


With reference to Mr. Goschen's scheme, the Resolution was submitted by Motion to this House in March, 1888. It was discussed a month, and it was not until the Resolution had been put into an Act of Parliament that the details were publicly issued in the City and the country.


My recollection is that there were no alterations in the essential terms of the issue, but be that single precedent what it may, I take my stand on common sense for the moment. It cannot be in the interests of successful operations, in the interests of the Exchequer and of the taxpayer, that there should be a publication of the terms of an issue, and, under modern conditions, a discussion, for speculative movements, upsetting of the market and general uncertainty must inevitably be the result. The Amendment would not effect its purpose for the reasons I have stated.


I quite admit that the arguments we have heard, in so far as the operation of dealing with and issuing loans is concerned, carry a considerable weight, and I quite agree that the Amendment as it stands is inadequate to carry out the view that I was expressing. The position I was arguing was this: What case has the Treasury made for taking away from the House the control which it would possess when the War comes to an end? That is what the Clause is doing. I agree that under Clause 60, during the War and six months after the Treasury has this power, but the Treasury is now asking by Clause 34 to abrogate Clause 60, so that when the War ends the Treasury will have full power under Section 1 of the Act of 1919. I agree that a case was made against the Amendment qua Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman has not met the point I have been putting. Why alter the existing state of affairs now? There is no occasion for it. What the Executive is doing is what it is always doing, that is, taking some opportunity of clearing up what it no doubt calls the tags and ends of those safeguards which still remain to the House in its control over finance. The Treasury is seeking to anticipate the end of the War. It must make an overwhelming case for doing so, but so far has not done it. Why make this alteration now? We on this side of the House have been taking a line during the whole of this discussion against any further narrowing by the Executive of the rights which this House at present possesses. We are told that this is only a small thing. Then why not withdraw the Clause altogether? If the hon. Member responsible for the Amendment withdraws it, we can vote against the Clause as a whole, but I suggest that the Government should withdraw the Clause which is exciting a considerable amount of uneasiness amounting almost to suspicion. The Government will gain nothing by it; it is not worth their while to press it and I suggest they should leave things as they are under the Act of 1916.


I think most of the points raised by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) and the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington) have been met very well and disposed of by the Financial Secretary for the Treasury. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the Clause I could not for a moment support the Amendment. Let us see what its effect would be. The Amendment proposes to add the words Provided that such powers shall in no case be exercised by the Treasury until and unless the proposed exercise thereof has been specifically submitted to Parliament and Parliament has expressed by Resolution its consent thereto. That means that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should find it suddenly necessary to obtain money on a ways and means advance from the Bank of England, or to make an issue of Treasury Bills he will have to discuss the proposal on the Floor of the House of Commons and ask consent. I think it would be a most unbusinesslike procedure on the part of the House thus to discuss internal financial operations in this way continually, and even perhaps for week after week about one single issue; with different Members suggesting different methods and haggling about the price that should be paid. Why, the market would be as flat as a pancake before you could issue the Treasury Bills or a loan and the whole project would end in failure. I would be the very last to agree to part with the control of the House over finance, but whatever may be done with regard to the Clause as a whole, I think this particular Amendment is entirely misconceived and unworkable, and I shall vote against it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."


Under this Clause the Committee is asked to increase the powers of the Treasury. I think the Committee should ask itself whether the powers granted to the Treasury in the past have been exercised with a due regard to the public interest. The Debate during the last half-hour has centred round the question of whether certain powers which they possess at present should be further developed, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) has reminded the Committee that certain powers granted during the War were very limited in extent, and applied to specific purposes. The point I am anxious to put before the Committee is this: Is the ultimate authority in financial matters to be the Treasury or the House of Commons? This Clause raises that very wide question in a definite form. During the last five or seven years, month by month and little by little, the Treasury has sought to encroach on the powers of the House of Commons. The Debate this afternoon has served the useful purpose of directing attention once again to this vital and all-important point. The hon. Gentleman who replied for the Government on the Amendment just withdrawn said the powers which the Government are asking for only cover £220,000,000, and that they have further powers for which they have not received the authority of this House covering the much larger sum of £2,832,000,000.

