HC Deb 06 April 1932 vol 264 cc230-43

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

I move this Amendment formally and by arrangement. We considered that the wording of the Clause was somewhat loose, and the Amendment is moved in order to give an opportunity for an explanation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

This Clause was subject to some discussion in the Committee stage, and I think that doubt was felt by some hon. Members as to its exact scope and purpose. This is purely a machinery Clause. It is necessary to secure that the various parcels of flour imported into this country shall have quota payments made in respect of them. Some of the flour which is imported is dutiable and some is not. For instance, that which comes from the Empire is not subject to duty. Flour that is dutiable will be caught by the ordinary machinery of the Customs automatically; that is to say, the hand of the Customs authority will be placed upon it pending the payment of the duty for which it is liable, and that will provide an opportunity for seeing that the quota payment referable to that parcel is made. In regard to a parcel which is not dutiable, the ordinary practice under the Customs Act would merely require the importer to fill up a form, and, upon the parcel being passed by the Customs officers as not being liable to duty, it would, thereupon, be released immediately, and there would then be no security that the quota payment had been made. This Clause merely provides that whether or not the parcel of flour is dutiable, the ordinary machinery of the Customs Consolidation Act shall apply to it, and that it shall be, in the words of the Clause: entered in like manner as goods liable to a duty of Customs are entered. The result will be that there will be a means of securing that the quota payment referable to the parcel shall be made, because once the goods are required to be entered "in like manner as goods liable to a duty of customs" they will not then be released as duty-free goods would be released, upon a pass by the Customs officer. They will only be released subject to the production and surrender of a receipt in the prescribed form for the amount of the quota payments payable in respect of the flour. That describes the sole purpose of Subsection (1) of the Clause. The three provisos are reasonably plain. Proviso (a) is necessary to prevent quota payments being paid to the Customs officer, as they are payments which are liable to be made to the Wheat Commission and not to the Customs authorities and, notwithstanding the application of the Customs machinery, proviso (a) says that the payments are to be made to the Wheat Commission. Proviso (b) deals with parcels of flour which have been sold by the Customs authorities because duty has not been paid, or which have been sold under some other power. Proviso (c) is merely an exclusion of the provisions of the Customs Consolidation Act which are not proper to be applied to these parcels of flour. The remaining Sub-section deals with the repayment of the quota payments upon exportation or shipment of the flour. Unless my hon. Friend wants any guidance or assistance which I may be able to give him on Subsection (2), I hope that the observations which I have made will satisfy him as to the purpose of the Clause.


It is Sub-section (2) which is worrying our minds. It provides that if the exporter or shipper fails or neglects to make such entry or if the entry be false in any particular he shall be liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds. Those are the words of which we are afraid. We feel that the words ought to be "if he wilfully fails" or "if the entry is wilfully false in any material particular." As the Sub-section stands, if the return is false, whether accidentally or otherwise, the penalty will be enforceable and it is to be a penalty of £100. It does not say "a penalty not exceeding £100." If I were a magistrate, and a person were brought before me in a case in which a false entry had been made, whether he had made it wilfully or not, I could not but fine him £100 under the terms of this Sub-section.


This is an extraordinary Sub-section, and I think it is the result of rashly taking precedents. Under this Sub-section you are making a man who neglects to take a sum of money due to him liable to a, penalty. The only possible reference can be to Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 under which he is entitled to get money on export. If he fails to take the money, being perhaps a patriotic supporter of the National Government, and not wanting to embarrass them in these hard times, you say that he shall pay a, penalty of £100. I think the precedent has reference to explosives, but this is an entirely different matter. Here you are setting up a new crime, subject to a fine of £100, because a person fails to claim a sum of money.


I am sorry I did not appreciate that my hon. and gallant Friend's question related to Sub-section (2), and I am afraid that I wearied him with an attempted elucidation of the earlier Sub-section which did not interest him. If he had put down an Amendment to Sub-section (2), I should more easily have appreciated the point on which he thought I might help him. The first point he made was that the words "fails or neglects" are not preceded by the word "wilfully." As to that, all that I can say is that this Clause is intended to be part and parcel, for the purposes of this Bill, of the Customs Consolidation Act, the procedure of which is made referable, subject to certain exceptions, to these parcels of flour. Therefore, this Sub-section substitutes a more proper form of Clause for Section 139 of the Customs Consolidation Act. That Section 139 follows the form of words which is used throughout the Customs Act.

