§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (2).
The powers given by this Sub-section are so extraordinary that it seems almost impossible for the Committee to approve of them. The Clause deals with the prevention of smuggling in Northern Ireland, I suppose it would be applicable to smuggling in any area because smuggling is obviously a thing one wants to prevent. But even the smuggler is entitled to a 708 sort of elementary justice. Under Subsection (2) the procedure is this:If goods of any such class or description as aforesaid are found in the possession or control of any person within the prescribed area in Northern Ireland, an officer of customs and excise may require that person to furnish proof that the goods have not been imported from the Irish Free State.It is always difficult to prove a negative, but to start proceedings which may become criminal proceedings by having to satisfy someone that you are not guilty has always been considered not a right thing according to the principles of English justice.or that customs duty has been paid thereon, and if such proof is not furnished to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, the goods shall be deemed, for the purpose of any proceedings for the forfeiture of them or for any customs penalty in respect of them, to have been imported as aforesaid without payment of duty, unless the contrary is proved.That is to say, there will be no need for the prosecution to produce any evidence except for the customs officer to say, "I required this man to furnish me with proof that they have not been smuggled and he did not, therefore, he is guilty unless he proves the contrary." That is not the procedure which has been generally meted out in this country even to the worst type of smuggler, and it is not desirable to introduce procedure of this kind, however bitterly we may desire to prevent importation by smuggling from the Irish Free State to Northern Ireland. I suggest that it is more important to preserve the elements of justice than to stop the importation of cattle over the Irish Free State border, and that it will be better to omit the Clause altogether and substitute for it some more rational and more just type of procedure, as stringent as you like, but a procedure which at least preserves the elementary right of the subject to be proved guilty and not assumed to be guilty unless he proves that he is not guilty.
§ 10.34 p.m.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
This Subsection is the vital part of the Clause, which puts upon the person found in possession of goods believed to have been smuggled the onus of proving that they have not been smuggled. The hon. and learned Member has avowed that he is as anxious as we are to prevent 709 smuggling and he will appreciate the peculiar conditions which prevail on the border separating Northern Ireland from Southern Ireland. The boundary is 200 miles long, and in some cases actual farms are divided by the boundary. The Customs officials are well acquainted with the head of cattle possessed by farmers upon the northern boundaries, but when they go to Mr. Murphy and say "Last night you had one cow and this morning you have ten. How do you account for the difference?" Mr. Murphy will say "Owing to a recent decision of the High Court the onus of proof is upon you." That is the difficulty we desire to remove. Since 1876 the onus of proof has been upon the defendant. The Customs Consolidation Act of 1876 reads:If in any prosecution in respect of any goods seized for non-payment of duties, or any other cause of forfeiture, or for recovering any penalty or penalties under the Customs Acts, any dispute shall arise whether the duties of Customs have been paid in respect of such goods, or whether the same have been lawfully imported or lawfully unshipped, or concerning the place from whence such goods were brought, then and in every such case the proof thereof shall be on the defendant in such prosecution.That has been the law since 1876. Owing, however, to a decision of the High Court in Northern Ireland, the provisions of that Act as we have hitherto interpreted them have been contested. It is obviously unjust, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who disapproves of smuggling will agree not to allow any doubt to exist on the matter. We, therefore, place categorically once again the onus of proof where it has always existed, namely, upon the defendant, to show how he obtained possession of the cattle or other goods suspected of being smuggled. There is no novel proposal here. It is a mere re-assertion of the law as we have always deemed it to exist, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the whole Committee, appreciative of the peculiar conditions existing in Northern Ireland and the attitude existing between Northern and Southern Ireland towards smuggling, will give us that support which we are entitled to expect.
§ 10.38 p.m.
