§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI beg to move, in page 9, line 16, to leave out the word "forty" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-eight."
§ This carries out the undertaking I gave yesterday.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI beg to move, in page 9, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) No film to which this Act applies shall, during the period aforesaid, be exhibited to the public in Great Britain unless— (a) the film has been acquired by the exhibitor from a person entitled to carry on such business as aforesaid; or (b) the exhibitor is himself a person who is entitled to carry on such business as aforesaid and has acquired the film for the purpose of renting it for public exhibition in Great Britain.This is to provide that no film is to be exhibited in Great Britain, unless it has been acquired from a person who may carry on business, and who does carry on business in accordance with the foregoing provisions, or unless the exhibitor is himself such a person, that is to say, a licensed renter. Some criticisms were directed to the Clause as it stands in Committee on the ground that anybody may, for instance, by having his business in Dublin or in America, drive, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said, a horse and cart through the provisions of the Bill with reference to the renter's quota. If these words are inserted, it will prevent the unlicensed renter from carrying on his business from America or from Dublin, and nobody may exhibit a. film which has been acquired from such a person. A little criticism was directed to the President of the Board of Trade's promise that some Amendment should be in- 905 serted in the Bill stopping up the hole which some hon. Members opposite thought they had found. I venture to think this Amendment will be effective for its purpose.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERI think the general object of the Amendment does meet the case which was put in Committee, but we are in rather a difficulty, and I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the matter. The latter part of the Amendment refers to the exhibitor. Later on, we have an Amendment to leave out Clause 20, and it seems to me rather difficult for us to discuss this, because it may possibly be ruled that if this Amendment is put in in Clause 17 we shall be precluded from discussing on Clause 20 whether or not it is necessary for the exhibitor who is engaged in the business actually to be licensed.
§ Mr. E. BROWNI also have an Amendment dealing with the same point.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think the insertion of this Amendment will exclude a Motion to leave out Clause 20.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI beg to move, in page 9, line 24, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words "or exhibits any film."
§ This is a consequential Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. KELLYI beg to move, in page 9, to leave out from the word "pounds" in line 27, to the end of line 28.
It has been a little difficult to understand why the Government insist upon those who are engaged in the renting of films to go to the trouble of being licensed. In fact this licensing is becoming so extensive that it will not be long, if a Conservative Government lasts in this country, before everyone will have to carry a licence about with him for every business or occupation in which he is engaged. They have now decided that the people who are engaged in renting films must be licensed, and in the event of an oversight in not having, this licence there is another crime invented by the Government, a crime so serious that they say it can only be met by a penalty of something about £20 per day. What is this crime that should demand such an excessive penalty? The crime of rent- 906 ing out to exhibitors films that they desire to show, and if they have offended so seriously against this country as to rent out a film, then the Government say, "We shall penalise you to the extent of £20 a day." I do not know what would be said if they endeavoured to carry this into the motoring world and suggested that the motorist, when he overlooked the taking out of his licence, should be penalised to the extent of £20 a day. I think that the Government Benches would be crowded at this moment in the determination to have an Act amended that imposed such a penalty. I could even imagine some of my colleagues resenting such a penalty for not having a licence for driving a motor. It might be that even if retailers were compelled to take out a licence—and that is not very far removed from the minds of this Government—they might even rise up in their wrath against a £20 a day fine for being without their licence; but here these renters, who are engaged in a business that is quite legitimate, are to be told that unless they carry this licence they are going to be penalised to the extent of £20 a day. I hope the good sense of the House will support us in this Amendment and reduce this penalty.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEI beg to second the Amendment.
