HC Deb 15 May 1933 vol 278 cc91-105

So long as the principal Acts continue in force no distress for the rent of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts have ceased to apply by virtue of this Act or of section two of the Act of 1923 shall be levied except with the leave of the county court, and the court shall, with respect to any application for such leave, have the same or similar powers with respect to adjournment, stay, suspension, postponement, and otherwise as are conferred by the principal Acts as amended by this Act in relation to applications for the recovery of possession.—[Mr. Tinker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.12 p.m.


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

This Clause is intended to give to occupiers of decontrolled houses some kind of protection in relation to the levying of distress. There is no question about the amount of rent, but we are seeking by this Clause to give the occupiers some justice when they are threatened with being turned out of their houses. The landlord has power to increase rent almost to any point he desires. It has been stated that decontrolled houses under the Act of 1923 have had their rents increased by 85 per cent., as against 40 per cent. to 50 per cent., which shows the powers in the hands of landlords with respect to decontrolled houses. We wish to do something to check that sort of thing. We want the matter to be made public before a landlord can turn out a person who cannot keep up with his rent. A man may have an excessive rent, and a landlord is able to turn him out without redress. Some kind of protection should be given to him, especially as this Act will mean putting many more houses under decontrol. Class "A" houses will be altogether decontrolled. Class "B" houses will be largely decontrolled. Class "C" houses will remain as they are. Under the 1923 Act it is even worse. Many houses, even of a poor type, have been allowed to become decontrolled under the 1923 Act. Although we know we cannot bring them back under control—that was thrashed out in the Committee stage—we now seek to give them some form of protection against imposition by the landlord. I do not think it is too much to ask the Minister to give consideration to this Clause, seeing that we are dealing with a very big Measure indeed. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister of Health said: We shall be dealing with one of the most intimate needs of the community as applied to no fewer than 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 houses, and, interpreted into human lives, we shall be dealing with conditions that very closely affect between 25,000,000 and 30,000,000 of our fellow countrymen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1932; col. 47; Vol. 273.] So this is a big matter, with regard to both controlled houses and decontrolled houses. The Minister may have been quite right when he said that the law of supply and demand would keep rents down, but we are afraid that the demand for houses will be over and above what the supply will be and that therefore the landlords will be given immense power to increase rents. It is to put some kind of stop to the rapacity of the landlords, which has been proved by the statement of the Minister with regard to the decontrolled conditions of 1923, that we move this Clause. When this Bill is passed, in September of this year, power will again pass into the hands of the landlords to do just as they like with the tenants of decontrolled houses, not only under the 1923 Act, but under this Measure as well. Those houses will contain a large proportion of the 25,000,000 or 30,000,000 people who, the Minister has said, expect some protection from this House in these matters. I hope we shall not have the kind of answer that we have had on previous Clauses, that this matter has been dealt with in Committee. I believe that this has not been dealt with in Committee, but is quite a new feature, and, therefore, I hope it will receive consideration from the Government.

7.18 p.m.


I beg to second the Motion.

I hope the Government will not tell us that all these things were thoroughly discussed in Committee, and I suggest that there has been time between the Committee stage and now for the Government to repent of some of the statements made by them on that occasion. I feel confident that the Solicitor-General will do what he thinks right, if at any time it is shown that he has been in the wrong. This Clause is intended to remedy what was one of the most cruel and brutal things that we had in this country prior to the introduction of rent restriction. Eviction for rent due was always looked upon as one of the most brutal methods of obtaining a debt that was known to the community or the legal profession, and we ask that in the recovery of any debt in the shape of rent the debtor should have a fair chance of appealing to a court of law. We ask in this Clause that the matter should be taken to the county court, and the judge given the right to stay execution until the case has been thoroughly investigated. That is only elementary justice.

The tenant of a house who is in arrears with his rent owing to circumstances over which he has had no control, such as iliness, or unemployment, or part employment, is liable to have his goods scheduled, and before he knows where he is the law is put into operation. Surely, it is right to ask that that class of people should be brought up to the ordinary level of other people against whom civil action may be taken, and surely this House has sufficient faith and trust in the courts of this land to give these people the right of appeal to the courts. Our county court judges have all had long legal experience and are thoroughly trained in the law, and I know of no more competent persons than they would be to adjudicate in cases of this kind. If this Clause was accepted, it might be that the judge, through his influence and advice, might be able to find a way whereby some arrangement could be come to and the man assessed to pay off so much a week of the accumulated rent.