§ Sir P. HARRIS
We have certainly had a very interesting statement from the Financial Secretary, and I quite appreciate that the Government are faced with 710 a very difficult problem. Irishmen in particular are ingenious. You have these two parts of Ireland geographically and artificially divided, and obviously it is difficult to avoid the evasion of duties; but I do think that it is a tall order to put on a citizen the responsibility of proving how he came into possession of particular cattle or any other dutiable goods. It is like the Bill against sedition. Under that Bill a person has to show why he has a particular document in his possession. The same principle is to be applied here to the possession of cattle in Northern Ireland. The Financial Secretary quoted an old Act, but he quite forgets that the whole problem is widened by the policy of the Government. In those old days, when a Bill became an Act of Parliament, we were a Free Trade country. [Laughter I know it is a laughing matter to hon. Gentlemen behind me. In the case of such things as alcohol and tobacco it was reasonable to ask the owners to explain how they came to possess them.
Now that we have all the ramifications of a full-blooded tariff with a tariff war going on between this country and the Irish Free State and with new problems arising, the Government ought to use a less clumsy land unjustifiable instrument than this. I realise their problems and embarrassments and the difficulty of enforcing the law. I suppose it would be regarded as offensive if I suggested that the real way out of the difficulty is to make peace with Southern Ireland and stop this friction which is admittedly causing bad blood—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] It would be out of order for me to go into that question now, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman that this is a bad precedent and a bad principle and I suggest that the Government ought to find a less clumsy weapon for dealing with a difficult problem.
§ 10.41 p.m.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
It seems to me that we ought to have a more adequate explanation of this proposal. Whatever may have been the law hitherto, this proposal indicates a new departure in one sense. If an individual buys some commodity in France and brings it here in his travelling case and his travelling case is examined at Dover, it is a simple matter to show that the material or object or whatever it may be has come from a 711 foreign country. But once it is taken through the Customs and into that person's home it becomes difficult to show that the article has been smuggled. In a case such as that visualised by the hon. Gentleman the problem is more difficult. Suppose there is a farm on the border between Ulster and the Irish Free State, one-half being in Ulster and the other half in the Irish Free State, the difficulty becomes greater still and, the greater the difficulty, the greater the danger of invading a man's private rights and liberties.
The House ought to be extremely careful before doing anything which would interfere with individual rights and freedom. No one wants to stimulate or encourage smuggling, but even though a person be a smuggler, he is entitled to certain fundamental legal rights and I do not think that the Government by citing an old Act of Parliament, which in other respects may be quite clear and defensible, is meeting the case in relation to the problems which may arise along the Ulster border. This brings us back to the fundamental question mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) of private rights and private liberty. The Government must not be surprised if we are a little suspicious of this attempt to invade this sphere of the subject's rights—an attempt which is being made simply because political issues are involved as between one part of Ireland and the other, and we happen to be on terms of greater friendliness and amity with one part of Ireland than with the other. I think we ought to have a more adequate defence of this proposal than we have had so far.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. RONALD ROSS
I welcome this devoted adherence to the rights of individualism by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). His devotion to private rights, private liberties, and private freedom is admirable. I have always thought he was a Socialist, but now I see that at heart, when you really get down to the touchstone, he is an individualist and would no doubt abhor all those deplorable Socialist theories which interfere with private rights. Of course, the hon. Baronet who spoke before him, from that well-known agricultural constituency 712 of Bethnal Green, on the subject of cattle smuggling is not entirely of the same heart as the present Government on the subject of Protection, nor indeed would he appear to be of the same policy entirely as regards Ireland. He suggests two small amendments to our present position, the one that we should become a Free Trade country once again, and the other that we should adopt the immortal Liberal policy of surrender to the Irish. If we only did those two things, we should not have to pass this unfortunate Clause, according to the hon. Baronet's view.
As regards the present position on the 200-mile frontier, it is one of grave difficulty. We are up against a new problem, which has not faced this country for some time, a problem which I think is a necessary one in the present circumstances and one which must be dealt with. It is very hard to cover a frontier of that length without enormous expense. The present situation is a grave disadvantage to all the people on our side of the border, when cattle are run over in considerable numbers, with the result that they glut the markets and drive the prices down to a very low figure. Until this decision, which was given by the High Court of Northern Ireland in accordance with the law, as the learned Judges saw it, and against the interests of the Northern Ireland community, I think, the matter was being handled with fair success, because if you have to catch cattle going across the border—and it is with cattle that the main problem rests—and you have the cattle on the hop, so to speak, it is very difficult.
