HC Deb 20 November 1925 vol 188 cc853-68

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

When a person presents himself as a police officer under this Clause, what evidence can the citizen who is visited ask as to the authority under which the arrest is made? In these days when gentlemen belong to the British Fascist and when another organisation of master service is being created it is not unreasonable to expect that we shall have a large number of these toy soldiers and imitation policemen going round the country and having it out of their political trade union Socialist and Communist opponents, and it may happen on our side that we would like to have a little play acting either as constables or magistrates and so on with Tories, and other extraordinary beings who are to be found up and down the country. Here is a Clause which states that, say, the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Birmingham might come down to my house disguised one night, and say that he is a policeman.


I want to assure my hon. Friend that I shall never go disguised to his house in any circumstances whatever.


The hon. Member might come as he is, and that would be bad enough. Another hon. Gentleman says that he might come disguised as a Member of Parliament. What I would like to ask the representative of the Home Office, or the legal representative of the Government is, why is it necessary to give this extraordinary power? I understand that at present, in certain emergencies, it is possible, as was done the other day, to arrest a man in Glasgow, for an offence said to have been committed in London, without warrants being shown. In that ease the judge has held that it was all right, because of the conditions under which it was done. If it is possible to do it now under any conditions of emergency, I do not see why there should be this very wide scope given under this Clause. I am certain that if the Clause goes through, even with the Amendment that the Home Secretary is to propose later, the Clause will be open to very grave abuse.

We have all laughed and made fun about this, but it is a fact that people have already been kidnapped in this country, and within very recent times. A certain gentleman known as a member of the Communist party was taken from a railway carriage, entertained in a pub all night under duress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] He may or may not have enjoyed it. I probably would have enjoyed myself, too. If the hon. Gentleman opposite who has such a great affection for me, gathered up two or three pals and waited on me in similar circumstances, even if he took me to a pub, I would make the best of it. That is what any ordinary person would do. But that is not the point. Being arrested by a genial barbarian, such as some of the hon. Members opposite, would not be very terrifying, but if they were people in black shirts and carrying tin swords and looking very ferocious, even a hardened criminal like myself might be scared. There are people who have not had the same experience as the hon. Gentleman opposite and myself, and to them such an experience would be very bad indeed. These are days when there are lots of very officious people about. The Home Secretary encourages them. There are very officious people who are going to assist the Government to maintain the Crown and the constitution. Of course that is all humbug and bunkum. The constitution and the Crown are perfectly safe as long as the constitution is worked in the proper manner.

The point is that there are all these very mischievous persons organising themselves, and I can see that one of these nights, when some of us are going home, we shall have gentlemen tapping us on the shoulder and proclaiming themselves as members of the police force, and we shall have no option but to submit to them or to commit a breach of the peace, for which we should probably be punished. We have no means of discovering who these people are and what their authority is. At least, if they are not to have a warrant, let us have in the Clause a provision that they must carry a document or something which can be shown to the person they wish to arrest as proof that they have a right of arrest. There may very well be a murderer or some other criminal whom a police officer may recognise. The police constable should have the right to stop him, but the constable ought to carry some document which he can show to the accused person as proof that he has the right to exercise the power of arrest. I ask that some words be inserted in the Clause to safeguard us against the people who are so anxious to assist the Government in keeping down Bolshevism and other wicked doctrines. If you want the law to be respected, the law must be carried out in a proper manner. It is not a proper thing to allow a police officer or a person purporting to be a police officer to arrest a citizen without giving that citizen proof that there is authority to arrest him.


I beg to second the Amendment, because I think the Clause is a very dangerous extension of the powers of arrest, especially in these times. We on the Labour Benches are now in a very difficult position. We know that we are more or less what the lawyers call Ferae Naturae. Anyone who can capture us may do so, and, if we happen to possess such things as motor lorries, steal them. We want to try to get protection from irregular arrest as much as we can. We do not know at any time whether we may be charged with some offence. We know that for certain offences we can be arrested on suspicion. A warrant may be issued anywhere for apprehending us. We may know nothing about it. We may be charged by a constable. Already this evening I have had occasion to express my confidence in our ordinary police constables. Most of us were rather surprised at the sudden outburst of objection to the police by hon. Members opposite, and we realised how far the Bolshevik ferment had gone, even to the extent of affecting the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer).