During the last month there has been a very striking example of the Treasury's failure to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer. They have floated a very large Conversion Loan offering a very high rate of interest, spread over a very long period, and thus putting a burden on the taxpayer for 40 years—I am glad to say without much success. They have misread the money market and the true situation, and with that record staring us in the face they ask us for further powers. I suggest that, so far from granting further powers, the powers granted during the War for specific purposes should be withdrawn at the very earliest date. I recollect in 1917, when I

was closely connected with the Committee on National Expenditure, how the members of that Committee found themselves, time after time, at variance with the Treasury. The Treasury were jealous of the House of Commons, and wished to retain in their own hands the powers given to them during the War. This Clause proposes to continue those powers for a further period of time, but we would be well advised to revoke all special powers given to the Treasury in time of war and come back to peace conditions and a peace outlook at the earliest possible moment. I hope this matter will be pressed to a Division. It is a very large and vital question as to how far bureaucratic powers taken during war are to continue in times of peace. There can be but one answer to that, and I hope the members of the Committee will turn their minds to the constitutional question of whether the House of Commons or the Treasury is to be the ultimate authority in matters of finance.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 54.

Division No. 176.] AYES. [7.55 p.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Haslam, Lewis
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Conway, Sir W. Martin Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Amery, Leopold C. M.S. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Austin, Sir Herbert Dawes. James Arthur Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) Hinds, John
Baird, Sir John Lawrence Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Dockrell, Sir Maurice Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick) Edgar, Clifford B. Hopkins, John W. W.
Barlow, Sir Montague Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Barnett, Major Richard W. Evans, Ernest Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Barnston, Major Harry Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Hurd, Percy A.
Barrand, A. R. Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff) Fell, Sir Arthur Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Flannery, Sir James Fortescue Jameson, John Gordon
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Ford, Patrick Johnston Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell Foreman, Sir Henry Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. King, Captain Henry Douglas
Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) Ganzoni, Sir John Lane-Fox, G. R.
Blair, Sir Reginald Gardiner, James Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Borwick, Major G. O. Gee, Captain Robert Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Bowles, Colonel H. F. George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd Lloyd, George Butler
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Gilbert, James Daniel Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Breese, Major Charles E. Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Lorden, John William
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Glanville, Harold James McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Briggs, Harold Goff, Sir R. Park McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Brittain, Sir Harry Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A. M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Bruton, Sir James Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) McMicking, Major Gilbert
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Magnus, Sir Philip
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Gregory, Holman Manville, Edward
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Greig, Colonel Sir James William Mitchell, William Lane
Butcher, Sir John George Gritten, W. G. Howard Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Cautley, Henry Strother Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston) Hailwood, Augustine Morden, Col. W. Grant
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) Hamilton, Major C. G. C. Morris, Richard
Cockerill. Brigadier-General G. K. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) Neal, Arthur
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar) White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Parker, James Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) Williams, C. (Tavistock)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike Simm, M. T. Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney) Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Perkins, Walter Frank Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) Wilson-Fox, Henry
Perring, William George Stanton, Charles Butt Wise, Frederick
Pratt, John William Stevens, Marshall Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Prescott, Major W. H. Sturrock, J. Leng Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Purchase, H. G. Sugden, W. H. Worsfold, T. Cato
Raeburn, Sir William H. Taylor, J. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Randies, Sir John Scurrah Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Young, E. H. (Norwich)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Townley, Maximilian G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Roundell, Colonel R. F. Tryon, Major George Clement Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund Turton, Edmund Russborough McCurdy.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hayward, Evan Rendall, Athelstan
Bromfield, William Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hogge, James Myles Robertson, John
Cairns, John Irving, Dan Royce, William Stapleton
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Johnstone, Joseph Spencer, George A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Swan, J. E.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Kennedy, Thomas Waddington, R.
Davies A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Kenyon, Barnet Waterson, A. E.
Finney, Samuel Kiley, James Daniel Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Galbraith, Samuel Lawson, John James White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne) Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Mallalieu, Frederick William Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Grundy, T. W. Morgan, Major D. Watts Wintringham, Thomas
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Myers, Thomas Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Halls, Walter Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Hartshorn, Vernon Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mayday, Arthur Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) Mr. George Thorne and Major

Clauses 35 (Transfer of registered bonds by deed), 36 (Amendment of Part VII of 33 & 34 Vict., c. 71), 37 (Provisions with respect to redemption of Government stock), 38 (Interpretation), and 39 (Civil Contingencies Fund), ordered to stand part of the Bill.