In common fairness to the tenant and to the landlord as well, therefore, it might be a good thing to accept this Clause. But my strong point is that these people should be brought up to the ordinary level of the law of this country and given the same rights as other people who may find themselves in debt. Immediately a house goes out of control the old, obsolete law comes into operation, and I appeal to the Government to consider this new Clause, and to show that they intend, as far as possible, to give every protection to the tenant and every justice to the landlord at the same time, so that both will have a fair chance of having their case stated in the court and heard by a competent judge.

7.24 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman)

I can assure both the Mover and the Seconder of this Clause that I will not use the argument that the Clause was fully debated in Committee and disposed of there. As far as I can recollect, it was not put forward at all, in this form at any rate. But this is not a case in which second thoughts are best. It is not, for reasons that I shall try to explain, really a good Clause even though it was not put forward on the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) says the Clause is designed to get rid of a brutal method of obtaining payment of a debt. There may be something to be said for getting rid of the law of distress altogether. I am not in the least admitting that that is so, but let it be assumed for the sake of argument that there is something to be said for that contention. In my submission, there is nothing whatever to be said for dealing with that question on this Bill, and applying it only to the particular case of houses which formerly were controlled but have become decontrolled.

The hon. Member for Workington was right when he said that under the Acts as they exist, so long as a house is controlled no distress can be levied without application to the court, and what the hon. Members have done is to lift from the Act of 1920 the Section which gives that protection to the sitting, statutory tenant, and have sought to apply it to what will happen with regard to houses decontrolled under this Bill. But they have not even stopped there. They have added that it is also to apply—and there is to be no right of distress without leave of the court—with regard to any house which has at any time become decontrolled and which becomes decontrolled in the future. They are going to make it retrospective, with regard to any house which has become decontrolled at any time during the last 10 years when decontrol has operated, and they are going henceforward to say, with regard to that house, as distinct from all other houses in the street or district which are governed by the ordinary law of the land, that the landlord may not get distress. I suggest that it is quite impossible to justify a distinction of that sort between houses which happen to have been controlled 10 years ago, in occupation of which there is at present, not the original statutory tenant, but, let us say, a man in the fifth succession from him, and who is just an ordinary tenant under the ordinary law. Just because, 10 years ago, that house was controlled and became decontrolled, you are going to have a different law applying there. I suggest to the House that that would be quite unjustifiable.

Now let us take only the houses which are being decontrolled by this Bill, namely, the "A" group of houses. Under this Bill we are providing that, before decontrol operates fully, the landlord of such a house must give a notice. He either gives a notice or he does not. If he does, the result is one of two things; either the tenant enters into a new agreement, upon new terms, in which case he is just like any ordinary tenant of a house which is not controlled and who chooses to enter into an agreement with his landlord, with regard to whom the ordinary law of distress applies; or, on the other hand, he does not consent to enter into this agreement, and he goes out. The house becomes decontrolled, and not the sitting tenant but some other tenant enters into a voluntary agreement with the landlord. I put it to hon. Members that there is no reason whatever why either the statutory tenant who has agreed to take on a new tenancy, or a new tenant who has come in and made a voluntary agreement with the landlord, should be treated any differently from the rest of the tenants up and down the country.

If you like, bring in a Bill to abolish the law of distress with regard to all tenants, but do not seek to apply it sectioNaily to people who happen to be tenants of houses which have become decontrolled. In the other case, the case in which the landlord does not choose to give a notice, there is no need for this Clause at all, because so long as the landlord gives no notice, even though the house comes within the "A" category, the old terms and conditions still apply until the landlord gives notice, and the result would be that the old Section which protects the tenant from distress for rent would also continue to apply. For these reasons, I invite the House, if the matter is pressed to a Division, to reject the Clause.

7.30 p.m.


I am surprised at the attitude of the learned Solicitor-General, in view of the statements that have been made by the Government speakers that they were acting on the recommendations of a Joint Committee representative of all political parties in the House. I am wondering whether the Solicitor-General has read the report of that committee. In paragraph 113 the committee says: There is one further aspect of the general situation brought about by control which we think should be mentioned. The tenancy of the better-class house is usually regulated by an agreement for a period of years entered into by the landlord and tenant, but the working-class tenant usually holds his house on a weekly tenancy. Accordingly, before the Rent Restrictions Acts were passed, the working-class tenant could be turned out of his house at a week's notice. For 16 years this fear has been removed from his mind. The working-class tenant who pays his rent has been given almost complete security of tenure during all these years, and now attaches as much importance to this as to the restricted rent. We think that when the shortage! of working-class houses is ended, so that final decontrol may safely be enacted, it will probably still be necessary to take this fact into account by making some permanent provision to ensure that, whether or not rents are payable weekly, a notice to quit shall not be effective in the case of houses in Class "C" until after the expiration of some specified period, such as six clear weeks from the date of the notice.