I really am amazed to find how the Members of the Conservative party will strain at gnats and at the same time be willing to swallow camels. Constantly we are told that the object of the Labour party is to interfere with industry, is to extend the functions of the policemen, and of those people who are supposed to represent officialdom and bureaucracy over not only the industrial life, but the personal lives of the nation. That is a stock-in-trade argument against the Labour party. Here we have a Bill which interferes with the management of a particular industry—and it is indicative of the type of mind of the Conservative party when it suits their purpose— which interferes in a way that is more objectionable than any kind of Socialism could possibly be. I second this Amendment, not because I do not believe in interfering with industry—I think that is very necessary at times—but I object altogether to the type of interference that is represented by this Bill. That type of interference is interference with individual liberty, the kind of inter- 907 ference which will not occur in Socialism at all, and it is very characteristic of the industrial and commercial policy of a Conservative party for the simple reason that vested interests are at the back of Bills of this character.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick)I am sure that human nature under Socialism will be what it is to-day, and penalties for failure to carry out the law will be as necessary as they are now. This is a very important Clause in the Bill. It is one of the chief Clauses, and the failure to carry out the provisions of the Bill should be subject to a substantial penalty. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said the penalty was £20. That is not so. The fine is a maximum penalty, and the fine that will be imposed will be in the discretion of the Court. I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERI hope the Parliamentary Secretary on reflection will consider that there is no case for the retention of the words. It is open to any citizen under the Bill to get a licence. The licence does not cost more than £5 and, obviously, therefore, it is altogether out of proportion to suggest that you should have a penalty as a maximum of £20 for every day during which the offence is committed. If the Government want to make the Bill watertight, I suppose it is only because they are afraid there might be some exploitation by foreign interests, who might get a good deal of money by trying to get behind the Bill. But surely if there were any move to exploit the Bill in order to make large profits, the very first thing anyone would do would be to get a licence, seeing that it costs no more than £5. Therefore, it is inconceivable that a failure to take out a licence under this Clause should be due to any other reason than mere forgetfulness, and it is ridiculous to suggest that for forgetfulness a British subject should be fined up to £20 per day during every day of the period which he forgets. That is the real reason why we have put down this Amendment. It is perfectly true, as an hon. Member has said, that we object altogether to the principle of the Clause in regard to these licences; but if there are to be licences it is not reasonable to 908 impose such an enormous penalty for mere forgetfulness. In view of the last Amendment to this Clause which the Government carried, bringing the exhibitor into the structure of a Clause which is supposed to deal entirely with renters, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is able to reply, and, if he is not, I would like the President, to tell me whether this penalty is to be applied to both the renter and the exhibitor. I take this opportunity of raising that point on this Amendment, so that our attitude to this matter on a subsequent Clause may be determined.
§ Sir B. CHADWICKIf the hon. Member will look at the Bill he will find that under Clause 20 a similar penalty is to be applied to the exhibitor.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERBut what I want especially to know, in view of the Amendment carried only a few minutes ago, is whether the penalties under this Clause 17 will apply to the exhibitor, seeing that the whole structure of the Clause deals with renters' licences. I think we ought to have an answer to that point now.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODBefore the President of the Board of Trade replies, he might listen to the Amendment which has been proposed. I understood he was prepared to meet us on this point, and I was astounded to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that he could not do so. Let the House understand the position. It is a question of whether a man who has not got a licence, which he can get at a moment's notice, at any time, by paying £5—whether a man who has forgotten to take out a licence or to renew a licence is to be liable to this gigantic penalty of £20 a day for every day he forgets. As a matter of fact, there is only one reason for asking these people to take out licences at all. The Government could make a renter subject to all these penalties without requiring him to take out a licence; and I would point out that, though he offend against this Bill, though he break the law in every particular, he still cannot lose his licence. There is only one reason why these licences have been introduced, and that is to secure revenue for the right hon. Gentleman's new Government Department.
909 Other people have to take out licences for motor cars. Anybody who likes can get a licence for a motor car by paying a certain sum, just as anyone can get a licence as a renter by paying a certain sum. They are on a par. Can we conceive of a man who forgets to renew his motor car licence being fined £20 a day? Most benches of magistrates, including the one which I have the honour to grace, generally give motorists a few days' grace, sometimes seven days. If they forget for seven days they are not punished—and quite right too—for what is mere forgetfulness. And even a person who is summoned for not having a licence or for having forgotten it, who is a month behindhand, is not mulcted in a very heavy fine. It may be £l or £2; sometimes, possibly, £5 in the case of some benches. At any rate, the penalties are moderate and are suited to the offence, if I may put it so. Under this Clause a man who forgets for only one week to take out a licence is fined £140. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!" "He may be."] He is liable to a penalty of £20. If that figure is put in the Bill and allowed to remain, will it not be an indication to any bench of magistrates that the man is regarded as having committed a heinous offence, whereas it is pure forgetfulness?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe right hon. and gallant Gentleman is misleading either himself or the House. There may be instances of pure forgetfulness in which, probably, no prosecution would take place, and if there were a prosecution, the bench would deal most leniently with the offender. The Committee were rightly insistent that provisions should be included in the Act requiring every foreigner to carry on business here and to be licensed if he carried on business here, and, if he wilfully failed to comply with those provisions, he was to be subject to a severe fine.