All sorts of curious people are now becoming, and are advised to become, constables. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir T. V. Bowater) suggested that some stout follows should become constables. As far as I can make out, the odds are that when someone comes along as a constable he will turn out to be some felon or possibly someone contemplating felony. He may be an ex- "Black and Tan' with Irish experience. We have special constables sworn in all over the country. We are liable to be tapped on the shoulder by any of these people. We shall have the greatest possible difficulty in recognising that they are on the side of the law and not against it. There are two groups in the country who believe in violence, and the Home Secretary is encouraging both, the one by approbation, the other by advertisement. Lord Chesterfield encouraged the young men of the country by his advice to put on a black coat and go into society. The Home Secretary's advice to them is to put on a black shirt and go for society.


On a point of Order. Are the arguments of the hon. Member relevant to the Amendment? The Clause says that a warrant must have been lawfully issued before a constable can tap my hon. Friend on the shoulder.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)

As far as the hon. Gentleman has gone, he is in order.


The Clause will prevent either the hon. Member opposite or myself when we are being arrested from knowing that there is a warrant lawfully issued. These are dangerous times for us. I am sure that we have the sympathy of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are up against the regular constabulary. We are up against the highly irregular constabulary by whom we are being surrounded, and we hold that there ought to be at least some minimum evidence given that the person who is arresting is authorised so to do by a proper warrant, and that he is not in conspiracy with other people to plunder our goods. The door is being opened very wide to crime in this matter. In our view there is a general encouragement to violence in this country, and we want every protection. We oppose this Clause, and we say here that anyone who is to be arrested ought to be able to see that the warrant has been issued by a Justice, and that he ought to obey it quietly, otherwise there will be a liability to a breach of the peace on the part of the person who is being arrested, in addition to the original offence for which the arrest is being made.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

I think the Amendment has been moved under a misapprehension. I do not wish to enter into the question raised as to the apprenhensions of certain parties in this country regarding the operations of the criminal law. I seem to remember some words which describe the nature of those persons to whom the law is a terror, but that does not matter for this purpose. The present law is that in cases of felony, which include, generally speaking, the more serious offences', no warrant is necessary. Therefore, if any persons wished to kidnap the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) they could tap him on the shoulder and pretend they were going to charge him with murder or some crime amounting to felony. That is possible to-day. In cases of misdemeanours which, generally speaking, are the less serious offences and in cases of summary offences, there is no power in general, to arrest without a warrant. It sometimes happens that a person who has committed a misdemeanour, for example, in London, goes to York before the warrant has been issued. When the warrant is issued it may be easily possible to secure that person in York, but at present he cannot be arrested until the warrant has been brought from London to York and, meanwhile, he may have escaped, shall I say, to Belfast. It is in order to prevent that sort of hide-and-seek between the misdemeanant and the police that this very sensible alteration in the law is intended. It will not enable anybody to arrest any person for a misdemeanour or summary offence until a warrant has been issued, and an Amendment which the Home Secretary has accepted will make it necessary to produce the warrant at the earliest possible moment. This Clause has nothing to do with the creation of new offences or with giving any new powers to the police to arrest without a warrant, but simply provides for facilitating the execution of the warrant when it has been issued. Any misguided or ill-disposed people, so foolish as to attempt to arrest anybody without production of a warrant, expose themselves to the ordinary liabilites for an illegal act—not only criminal proceedings but also civil proceedings for damages. I hope the House, more fully appreciating the present law and the alteration which it is proposed to make, will allow the Clause to pass.


The Solicitor-General has given us a very complacent description of the existing law and the alteration which is proposed in the existing law. Were we to be satisfied completely by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said and to be guided by that alone, we should be disposed possibly to allow the Clause, with the Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary, to go through. Personally, I do not feel that the matter is so simple as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated. He will remember that in Committee considerable objection was taken to this Clause not only by members of this party, but by members of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own party and that to meet those objections an Amendment was put down by the Home Secretary. It is true that the position to-day is that a constable, if he thinks a felony has been or is about to be committed, can arrest a person then and there, but we are not dealing with that power of arrest. We are dealing with the power to arrest on warrant and the law is and has been since time immemorial that a person arrested on a warrant issued by a Justice, may demand that such warrant shall be in the possession of the police constable, at the time of the arrest so that he may see that it has been properly issued, that the person arresting him is a police constable, and that the charge is there described. The history of this Bill in the House of Commons is not a very happy one. Nearly all our objections have been to those parts of the Bill which tended to whittle down and lessen the protections of liberty at present existing. We succeeded in preserving grand juries and in persuading the Government to withdraw the objectionable Clause dealing with general search warrants. We hope the Government will complete their recognition of the fact that in this matter we are the better Conservatives, by withdrawing this Clause which is to make an innovation in the law. The law has always been that in cases of misdemeanour—where mistakes are most likely to occur—persons arrested are entitled to see that the warrant is in the possession of the constable.


Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that I said anything different from that? I pointed out that the Clause is intended to prevent a game of hide-and-seek between the accused person and the police.


What I said was that the Solicitor-General spoke in so soothing and complacent a manner that he might have produced the impression on some Members that this was not a serious alteration in the law. I say you are now asking us to change the law as it has existed from time immemorial, to change the old Conservative traditions, the old traditions of the law which we have managed from these Conservative Benches to preserve, in the cases of the grand juries and the search warrants, against menaces by this Radical Government. In this particular case, we say there is no more reason for destroying the excellent principle that the constable should have the warrant, than for destroying any of the other older defences of liberty. The Solicitor-General says it is intended to prevent a game of hide-and-seek. Surely in these days it is easy to deal with these cases by means of warrants properly issued. If there were any great growth in crime we might understand this demand to take away the liberties of the subject which now exist, but there is, in fact, no increase in crime, and all statistics go to show that crime in this country is becoming less and less. What argument is there for continually increasing the powers of the police and the bureaucracy and smashing all the old common law of England point by point and item by item, as is attempted in this Bill? I have stood throughout these discussions on the old Conservative principle that the common law, through generations, has worked out certain safeguards for the liberty of the subject with which it is very dangerous to dispense. There may be isolated instances of hide-and-seek and of difficulty in catching some particular criminal, but to deal with such a particular case the Government ask us to say that persons may be arrested without the production of the warrant. It is true that we extorted an Amendment— or if you like it was given to us—to the effect that the warrant should on the demand of the person apprehended be shown to him as soon as practicable after arrest.

I say that that is not a sufficient protection. We see no reason why persons should not repose on the safety which they have now got. An hon. Member behind me mentioned the case of a person assuming the office of a constable to which he is not entitled. You may also have the case of an officious constable acting without a warrant, thinking one has been issued somewhere else, and making a mistake. It is all very well to say that these things can be remedied afterwards, but hon. Members who say that, who are not acquainted with the practice of criminal law, either as magistrates or in any other way, do not seem to realise that to arrest people, bring them into Court, and put them under the stigma of the possibility of crime, may cause irreparable damage to the reputation and character of the men affected. Having got once to the position that they have been improperly arrested, it may be through some mistake, I say that you cannot remedy that afterwards in the simple way that some hon. Members think. It is an encouragement to the police to be careless to say they can arrest in warrant cases without a warrant. It is far better to stand on the old system of saying that a person shall not be arrested until the warrant can be obtained. If there are any difficulties in sending warrants about or in the duplication of warrants, let us have amendments directed to the mischief of which the Solicitor-General spoke, which is a comparatively limited thing with which we can cope, but the mischief which he suggested, that there may be delay in arresting a few people, is not a sufficient argument for destroying the whole of this old principle that a person is entitled to see the warrant before being arrested.

We have an enormous multiplication of offences nowadays. I do not want to speak of it now in detail—I should be out of order in doing so—but it seems to me that the one way of dealing with social evils nowadays is to make new criminal offences. We have new offences, we have new kinds of constables created, gentlemen, as has been pointed out, recommended to be constables apparently on the ground that they have just committed a criminal offence, and where is it going to end? In the good old days, when people were more careful than they are now about the liberty of the subject, they would never have tolerated this sort of thing, and I ask the House to reject the Clause on the ground that, just like the Clauses which we have cither forced the Government to drop or on which we have defeated the Government when they have tried to carry them through, this Clause is a most dangerous invasion of the liberty of the subject.


I desire to associate myself with the Amendment. I have listened very carefully and with great respect to the exposition of the law by the two hon. and learned Members who have spoken, but I am bound to remind the House that the ordinary man is not a lawyer, and yet he is expected to understand the law and, understanding it, to conform to it. In the first place, this Clause seems to me to be drawn deliberately to give the widest possible latitude to the police in dealing with any offender or anyone believed to be an offender. It says that any person charged with any offence may be executed by any constable. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no!"] I do not mean that the person may be executed, but the warrant, and the word "constable" presumably means a plain clothes constable, as well as a constable in uniform, and therefore a special constable. The ordinary man, in trying to conform to the law, has not only to try to understand the law, but to remember what is going on about him, and it is perfectly true that there are a number of people masquerading as persons of authority and using force to restrain the liberty of other people.