It, is true that that has reference to explosives, as the hon. Member opposite said, but as we are substituting a Clause which is, so to speak, to be read into or as part of the Customs Consolidation Act, we must employ the same manner of drafting, the same phraseology, and throughout the Customs Consolidation Act the word "wilfully" does not appear before such words as "fails or neglects." If we were to put it into this Clause, it would immediately throw a doubt upon the proper interpretation of similar words in other sections of the Customs Consolidation Act, and my hon. and gallant Friend's suggested Amendment would have, I think, an effect which he does not intend, because it might be said that where the word "wilfully" does not appear in the Customs Consolidation Act, a man must be convicted, however innocent and inadvertent his act was.

That is not the proper way of interpreting the phrases in the Customs Consolidation Act. Where it says, "if a man fails or neglects" to make such entry, it is not intended that mere inadvertence is to be read as failure or neglect. It must be neglect, and neglect imports something wilful. You do not neglect to do a thing if, by some accident, such as illness, you have been prevented from doing it, nor do you fail, in my respectful opinion, to perform an act if by some accident you are prevented from doing it. If we were to put in the word "wilfully" in this place, we should be suggesting that in all the other places in the Customs Consolidation Act in which those words occur, whether it was wilful, or inadvertent, or accidental, the man must be convicted. I therefore think my hon. and gallant Friend would desire to leave the words as they are. The next point was that the words, "liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds" would require a magistrate to impose a. penalty of £100 and no less.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)

I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the next Amendment on the Paper, which is one to make the amount a sum not exceeding a certain figure, is an Amendment which I propose to call.


Then I will say no more on that point at this moment. The hon. Member opposite had a third criticism, that this new Subsection provides a penalty in addition to the loss which a man will suffer by not getting the repayment to which he would be entitled if he were to make the entry. He will see that the Clause also provides that, if the entry be false in any particular, he shall be liable to a penalty of £100. I am sure he will agree that it would be very improper that, if a man snakes a false entry, possibly with the idea of getting a larger repayment than he is entitled to, he should merely suffer the loss of the repayment which he would have got if he had behaved honestly. He ought to be made to pay a penalty, in the view of the Government, and that is the reason why we have provided that he shall be liable to a penalty of £100 in addition to the loss of the repayment.


But why should a person be penalised at all? The only point where the exporter comes in is if he has not made a claim in order to receive some money.


I was: trying to explain that if the hon. Member will look at the Clause, he will see that it says: If he fails or neglects to make such entry or if the entry be false in any particular he shall be liable to a penalty.


I agree with the second part.


The hon. Member agrees that he should be liable if he makes a false entry. Now the criticism is that we make the penalty applicable to failure or neglect to make an entry at all. If the hon. Member accepts what I have suggested, that it is for the court to reduce the penalty in a proper case to any figure less than £100 which the court thinks proper, I think there would be nothing wrong in saying that in a case where the failure or neglect has been deliberate, a larger penalty should be applicable. It would rest with the court to say what is the proper penalty, and, if the exporter has last his repayment, the court may say that he has suffered all the punishment that is proper, but there may be circumstances which show that there was some motive behind the failure or neglect to make the entry, and I see no reason why the magistrate should not then say that, in addition to the loss of his repayment, he must pay a fine of a sum up to £100.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'of,' in page 12, line 34, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.


I beg to move, in page 12, line 34, to leave out the words "of one hundred pounds," and to insert instead thereof the words: not exceeding the sum to which such exporter or shipper of flour would be entitled to receive in repayment under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section three of this Act. This is a continuance of the same point. I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has fully explained the matter. I can understand that where the law says that a person shall do a certain thing, and he fails to do it, he shall pay a certain penalty, but where is there an obligation upon a shipper or exporter to do anything in this Bill? There is no duty put upon the shipper or exporter of flour in this Bill at all. All that is done is that he is given a right, in Sub-section (3) of Clause 3. That Sub-section merely gives a right to the exporter or shipper to get a sum of money back. I can understand the first part of this Sub-section, which is quite germane, but there is nothing in the second part that really relates to this Bill at all. It is simply taking something out of the Customs Consolidation Act and trying to apply it to a totally different set of circumstances. I confess that I thought after the little discussion, in which several learned Members joined on the Committee stage, that the Minister would put down an Amendment on the Report stage to delete the Sub-section, or at all events make it apply only to the second case of making a false entry, if indeed that were necessary. I imagined that this would be omitted, but, if you are going to say that where a person does not claim a sum of money that is due to him, he should be fined £100, it makes the punishment for the crime perfectly absurd. As we have got into the realm of "The Mikado," we want to make the punishment fit the crime.