I had read that paragraph, but it has no bEarlng whatever on what we are discussing. The Committee in this paragraph is talking about the turning out of tenants of houses in spite of the fact that they pay their rent. We here are talking about, not the turning out of tenants at all, but the levying of distress on their goods and chattels because they do not pay their rent. The two things are absolutely different.


I am trying to put to the Solicitor-General the arguments of my hon. Friends. There are hundreds of thousands of working-class houses which have already been decontrolled. I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means when he talks about distress. What happens in Scotland is that a tenant who fails to pay his rent is brought before the court. It is not a question of sequestrating his furniture, but of getting an eviction order against him. Hundreds of thousands of working-class people have been deprived, and will be deprived, of anything in the nature of security against that. That is a point with which we are seeking to deal in this Clause; we are trying to ensure that the recommendation of the Committee shall be respected by the Government and that they shall accept the proposed Clause in accordance with that recommendation. If it is not in the best words, we shall not quarrel if the Government can find better words. I am sorry that the Solicitor-General tried to cloud the issue by the use of a number of meaningless words. [Laughter.] It is easy for hon. Gentlemen on that side to be cynical, but it is not a laughing matter to the working class. A good many of them are being threatened with a condition of things that is not known to the Majority of the Members who support the Government. I have some experience of this sort of thing ranging back for a considerable number of years. I have never said that the working man is an angel—nor are employers for that matter—and we are anxious that there should be some security against a tenant being turned out—


What the hon. Gentleman is saying has nothing to do with the new Clause.


The Solicitor-General said that no tenants are likely to be turned out. I want to know whether, if a tenant in a decontrolled house fails to pay his rent, it is not the intention of the Government that he should be brought before the court? I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter, but I do not expect much from them because they are absolutely brutal in their attitude in this question.

7.39 p.m.


I regret the easy and off-hand way in which the Solicitor-General dealt with this matter. May I put to him such a case as that of a tenant who wrote to me this morning on his own behalf and on behalf of a number of other tenants living in his street? The controlled rent of the houses in that street is 10s. 6d. a week and of the decontrolled houses 16s. The tenants have just received notice from the landlord that after a certain date a week or two ahead, the 16s. rent will be further increased to £1 a week, and that if they do not like it they can get out. Can they get out, and where are they to go? Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be good enough to inform me where these tenants are to go. The last figures, which are three weeks old, show that there are 3,085 applications at Walthamstow Town Hall for houses in the borough. There are no houses available—


As I read this new Clause, what the hon. Member is talking about has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the levying of distress for the non-payment of rent.


I am coming to that, and it is a point to which I want to draw the attention of the Solicitor-General. Have these tenants to accept or reject that increased rent? If they refuse the landlord's ultimatum, there is no accommodation for them elsewhere, and if they refuse to get out because they cannot get any other accommodation, the landlord will levy distress. What will happen to these people? The man who writes to me has a wife and three children. The landlord will levy distress for the pound a week when he fixes that rent after a certain time. The man will not be able to pay it, and the tenants who are similarly situated to him in the same street will not be able to pay it either. This man cannot get out because he cannot find any other accommodation. He may perhaps be ejected, or the landlord may take the course of levying a distress. Is it in the power of the landlord, if the tenants do not get out and the rent accumulates, to levy a distress? Of course it is, and the Solicitor-General knows it perfectly well. Their goods can be seized and they will be left in the position of having no house or household goods, and a family to support on a small wage.

The Solicitor-General appears to be terribly upset at the suggestion that protection should be given to certain classes of people which is not given to other people. The classes of people who would be protected under this new Clause would be three—people living in houses which have already been decontrolled, people living in houses which will become decontrolled under this Bill, and people living in houses which may in future become decontrolled because of a change of tenancy. Does anybody say that because certain other people have not the same form of protection of the court, these tenants should not have that protection? These people need protection and control because the great bulk of them are extremely poor. I ask the Solicitor-General even now to do as hon. Gentlemen have asked him, to repent and to give these people the protection of the court so that the landlord cannot seize their goods when the rent accumulates, or when the rent is so grossly extortionate as in the case to which I have referred. In that case the rent is to be put up practically 100 per cent. Many of the tenants cannot pay it, there is no accommodation for them elsewhere, their goods may be seized, and they will have no protection of the court, but will be left at the will and mercy of a type of landlord, such as the one to whom I am referring, who is utterly unscrupulous and cares nothing for the well-being of his tenants as long as he makes a huge profit out of the houses which, unfortunately, the law permits him to hold.