It is said that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory, and I cannot help remembering that I was myself once on the point of being arrested. It was some years ago, and I was followed over a considerable period by a person whom I suspected of being other than an officer of the law. He eventually stopped me. He was in plain clothes, and announced that he was an officer of the law. I was at that time about 13 stone in weight and very fit, and I had had some experience of boxing, and was perfectly capable of defending myself against one person, but luckily I had noticed this man in conversation with a police officer. The hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny that, apart from those people who masquerade, there are occasions when police officers themselves make mistakes. What is the position of the innocent person who is on the point of being apprehended by a person in plain clothes? The innocent person may perhaps have Socialistic leanings, and he knows there are certain people going about the country who are ready—we know the cases—to play what may be termed by them practical jokes on others, and he attempts to defend himself. What do you do by this Clause? The law, as I understand it, is that the person who is being arrested, either on suspicion or not, if he attempts to defend himself, is committing a new offence. You are running the danger of increasing the number of offences of that kind, and it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing that the officer, whether in uniform or plain clothes—because uniforms can be borrowed—should carry something which will show everybody that he is a person entitled to make an arrest. That seems to me to be the very least that can be asked from the Government.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the cases where criminals charged with grave offences evade arrest, where it may be possible to apprehend them in one place, but the warrant may not be available there. I do not know whether he meant to explain to the House the reason for certain events that occasionally happen in Belfast when he gave us the impression that the population of that city is recruited from undesirable sources. I do not know whether it is possible—the hon. and learned Solicitor-General shakes his head, but I have not yet said what I am going to put to him, and you cannot answer a question before it is asked—in a case of that kind, where the apprehension may be desired to be made in York and the warrant may be in London, by telephonic communication to issue a duplicate warrant.


A warrant is issued when it is issued, and not before, and if it has been issued in London and the man is in York, he cannot be arrested until it has been procured from London.


I understand that, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has not really answered my question. I understand that a warrant is a warrant which is issued in a certain place, but what I say is that, if it be desired to arrest a person in York, and the warrant is in London, and you do not wish to wait for the warrant to be sent to York, is it not possible, by telephonic communication, to have a duplicate warrant issued which would be as official a document as the original?


Imagine the circumstances of a telephonic conversation from York to London. If the police get a magistrate to issue a duplicate warrant, it has to be sent from London to York in the same way as the original warrant would have to go, unless the intention is that, over the telephone, authority shall be given to issue a duplicate warrant in York merely because someone at the other end of the telephone says, "I am a police officer, and I want a duplicate warrant." That would be as mischievous as the other case.


I give it up. If the intelligence of the police service and of the Law Officers of the Crown is not great enough to overcome a difficulty of that kind with the use of a code, then I give up the attempt to help them. But I do say that this Clause as drawn, even with the Amendment in the name of the Home Secretary, is a Clause which ought not to be a part of the law of this land, because it does leave it open to persons to interfere with the liberty of others, and if that be done, it makes it certain that those whose liberty is going to be interfered with, may be tempted and betrayed into committing an offence against the lawful officers of the Crown.


I want to relieve the anxiety of the last speaker and the anxiety of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). Any constable in plain clothes, whether special or otherwise, carries a warrant card, and if either of those hon. Members is in any trouble, he has only to ask for the production of the warrant card of authority to act as a constable. I happen to have served as a special constable, and I remember on one occasion, within half a mile of this building, producing my warrant card. It had a most pacific effect on a large man who was punching a small boy. If the hon. Members who criticised this matter only realised precisely what are the requirements, they would realise that many of the dangers have no foundation in fact whatever.


Simply saying that you are a special constable, or something of that sort, would not satisfy me if an attempt were made to arrest me without cause. The card would show the man was a special constable, but not that, I was a criminal.


The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley referred to the possibility of people having no authority at ail making arrests, and the hon. and gallant Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) suggested that if a constable only had some authority, the difficulty would be got over, but I have pointed out they have already that which he say they ought to have.

Captain BENN

I realise that a layman has no proper place in this purely legal Debate, but supposing a man is approached by someone alleging himself to be, a constable, and he is asked for the warrant for arrest and the warrant is not produced, and the constable says "I have not got it here, but it exists," and then the man resists, would that resistance be an offence or not?