I can assure hon. Members that those engaged in this work are by no means thoughtless persons. There are no devices to which they have not turned their attention. [An HON. MBMBER: "Ulstermen? "] No, I think the hon. Member will find if he takes the trouble to go to Belfast and secure introductions to the leading cattle smugglers, that they are almost entirely of the other persuasion.
§ Mr. ROSS
The buyers are mostly Welshmen and Englishmen, and some of them give very poor prices. As to the actual smuggling of cattle, there are certain old white cows that are notorious for 713 being driven into the police patrol in order to be captured, so that the unfortunate patrol, in taking the animals in question into custody, are unable adequately to observe other portions of the frontier. It may be interesting to hon. Members to know that in the Irish Free State black cattle are of a definitely higher value than those of a lighter colour. There are various other points on which I could enlighten the Committee, but I was always one to abhor any waste of time. Therefore I would conclude shortly by saying that the principle in British law in connection with the Customs service has been for so long, and, in the present instance so necessary, that it should not even be questioned by disinterested members of the intelligence of the hon. Member for Caerphilly and others.
§ 10.51 p.m.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONE
I listened with some amusement to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on the habits of his fellow-countrymen in catching cattle on the hop. I venture to think there is some foundation for the objections to this Clause. The Financial Secretary has tried to justify this Clause by quoting the Act of 1876, and saying that it was perfectly true that this Clause is only meant to re-establish the position as it stood before the late judgment. But if he will delve into history, he will see that the Act of 1876 only took effect after smuggling had ceased to become a profitable industry. The real rigour of the law was only applied in smuggling after it ceased to be practicable. Smuggling ceased to be profitable after the duties were raised. When smuggling was widely carried on, it was under conditions which the hon. Gentleman wishes to re-establish now. I do, in fact, think that directly smuggling, as it is now widely practised on the Irish border, becomes widespread, we ought to think more carefully than before about the status of the law upon it. It did not matter during the period from 1876 until to-day, that the law stood as it did. Now as smuggling on the Irish border has become active, we have occasion, or shall have occasion, for officers of the law and Customs to act on the authority of this Clause. I do not think that my hon. Friend will deny that the Clause as it stands, or stood before the late judgment, 714 does in fact lay the whole body of persons who may occasionally be engaged in the nefarious practice of smuggling open to action for justice. It is perfectly conceivable that someone engaged in smuggling goods innocently acquired which he smuggled normally may not always be easy to convict. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the bias of the Customs officers will be against those normally engaged in this traffic. (We should all of us prefer that much smuggling could escape unpunished rather than there should be cases in which injustice is done. I heard some hon. Member say "No," but I should be sorry to think that the House of Commons to-day was of the opinion that it would be better by administrative measures to repress what is undoubtedly a crime, at the cost of inflicting occasional injustice rather than allow some criminals to escape.
§ Mr. KNIGHT
Is it not a familiar principle of criminal law that in certain offences against the State the onus of proof of innocence is put on the accused?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONE
I am not prepared to argue with my hon. and learned Friend as to the law about that. He is probably much more familiar than I am with it, but I do not think it vitiates the main argument. The main argument is that you are here re-introducing a principle of law which a court has decided is wrong. You are re-introducing it in circumstances in which it will be frequently applied, and not in circumstances such as existed from 1876 until the present day, in which it was very infrequently applied. I think that the Government ought to take further thought before they deliberately establish a system which went without challenge, it is true, for over 50 years, but only went without challenge because the offence with which it dealt was an unusual and a rare one. If you are going to have on the Irish border between Northern and Southern Ireland a whole series of prosecutions which may or may not be just, but in which the whole of the weight is given to one side, then I submit that you are conniving at something which we and previous Parliaments would not be prepared to do. It has long been, a principle with us that innocence must be assumed until guilt is proved.