8.30 p.m.


I am also very puzzled about this Sub-section. It is necessary that we should appreciate the provision it is in lieu of. Under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, Section 139, the position was perfectly plain and simple. There was power under that Act in case of public emergency for the Commissioners of Customs to direct that certain pre-entries of exports or coastwise goods might be required, and therefore, there being a condition of public emergency, it was perfectly plain that, when they required that certain things should be done, any individual who failed to do those things was acting contrary to the public good in the course of the public emergency. That being so, it occurs to one that it was right that you should punish a man for not having made those declarations which that Section prescribed. The Act then went on to deal with certain other articles which were exported under the Explosives Act of 1875, which was again a case where it was for the public good that a declaration should be made. It became apparent under the earlier part of Clause 5 of the present Bill, which was intended to apply to Customs laws generally, that Section 139 could have no application to a wheat quota, and in these circumstances, apparently, it has been thought necessary to import some form of penalty following upon Section 139 of the 1876 Act, because that also prescribes that if a declaration is false there is to be a forfeiting of a sum of £100. That is right enough, but, as has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman opposite, why it should be necessary to say that a man who is not obliged under the Bill as I follow it to claim this benefit at all should be liable to a penalty of £100 if he does not make a claim and does not want to make a claim, is one of those things which makes one wonder whether this Clause has yet received the amount of consideration which it ought to receive. I am not quite sure how far it is now in order to discuss the second point which arose upon this Clause, which was that under the original Act of 1876 there is provided a forfeiture of a sum of £100, and there are very elaborate provisions in the Customs Consolidation Act providing for the manner in which sums which are penalties or liable to be forfeited can be recoverable. It was pointed out that in this Clause in this Bill, instead of the word "forfeiture," the word used is "penalty," and, whereas under this Clause the words are "liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds," in every other case under the Bill in which it is sought to make provision for fines in respect of anything done which ought not to have been done, or vice versa, the provision is "not exceeding the sum" of so much. That was discussed upon the Committee stage of the Bill, and those of us who took part in that discussion thought that the matter was going to be reconsidered, because there is a perfectly well understood rule of construction which is applied in the courts to the effect that where the Legislature varies the language, presumably it intends to vary the meaning. That being so, it was thought that for greater caution, instead of using the language "liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds," Clause 5 would have been better drafted so as to show the real intention of the Government in the matter if the words "not exceeding one hundred pounds" had been inserted. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will give consideration to this Amendment.


I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Clause has been given very full consideration, and I hope that I can satisfy him and the hon. Gentleman opposite that the Clause is in its proper form. May I first deal with the point with which my hon. and learned Friend dealt in his last observations? He suggests because Clause 14 of this Bill uses the words "a fine not exceeding" that, where it is intended that there shall be power to impose not less than a particular sum, we should use the words "not exceeding" so much instead of adopting the form in this Clause "shall be liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds." He compares Sub-section (2) of Clause 5 with Clause 14, but the two Clauses are not really comparable. Clause 14 is part and parcel of this Bill, and the rule of construction, which is perfectly well known, does not apply to this particular Clause, because this Subsection which we are discussing is not part and parcel, so to speak, of the Wheat Bill; it is part and parcel of the Customs Consolidation Act, and has to be fitted into that Act.