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODReally, the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, deliberately misleading the House. This is a penalty for not taking out a licence. Anybody, whether he be a foreigner or not, can take out a licence for £5 at five minutes' notice. [Interrup- 910 tion.] I am talking about the renter— or the exhibitor, who is now by some hocus pocus being brought into the renters' part of the Bill—being subject to this penalty for a mere act of forgetfulness. If he knows he will be committing an offence under the Act, why does he not take out a licence at once? There is nothing to stop a man taking out a licence, although he may have broken the law in a hundred ways, and if he remembers that there is a fine like this on the Statute Book he will do his best to remember. You cannot stop him taking out a licence. The only danger of a renter laying himself open to such a fine will arise from his forgetfulness. No other reason will apply, because anybody can get a licence. Hon. Members appear to think this licence is something which it would be extraordinarily difficult to obtain, and that it would not be possible for a man to obtain a licence who wanted to break the law or who had broken the law. It is possible for anybody to take out a licence, and, therefore, if a man has not taken out a licence it can only be from forgetfulness, and yet he is to be fined £140 per week and £600 per month—for pure forgetfulness! The right hon. Gentleman told us at the beginning of the Report stage that he was going to scale down these ferocious penalties.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI never offered to scale this one down. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would only read the Bill upon which he is so eloquent, he would see that in Clause 24 we have purposely laid down—I think upon his advice—that a foreigner must have a place of business in this country in order to take out a licence. It is that type of case to which this maximum penalty is directed. If this penalty were not in the Clause—and a severe penalty —the foreign renter who wished to impose upon the exhibitor would be able to carry on his work. Clause 24 says that in order to have a licence he must have a place within the jurisdiction of the courts here, a place where process can be served. If, in defiance of that, anyone attempts to carry on business and to keep outside the jurisdiction of this country he ought to be fined, and it ought to be a serious fine, and I hope the House will retain the penalty.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe right hon. Gentleman is trying to find an excuse for what is not in the Bill. The words in the Bill are
If any person carries on such business as aforesaid.We have included the exhibitor in this Clause. I forget what he does. Take the case of an exhibitor who has acquired a film for public exhibition in Great Britain. The exhibitor cannot possibly—[Interruption.] If this fine is directed against American citizens because they are American, at any rate the President might spare the Englishman who happens to own a cinema and is generally a small, poor business man. These exhibitors are to be subject to this fine. The fine is applicable, not only to the class of case to which the President referred, but to an exhibitor whose place of business must be in this country, because it is a cinema, and who is an Englishman and not an American. Why should they be subject to these ferocious penalties—ordinary, plain honourable Englishmen who have merely forgotten to renew their licence? The Government are ramming through a Bill they do not understand. They allow penalties to be drafted not by their own Department but by the trade and put them in. Without compairing them with other Government Acts, without any co-ordination, they accept the penalty blindly, and when attention is called to the fact that no other Act of Parliament provides penalties so frightfully heavy as this they say, "What nonsense! It is only for Americans."
§ Mr. MITCHELL BANKSI find it somewhat difficult to follow the reasoning of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). It seems to be this, that the easier it is to comply with the law the more lightly you should be let off if you break it. I should think it ought to be quite the other way round. There would be some reason for imposing a light penalty if there were great difficulties in the way of complying with the law. There are some religious communities which believe in everlasting punishment, and the only thing that can reconcile one to that belief is that these same religious bodies provide a very easy way of escaping. An hon. Member opposite has drawn an analogy, which subsequent 912 speakers have enlarged upon, between the licence which a renter is to take out under this Bill and the licence which a motorist takes out. It is said that because a motorist who neglects to take out his licence is not ferociously punished the renter of a film who fails to comply with this law should not be ferociously punished. There is no analogy whatever between the two cases. By his infraction of the law the motorist does not, as a rule, make a considerable sum of money every day and every week. The reason why a heavy penalty is imposed upon the renter of a film who does not comply with this law is because he is obviously not in business for his health and will make a handsome profit through not taking out a licence. As for the ferocity of the fine, we feel perfectly sure that benches of magistrates, who are nearly all animated by the same humanity so constantly exhibited towards motorists by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, will not be savage in their penalties upon innocent and honourable Englishmen who have been subject to a slight lapse of memory; but it is perfectly right, where a man refuses to take out a licence and continues making profits daily and weekly by his breach of the law, that the penalty should mount up as the offence continues.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI am at a loss to understand the logic of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks). He stated that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) suggested that because a licence fee was small, that was a reason why the fine for not taking out the licence ought to be small. The original fine of £20 is clearly very formidable, and there can be no sort of justification on the part of any individual who deliberately places himself in a position in which he may be fined £20 when that risk can be obviated by the payment of £5 for a licence. I do not follow the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Swindon when he attempts to make sport out of that position. May I put this as a possible case. A person applies for a licence which may not be granted for a week. He can continue to rent films and he does not come under Clause 17. In case this person for some unavoidable reason omitted to make his application for a licence until two days after the expiration of his first licence, and he immediately made an 913 application for the licence after the expiration of two days, what would be his position? Would he be liable to penalties amounting to £40 because, unintentionally, he had failed for two days to take out his licence?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIn that case the man would be guilty of a technical offence, and if he were prosecuted no doubt the magistrate would inflict a purely nominal penalty.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIn various parts of the country in one police court you may find one interpretation placed upon this Clause, while in another part a totally different interpretation might be placed upon it as a mere technical indiscretion. I suggest that whatever the presiding
§ magistrate may think about what is a technical indiscretion or offence, the words of this Clause are very definite and clear, and they state that for each day on which a man omits to take out his licence he is culpable to the extent of £20 a day. As there seems to be no justifiable excuse for assuming that an individual would take this risk, it seems to me that only in the case where forget-fulness was the explanation an offence would be committed.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 139.