§ This Clause re-establishes a condition of things which would have been often challenged if cases had frequently arisen, but cases until now have not frequently arisen; and, while this condition of things subsists in Ireland, cases will arise, and under this Clause you will give to the Customs authorities an advantage in litigation in any prosecution against those whom they allege, rightly or wrongly, to be smugglers, which I do not think we ought to give. The argument that the law has existed without challenge since 1876 may seem a formidable one. I do not think it is a formidable one when we consider the circumstances. If that is the kind of argument which the Financial Secretary is prepared to use in every case, we might use the argument that freedom of trade existed in this country from 1876 until the present day, but still the hon. Gentleman does not propose to re-establish it. The fact that it had existed during that period is not sufficient argument for him in that case, nor should it be sufficient argument for us that the law as he has quoted it has existed since 1876 until lately. He must find on this occasion some better arguments for this Clause. He must seek to justify it not simply by precedent, and I hope that the Committee will refuse without further inquiry and information to establish a state of things which on the face of it must lead to occasional cases of the greatest injustice.
§ It is unreasonable to believe that officials armed with this power will not abuse it occasionally. It is for the House of Commons to try and ensure that the bureaucracy of this country and of Northern Ireland shall not be armed with powers which may enable them occasionally to commit an injustice on our fellow citizens. The desire to catch the smuggler easily is one that may well appeal to the Treasury, because all administrators like the opportunity of carrying out their duties with the least possible interference, but that consideration ought not to prevail with a legislative assembly, and certainly not with the British House of Commons. These are tine very things which the Government most hotly resent when they are proposed by the Opposition. These are the interferences with liberty which they always impute to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol 716 (Sir S. Cripps). They resented it when, on a previous Clause, he proposed that information should always be made available to the Government by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. When the Opposition, as frequently—and quite logically, from their point of view—they do, propose an increase in the powers of the executive hon. Members opposite resent it.
§ Here the Government are proposing to give fresh powers—old powers it is true, but fresh under this legislation—to the executive, but I earnestly hope they will reflect again before they do so. Let them remember an occasion on which they proposed to give powers to an executive committee which we had opposed. On that occasion they got the Labour Opposition into the Lobby with them. They have not to-night; but that occasion was a fair measure of the view which Socialism takes of increases of power by the executive when they are proposed by Conservatives. I hope the Government will seriously bear these criticisms in mind before putting into the hands of the executive a power which may very well be frequently and most disastrously abused.
§ 11.3 p.m.
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH
I have one question to ask with regard to Sub-section (2). [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Some hon. Members would be well advised to read what we are discussing before making so much noise about it. I have sat here since a quarter to three, with the exception of one half-hour. In Sub-section (2) I find the words "within the prescribed area" and Sub-section (3) defines them, but not very clearly. It says:The expression 'prescribed area' means such an area adjoining the land boundary of Northern Ireland as may be prescribed by regulations made by the commissioners under Section four of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1932.The Financial Secretary told us that this was to apply to the area presumably contiguous to the boundary, but it seems to me the commissioners have power to define any area which they wish to define, and I would like to know what are the powers of the commissioners under Subsection (3). I think we are all agreed that smuggling, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, is not a thing to be admired. Everybody is expected to obey the law and I would not for a 717 moment put up any defence for smuggling. But the last speaker referred to the executive use of certain powers, and here we are going a little step further. The executive delegates its powers to a commission. I should like to know exactly what are the boundaries that can be drawn to the commission, under Sub-section (3) and which are referred to in Sub-section (2).
§ 11.5 p.m.
§ Sir R. HAMILTON
A very interesting point has just been put as to what is a "prescribed area." In connection with that, I want a little more information. The effect of this Clause will be limited to the prescribed area. In that event, Northern Ireland, outside the prescribed area, the law will be such as has been laid down by a recent judgment. There will be two different laws in Northern Ireland, one under the judgment of the High Court there, and the other as the effect of this Clause. If I am wrong in that, I shall be glad to be corrected. The hon. Gentleman who replies might let us know exactly.