If my hon. and learned Friend will look at the Customs Consolidation Act and compare like with like, he will find that you do not get that form of expression "exceeding so much" in the Customs Consolidation Act, but over and over again you get in Section after Section the form of words which is used in Sub-section (2), namely, "shall be liable." The words are in fact "shall forfeit a, sum of one hundred pounds"; it does not say "a sum not exceeding one hundred pounds." With regard to the difference between the words "shall forfeit" and "shall be liable to a penalty," in recent years the latter form has been adopted. I venture to think it is more favourable to the person to be charged than the old form, "shall forfeit the sum." If we say that a man shall forfeit a sum of £100 it may be supposed that there is no discretion left to the court, but if we say he "shall be liable to a penalty of £100" that seems to imply that he has exposed himself to the risk of having to pay £100 if the court adjudge him liable to pay that amount. If my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to say so without offence, there is nothing in his criticism, for, if my opinion is right, when the Clause says he shall be liable to a penalty of £100 it gives the court complete freedom to say whether the penalty shall be £100 or a less sum suited to the nature of the offence.

The other point raised was as to what necessity there was at all for making any provision imposing a penalty. As the hon. Gentleman opposite quite rightly says, sub-section (3) of Clause 3 provides for the repayment to the exporter of the wheat quota payment, but he asks if a man does not want to claim repayment why should he be forced to make an entry If everyone made up his mind once and for all, at the right time, and kept to that state of mind, it might well be that a man who did not intend to claim repayment should not be required to make an entry; but supposing the man says at one time, "I do not mean to claim a repayment, and therefore I will not make an entry" and afterwards changes his mind? He may see Subsection (3) of Clause 3 and say, "If I can prove to the satisfaction of the Commission that quota payments have been duly made in respect of some flour which I re-exported last week I am entitled to repayment. I have changed my mind and I will go and prove it to their satis- faction and claim repayment." That would put the Wheat Commission in a very great difficulty to ascertain precisely whether the wheat which has been re-exported is the same parcel of wheat in respect of which the wheat quota payment was made.

In order to make it possible for the Wheat Commission to know what are the parcels of wheat in respect of which wheat quota, payments have been made and repayment is demanded, it has been thought necessary to put in words requiring everybody to make an entry before shipment or before re-exportation. That is the reason why Section 139 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, is in no wise applicable, because that merely provides that in some cases entry shall be made before re-exportation. We have thought it necessary to require an entry in every case before re-exportation. If a man does not want to claim repayment he need not, but if he does wish to do so, even at a late stage, there will always be the materials available by which the Wheat Commission can make up their minds whether the parcel in respect of which repayment is asked is the same as that which bore the quota payment. I can assure the hon. Member behind me that the provisions of the Clause were carefully thought out, and they are designed to facilitate the provision of proof to the satisfaction of the Wheat Commission, which is an indispensable part before repayment.


We are not quite satisfied with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, because it seems that this provision will deal with what may be very small quantities of flour indeed, such as shipments for a ship's stores, only a few bags. He states that the reason for putting in this Sub-section is that the Wheat Commission may have the information as to whether the re-exportation has been made or not. May I point out that under Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 the Wheat Commission are not to make repayments unless it is proved to their satisfaction that the flour has been exported or shipped as stores; and Clause 4 is a special provision that they are to make by-laws dealing with the question of how that is to be proved. Under paragraph (j) they have to make by-laws to secure that repayments in respect of flour exported or shipped as stores are made or allowed only upon satisfactory proof that the quota payments have been duly made and that the flour has been exported or shipped. All that is necessary is for the Wheat Commission to make a by-law that the document is to be produced to prove to their satisfaction that the repayment is to be allowed. If such a by-law is made, then the exporter, if he wants to reclaim the money, will have to get the document from the Customs. It will be his own risk. No one will suffer but himself if he does not succeed. In order to accomplish that for which provision is already adequately made we are now asked to insert in the Bill a provision under which it certainly looks as if a man who does not want to trouble the Customs authorities by reclaiming some paltry sum on a sack or a, few pounds of flour will lay himself open to a penalty which may be anything up to £100. I agree with tile right hon. and learned Gentleman that it need not be £100 and that the words would entitle the court to impose a lower penalty. If it is said further that this provision is to stop the man making a false entry, that, again, has already been provided for, because paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 14 states specifically that any person who, with intent to deceive, knowingly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining any such certificate, receipt, or other document or any payment payable under this Act or under the by-laws of the Wheat Commission shall be liable to a fine of £100 or imprisonment. The only point of this Sub-section is to enforce the by-laws of the Wheat Commission, which is already done under Clause 14 (1, c). Therefore it is a perfectly unnecessary Sub-section, which is going to cause a lot of trouble. It will put a, lot of people to the trouble of making entries and cause the Customs trouble in recording the entries and all in respect of negligible amounts. We suggest that however necessary and wise it may be to restrict liberty on every conceivable occasion this does seem to be one occasion on which the liberty of the exporter or shipper need not be unduly interfered with, and that he should not be exposed to a penalty of £100 if he does not claim money when he need not do so.