I ask the Solicitor-General to give the protection which the proposed new Clause seeks to give, in the interests of humanity and those unfortunate, poor people whose small household goods will be seized in many cases, and to give them some form of protection to go to the court and to let the court decide whether the landlord has a right to seize their goods. I put this point to the Solicitor-General, because he knows the courts much better than I do; but I have some experience of courts which deal with applications by landlords against poor tenants, and I find that county court judges are humane men and endeavour to give all the protection which the law permits to these poor tenants. If the landlord were compelled to ask the court for permisison to levy distress, I think that in many cases the county court judge might be able to devise means which would give protection to the tenant, and, at the same time, give some reasonable conditions to the landlord, if the landlord were inclined to be reasonable; and if he were not inclined to be reasonable the court would be able to judge him for what he was, and give the tenant the protection which would be deserved.

7.46 p.m.


I think that the principal object of this new Clause is to see that people who occupy houses which have passed from control—either houses decontrolled in the future or houses which have become decontrolled Since the operation of the Act of 1923—shall not be evicted from their homes—[HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Well, that is what I gather from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). He and I have experience of the Scottish courts, and I think that he and I are on common ground in saying that the object, as far as Scotland is concerned, is to say that those who occupy decontrolled houses should have the protection of the courts.


This Clause has nothing to do with the question of eviction. Eviction does not come into this question at all. The levying of distress is a form of common law execution on goods for the payment of Tent. The Clause does not touch the question of the possession of the premises. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) will find that the observations they have been making will be more to the point on the next proposed new Clause.


These cases in which they sue for accumulated arrears of rent are taken in Scotland in what we call the small debt court. The process is called "pinding," or "poinding," according to the part of the country from which a man comes. The factor who wishes to levy distress must take the tenant to court, whether it be a decontrolled house or not. Even if it is a new house, the factor who wants to sell up a tenant's furniture cannot do so without a warrant from the court. There is another practice in Scotland called sequestration—or sometimes it is called serving a keyhole summons—though I would say, in common fairness to the factors, that it has not ever been operated. That is where they serve a sequestration notice without going to the court. In those cases the tenant has legal redress only when the owner of the property has taken wrong action. Then the tenant can sue for damages for wrongful selling off.

7.51 p.m.


I support the proposed new Clause. The Solicitor-General said the objection to the acceptance of the Clause is not that it is wrong in principle but that it covers only a section of the tenants in the country. As a matter of fact, the present law covers only a section of tenants, those who occupy controlled houses. This Measure is removing a great many more houses from control, but it is in no way altering the conditions of life of the tenants of those houses, whose wages remain the same and whose employment is the same. The only change is that the house is decontrolled owing to the change in the law; and all I am asking is that the man shall have the same protection as he enjoyed when his house was controlled. We say he ought to have the protection of the courts before his goods can be marked and sold in the streets, which is a detestable way of recovering a debt. There have been many instances where a man has owed only £3 or £4 for rent and goods which were worth to him £15 or £16 have been seized, and have not realised more than £3 in the open sale. I have known men who have owed very little rent—just a few pounds—but have lost nearly the whole of their homes because the "bums" have entered and marked their furniture and sold it in the open street. It is from that experience that we are trying to save these people. I cannot understand the attitude of the Solicitor-General. He says, "It is quite all right for the section that has now got control," but complains if we accept this new Clause it will add to the number of people affected. That is the only thing it does. The Solicitor-General has admitted that he agrees with the principle, and says, "Bring in a Bill that will give this protection to every tenant in the country."


The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I did not say anything of the sort. I said it was conceivable that that view might be taken, but that if any action were

taken on it, it ought to be as part of a general law. I did not say that I approved of it.