§ 11.7 p.m.
§ Mr. CURRY
The information in this case is associated by the Committee rather too directly with the process of the particular case with which it is proposed to deal, and is not regarded in its wider aspects. Nobody seeks to defend or to embarrass the Government in dealing with smuggling, but, when the Financial Secretary only defence for this considerable addition to the powers of the executive is that the law is simply being put as it was understood to be, his argument seems exceedingly fallacious. It is suggested that we should not have regard to the particular difficulties of the case so much as to the conditions of the time in which we are legislating. The tendency of the world to-day is to undermine the liberty of the individual in every country and to invest in various executives tremendous and increasing powers. For this Parliament, which is supposed to be the mother of Parliaments and above all Parliaments is said to promote and to protect the liberties of individual subjects, to do this thing at this time is something which we shall live to regret.
Not very long ago, Government supporters were talking about liberty, when we discussed a Private Member's Motion to repress the use of political uniforms. 718 It was a question of individual liberty, and of the powers of the executive in keeping order. Depend upon it, if we pass this Bill to-night in this form, it will not rest here. When precedents are searched for in the future for the suppression of liberty, all the circumstances of the time in this case will not be brought to light, but we shall be told that the National Government in 1934 sought to put this on the Statute Book. The whole case for the rights of the subject and the equality of citizens before the law will be gone. The particular citizen may be a disreputable person; if so, all the more will the case be weighted against him and it will be impossible for him to prove his innocence. We are doing something which will have repercussions far beyond what we expect. The effect of the suppression of smuggling on the boundary of Northern Ireland will pale into insignificance against the tremendous consequences which will follow the creation of this precedent. I merely content myself with entering the strongest possible protest against this action of the Government.
§ 11.11 p.m.
§ Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON
I should like to point out that there is an exact parallel to this Clause in the Excise laws which have obtained in this country for many years. In every distillery the distiller has to prove to the Excise officer that duty has been paid on the spirits in his possession. That is an exact parallel to the situation dealt with in the Clause.
§ 11.12 p.m.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
Surely we are going to have a reply from the Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] A request has been made for very important information on this subject. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) has dealt with a case which has no kind of relevance to the one which we are discussing. There you have firms engaged from day to day in the business of a great industry, and of course, as a matter of business, they have all the necessary Customs receipts and receipts for the things which they have bought. But we are not dealing here with that kind of thing; we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of ordinary individuals. There has been some talk about cattle, but they may have any dutiable object 719 in their personal possession or in their houses, and at any moment they may be called upon by the Customs officers to justify and explain their possession of such articles. They have no Customs receipts; they are just ordinary people, who are not the heads of businesses, with great files of documents and receipts on which they can put their hands at a moment's notice; and it is not reasonable to apply to them the same business standards as are applied to great firms of distillers such as my hon. Friend refers to. We are confronted with a serious situation in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Belfast described the cattle hopping to and fro——
§ Mr. R. ROSS
The right bon. Gentleman has mistaken my constituency. I should like to put to him this point: is it not easier to identify a cow than a bottle of whisky?
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
How much easier, then, would it be for the Customs officers to prove their case? But I gather from the hon. Member that there may be some difficulty with his Irish cows, which he has described as hopping about the frontier from one side to another. He referred rather scathingly to the agricultural knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris); but, with my limited agricultural knowledge in Scotland, I have never seen these hopping cows. There are, however, great difficulties in dealing with smuggling. The Customs officers go from place to place, dashing after white cows when they should be pursuing black ones, and it is natural in such circumstances that they should be a little wrought up; and, when ordinary citizens are subjected to the interference of officials who are wrought up, and are suddenly called upon to justify and explain how they came into possession of certain articles, I think they will be very sorry if we have allowed, without the strongest protest, a Measure of this kind to go through. I have objected consistently in the House to any party introducing Measures of this kind to strengthen the Executive at the expense of the liberties of the private citizen, and I hope that the Financial Secretary 720 will give us one word of explanation in reply to the various points which have been made by hon. Members above the Gangway and on these benches, particularly the point about one law in one area and another law in another. The ordinary citizen is not only going to have the difficulties that I have described but he will have to send for a map on which these areas are demarcated. He will not know, unless the Financial Secretary can explain that my hon. Friend was mistaken in his assumption, in what area he resides. I think the Committee will be more comfortable if the Financial Secretary cane give some explanation.