915| Division No 336.] | AYES. | [6.50 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Harland, A. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Cooper, A. Duff | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) |
| Albery, Irving James | Copt, Major William | Harrison, G. J. C. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Couper, J. B. | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Balniel, Lord | Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Hills, Major John Waller |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hilton, Cecil |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hopkins. J. W. W. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Drewe, C. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N). |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Eden, Captain Anthony | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) |
| Berry, Sir George | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Bethel, A. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer |
| Betterton, Henry B. | England, Colonel A. | Huntingfield, Lord |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Everard, W. Lindsay | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Fermoy, Lord | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Fielden, E. B. | King, Commodore Henry Douglas |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Forrest, W. | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Foster, Sir Harry S | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Buchan, John | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Fraser, Captain Ian | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Little, Dr. E. Graham |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Gates, Percy | Loder, J. de V. |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Long, Major Eric |
| Campbell, E. T. | Goff, Sir Park | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Cassels, J. D. | Gower, Sir Robert | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Grace, John | Lumley, L. R. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Lynn, Sir R. J. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Grotrian, H. Brent | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Christie, J. A. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Maclntyre, Ian |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | McLean, Major A. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hammersley, S. S. | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Mac Robert, Alexander M. |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Ropner, Major L. | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Meller, R. J. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Merriman, F. B. | Salmon, Major I. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Moore, Sir Newton J. | Sandon, Lord | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Waddington, R. |
| Nelson, Sir Frank | Savery, S. S. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Shepperson, E. W. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Nicholson, o. (Westminster) | Simms, Or. John M. (Co. Down) | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Nuttall, Ellis | Skelton, A. N. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wells, S. R. |
| Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Smithers, Waldron | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple |
| Penny, Frederick George | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Perring, Sir William George | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Pilcher, G. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Pilditch, Sir Philip | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Withers, John James |
| Price, Major C. W. M. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Radford, E. A. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Raine, Sir Walter | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Ramsden, E. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Rawson, Sir Cooper | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Styles, Captain H. Walter | |
| Remnant, Sir James | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Colonel Gibbs and Captain Mar- |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Tasker, R. Inlgo. | gesson. |
| Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford) | Templeton, W. P. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hardle, George D. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Amnion, Charles George | Harney, E. A. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston) | Hayday, Arthur | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Baker, Walter | Hayes, John Henry | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hirst, G. H. | Snell, Harry |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillp |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Broad, F. A. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Bromfield, William | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bromley, J. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stewart. J. (St. Rollox) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Kelly, W. T. | Taylor. R. A. |
| Cape, Thomas | Kennedy, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kirkwood, D. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbre, W.) |
| Clowes, S. | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, John James | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lee, F. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Compton, Joseph | Lindley, F. W. | Townend, A. E. |
| Connolly, M. | Livingstone, A. M | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Cove, W. G. | Lowth, T. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lunn, William | Viant, S. P. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Mackinder, W. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Dennison, R. | March, S. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Duncan, C. | Maxton, James | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Dunnico, H. | Montague, Frederick | Welsh, J. C. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Westwood, J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Murnin, H. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Naylor, T. E. | Wiggins. William Martin |
| Gillett, George M. | Oliver, George Harold | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gosling, Harry | Owen, Major G. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Palin, John Henry | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Greenall, T. | Paling, W. | Williams, Dr. J. H (Llanelly) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Potts, John S. | Wright, W. |
| Groves, T. | Ritson, J. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich) | |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Whiteley and Mr. B. Smith. |
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI beg to move, in page 9, line 28, at the end, to insert the words "or exhibits the film as the case may be."
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERIt is suggested now that exhibitors should be brought within the purpose of Clause 17, which deals with renters' licences. It may be that an exhibitor may enter into a contract with a foreign renter who has not taken out a licence, and I should think that the proper place to deal with that matter would be in connection with the exhibitors' Clause. I think this Amendment and the other Amendments which have been carried leave us now with a very poorly drafted Clause. I am not so sure that the Clause now secures the object which the President of the Board of Trade has in view.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThis Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment which has been moved by the Solicitor-General. Obviously, it is more convenient to insert the penalty after the offence.
§ Amendment agreed to.