If a warrant has in fact been issued, and the man resists lawful apprehension, no doubt it is an offence, but if a warrant has not been issued for his arrest, it is not an offence.

Captain BENN

There is nothing to guide the man who has been arrested whether he has committed an offence or not.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 86.

Division No. 382.] AYES. [3.0 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Couper, J. B. Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Hume, Sir G, H.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hume-Williams. Sir W. Ellis
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Crook, C. W. Hurd, Percy A.
Apsley, Lord Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey. Gainsbro) Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Curzon, Captain Viscount Jacob, A. E
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Dalkeith, Earl of Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Davies, Dr. Vernon Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Drewe, C. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Beamish, Captain T. P. H. Elliot, Captain Walter E. Kindersley, Major G. M.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Elveden, Viscount King Captain Henry Douglas
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement
Bennett, A. J. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Lamb, J. Q.
Berry, sir George Everard, W. Lindsay Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Betterton, Henry B. Fairfax, Captain J. G. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Blades, Sir George Rowland Falle Sir Bertram G. Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Fermoy Lore Loder, J. de V.
Brass, Captain W. Forrest, W. Looker, Herbert William
Brassey, Sir Leonard Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Lord, Walter Greaves-
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Fraser, Captain Ian Lougher, L.
Briggs, J. Harold Ganzoni, Sir John Lowe, Sir Francis William
Briscoe, Richard George Gibbs, Col Rt. Hon. George Abraham Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Grace, John MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Gretton, Colonel John Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Bullock, Captain M. Grotrian, H. Brent Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Gunston, Captain D. W. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Macintyre, Ian
Campbell, E. T. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Macmillan, Captain H.
Cassels, J. D. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Harland, A. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Harrison, G. J. C. Macquisten, F. A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hartington, Marquess of Margesson, Captain D.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Clayton, G. C. Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Meller, R. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Meyer, Sir Frank
Cohen Major J. Brunei Hilton, Cecil Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Conway, Sir W. Martin Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Cooper, A. Duff Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Cope, Major William Hopkins, J. W. W. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Moore, Sir Newton J. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Murchison, C. K. Salmon, Major I. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Nelson, Sir Frank Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Warrender, Sir Victor
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Sandeman, A. Stewart Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Sanderson, Sir Frank Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Savery, S. S. Wells, S. R.
Owen, Major G. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Pease, William Edwin Shepperson, E. W. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Slaney, Major P. Kenyon Winby, Colonel L. P.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame) Smithers, Waldron Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Pilcher, G. Sprot, Sir Alexander Wise, Sir Fredric
Pilditch, Sir Philip Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Wood, E. (Chest' Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Steel, Major Samuel Strang Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Price, Major C. W. M. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down) Templeton, W. P. TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —
Rice, Sir Frederick Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Captain Hacking and Mr. F. C.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Thomson.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Paling, W.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Groves, T. Potts, John S.
Ammon, Charles George Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Rose, Frank H.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hayes, John Henry Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Baker, Walter Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Scrymgeour, E.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Scurr, John
Barnes, A. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Barr, J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Batey, Joseph Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Smillie, Robert
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Kelly, W. T. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Briant, Frank Kennedy, T. Snell, Harry
Broad, F. A. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Stamford, T. W.
Bromley, J. Kenyon, Barnet Thurtle, E.
Cape, Thomas Lansbury, George Tinker, John Joseph
Charleton, H. C. Lee, F. Viant, S. P.
Cluse, W. S. Lindley, F. W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Cove, W. G. Livingstone, A. M. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Crawfurd, H. E. Lowth, T. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Dalton, Hugh Lunn, William Weir, L. M.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Westwood, J.
Day, Colonel Harry Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Dennison, R. March, S. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Duncan, C. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Wilson, C. H (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Dunnico, H. Montague, Frederick Windsor, Walter
Foster, Sir Harry S. Morris, R. H.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gillett, George M. Naylor, T. E. Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Palin, John Henry Smith.

I beg to move, in page 34, line, 10, at the end, to insert the words but the warrant shall, on the demand of the person apprehended, be shown to him as soon as practicable after his arrest. This Amendment, in the name of ray right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, has been put in in consequence of the request of hon. Members in the Committee upstairs.

Captain BENN

May I ask the Solicitor-General whether by regulation or other wise the arrested person will be informed that he has a right to inspect the warrant under which he is arrested?


That is a matter of administration. I will represent the point to my right hon. Friend, and perhaps he will see fit to issue an instruction on it.

Amendment agreed to.