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

Division No. 141.] AYES. [8 44 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Ganzoni, Sir John Munro, Patrick
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Gibson, Charles Granville Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Albery, Irving James Gillett, Sir George Masterman Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. R1. Hon. Sir John Nunn, William
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S Gledhill, Gilbert O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Glossop, C. W. H. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Aske, Sir Robert William Gluckstein, Louis Halle Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Atkinson, Cyril Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Palmer, Francis Noel
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Goodman, Colonel Albert W, Pearson, William G.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Gower, Sir Robert Peat, Charles U.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Granville, Edgar Penny, Sir George
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Grimston, R. V. Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Guy, J. C. Morrison Petherick, M
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Bateman, A. L. Hales, Harold K. Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Blist'n)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Pickering, Ernest H.
Bernays, Robert Hammersley, Samuel S. Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Hanbury, Cecil Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Hanley, Dennis A. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Bossom, A. C. Harris, Sir Percy Ramsbotham, Herwald
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Ramsden, E
Boyce, H. Leslie Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Hepworth, Joseph Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) Robinson, John Roland
Broadbent, Colonel John Hornby, Frank Ropner, Colonel L.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Horsbrugh, Florence Rosbotham, S. T.
Brown, Brig. Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ross, Ronald D.
Browne, Captain A. C. Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hume, Sir George Hopwood Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Burghley, Lord Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Runge, Norah Cecil
Burnett, John George Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
Butt, sir Alfred James, wing.-Com. A. W. H. Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Carver, Major William H. Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Castle Stewart, Earl Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Kerr, Hamilton W. Scone, Lord
Chalmers, John Rutherford Kimball, Lawrence Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Kirkpatriek, William M. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Clarry, Reginald George Knight, Holford Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Clayton, Dr. George C. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Clydesdale, Marquess of Law, Sir Alfred Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Colville, John- Law, Richard K. (Hull. S. W.) Skelton, Archibald Noel
Conant, R. J. E. Leckle, J. A. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Cooke, Douglas Leech, Dr. J. W. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Cooper, A. Duff Lees-Jones, John Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cranborne, Viscount Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Somervell, Donald Bradley
Craven-Ellis, William Liddall, Walter S. Soper, Richard
Crooke, J. Smedley Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Liewellyn, Major John J. Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Crossley, A. C. Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard Lloyd, Geoffrey Stones, James
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Storey, Samuel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Strauss, Edward A.
Dawson, Sir Philip MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Denman, Hon. R. D. MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Denville, Alfred McCorquodale, M. S. Templeton, William P.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Dickie, John P. McKie, John Hamilton Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Drewe, Cedric McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Thompson, Luke
Duckworth, George A. V. Magnay, Thomas Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Thorp, Linton Theodore
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Eady, George H. Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Eastwood, John Francis Marsden, Commander Arthur Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Martin, Thomas B. Turton, Robert Hugh
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Elmley, Viscount Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Milne, Charles Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw- Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Everard, W. Lindsay Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Fermoy, Lord Mitcheson, G. G. Wells, Sydney Richard
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Fraser, Captain Ian Moreing, Adrian C. Whyte, Jardine Bell
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Morrison, William Shephard Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Fuller, Captain A. G. Muirhead, Major A. J. Wills, Wilfrid D.

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 51.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George Worthington, Dr. John V.
Wise, Alfred R. Wragg, Herbert TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Womersley, Walter James Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'vnoaks) Lord Erskine and Sir Murdoch
Mackenzie Wood.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) McEntee, Valentine L.
Attlee, Clement Richard Groves, Thomas E. McGovern, John
Batey, Joseph Grundy, Thomas W. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Gcvan)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Maxton, James
Briant, Frank Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Owen, Major Goronwy
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Hicks, Ernest George Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George Hirst, George Henry Price, Gabriel
Cape, Thomas Holdsworth, Herbert Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jenkins, Sir William Thorne, William James
Cove, William G. John, William Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Daggar, George Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Kirkwood, David Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Edwards, Charles Lawson, John James Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Leonard, William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Logan, David Gilbert TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Lunn, William Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Cordon