I was not endeavouring to misrepresent the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understood from the statement that he made that he had no real objection to the principle involved. What is the objection to the Government accepting this Clause? It is only asking that protection shall follow the man whose house is now to be decontrolled—the protection which he enjoyed before. Surely there is no better way of dealing with a question of debt. If I owe money for rent or anything else, nothing can be fairer than to take me before a court and give me a chance to say why I owe it and to let the court, which can be informed of my circumstances and my ability to pay, fix the amount and say how I should pay. That is better than this ruthless way of "bums" walking into a house and marking a man's furniture and selling it off—maybe selling £20 worth of furniture for a debt of 20s. We have argued all through this Measure that the line of demarcation is too narrow, and that we shall be putting into the hands of the bailiffs thousands of honest, hard-working men who, if they had a debt to meet, would be happy to meet it after an ascertainment made in a court of justice where all the circumstances had been put before the judge. That is all we are asking for in this Clause. Probably our friends in Scotland have not seen this operation of the "bums" entering houses and selling furniture to the extent that we have in England. We have seen it too often in England, and we are anxious to give the tenant the protection to which he is entitled. The Government have put forward such a weak defence that I hope they will reconsider the matter, or we shall have to force this Clause to a Division.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 224.

Division No. 169.] AYES. [7.58 p.m.
Attlee, Clement Richard Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Banfield, John William Buchanan, George Edwards. Charles
Batty, Joseph Cape, Thomas Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Bernays, Robert Cocks, Frederick Seymour Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Cripps, Sir Stafford Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Briant, Frank Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Groves, Thomas E.
Grundy, Thomas w. Logan, David Gilbert Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Lunn, William Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Hicks, Ernest George Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Hirst, George Henry McEntee, Valentins L. Tinker, John Joseph
Janner, Barnett McGovern, John Wallhead. Richard C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) White, Henry Graham
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Kirkwood, David Maxton, James Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Milner, Major James
Lawson, John James Owen, Major Goronwy TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Leonard, William Price, Gabriel Mr. John and Mr. O. Graham.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Cnlonei Ganzoni, Sir John Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M. Gillett, Sir George Masterman Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Glossop, C. W. H. Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Glockstein, Louis Halle Moreing, Adrian C.
Asthury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Goff, Sir Park Morrison, William Shephard
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Goldie, Noel B. Muirhead, Major A. J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Gower, Sir Robert Munro, Patrick
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'fl'd, N.) Murray-phillpson, Hylton Raiph
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Greene, William P. C. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Balniel, Lord Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Grimston, R. V. Nunn, William
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Gritten, W. G. Howard O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Penny, Sir George
Beaumont, Hon, R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.) Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Perkins, Walter R. D.
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Gunston, Captain D. W. Petherick, M.
Boothby, Robert John Graham Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Boulton, W. W. Hanbury, Cecil Pike, Cecil F.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Hanley, Dennis A. Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Hartington, Marquess of Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Brass, Captain Sir William Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Broadbent, Colonel John Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Reid, David D. (County Down)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l;d., Hexham) Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Reiner, John R.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Burghley. Lord Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) Robinson, John Roland
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Ropner, Colonel L.
Burnett, John George Hopkinson, Austin Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Hornby, Frank Ross, Ronald D.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Horobin, Ian M. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Horsbrugh, Florence Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Cassels, James Dale Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Runge, Norah Cecil
Cattley, Sir Henry S. Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Hume, Sir George Hopwood Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Clayton, Dr. George C. Hurst. Sir Gerald B. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Savery, Samuel Servington
Colfox, Major William Philip Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Selley, Harry R.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey Jesson, Major Thomas E. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Joel. Dudley J. Barnato Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Cooke, Douglas Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Kerr, Hamilton W. Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Crossley, A. C. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Leckie, J. A. Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Davies, Maj Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil) Leech, Dr. J. W. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Dickie, John P. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Donner, P. W. Levy, Thomas Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Doran, Edward Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Duckworth, George A. V. Llewellin, Major John J. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Duggan, Hubert John Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Spens, William Patrick
Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Lyons, Abraham Montagu Stanley, Hon. 0. F. C. (Westmorland)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Mabane, William Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Elmley, Viscount MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Strauss, Edward A.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard McKie, John Hamilton Strickland, Captain W. F.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) McLean, Major Sir Alan Summersby, Charles H.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Tate, Mavis Constance
Everard, W. Lindsay Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Falle Sir Bertram G. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Thompson, Luke
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Fox, Sir Gifford Marsden, Commander Arthur Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Fremantle, Sir Francis Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Fuller, Captain A. G. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Turton, Robert Hugh
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour. Withers, Sir John James
Wallace, John (DunferMilne) Whiteside, Borras Noel H. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noakt)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) Whyte, Jardine Bell
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) Wilson, Clyde T. (Wett Toxteth) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward
Watt, Captain George Steven H. Wise, Alfred R. and Dr. Morris-Jones.

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