§ 11.16 p.m.
Mr. HO RE-BELISHA
The hon. Member asked me what was the prescribed area. The prescribed area under the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act is that area which the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may prescribe for the purposes of this Clause.
§ Sir P. HARRIS
Another point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Sir R. Hamilton). If you are outside the prescribed area, what law are you subject to? Are you subject to a decision of the High Court or subject to this new Clause?
§ Sir R. HAMILTON
I put the question in all sincerity, and I think the Committee ought to be informed exactly where we stand. Are there two laws if we pass this Clause with regard to smuggling?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I can understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, but it is quite plain.If goods of any such class or description as aforesaid are found in the possession of any person within the prescribed area.Therefore the provision of course only applies for the prescribed area.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 45.705
|Division No. 266.]||AYES.||[10.15 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Bailey, Eric Alfred George||Belt, Sir Alfred L.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Bernays, Robert|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Blindell, James|
|Agnew. Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Borodale, Viscount|
|Albery, Irving James||Balniel, Lord||Boulton, W. W.|
|Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Broadbent, Colonel John|
|Applin. Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Brocklebank, C. E. R.|
|Apsley, Lord||Beaumont, M. W, (Bucks. Aylesbury)||Brown, Ernest (Leith)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Borks., Newb'y)|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Hornby, Frank||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Horobin, Ian M.||Rosbotnam, Sir Thomas|
|Burnett, John George||Horsbrugh, Florence||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Howard, Tom Forrest||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B||Rothschild, James A. de|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Carver, Major William H.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Rutherford, John (Edmonton)|
|Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'I)|
|Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofrlc||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Salt, Edward W.|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Coltox, Major William Philip||Kimball, Lawrence||Selley, Harry R.|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Knight, Holford||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Knox. Sir Alfred||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Cooke, Douglas||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Law, Sir Alfred||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Craven-Ellis, William||Leckle, J. A.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-ln-F.)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Lees-Jones, John||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Llewellin, Major John J.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Ab'd'n. & K'dine, C.)|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)||Smithers, Sir Waldron|
|Curry, A. C.||Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Dickie, John P.||Loftus, Pierce C.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Dixey, Arthur C. N.||Mabane. William||Soper, Richard|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||McCorquodale, M. S.||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Dunglass, Lord||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Spens, William Patrick|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||McKie, John Hamilton||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Stevenson, James|
|Elmley, Viscount||McLean, Major Sir Alan||Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Macquisten, Frederick Alexander||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Mallaileu, Edward Lancelot||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.|
|Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Sugden, Sir Willrid Hart|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Fleming Edward Lascelles||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Martin, Thomas B.||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Fremantle, Sir Francis||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Fuller, Captain A. G.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Thompson, Sir Luke|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Gledhill, Gilbert||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Munro, Patrick||Train, John|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander P. L.|
|Greene, William P. C.||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Grimston. R. V.||Patrick. Colin M.||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Peake, Captain Osbert||Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Pearson, William G.||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Hales, Harold K.||Penny, Sir George||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour|
|Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)||Percy, Lord Eustace||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Hammersley, Samuel S.||Petherick. M.||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Hanbury, Cecil||Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pfn, Bllston)||White, Henry Graham|
|Hanloy, Dennis A.||Pike, Cecil F.||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Harbord, Arthur||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Harris, Sir Percy||Radford, E. A.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hartland, George A.||Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Ramsay, T. B. W, (Western Isles)||Wilson. G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Ramsden, Sir Eugene||Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.||Rankin, Robert||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Rathbone, Eleanor||Womersley, Sir Walter James|
|Hepworth, Joseph||Ray, Sir William||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Rea. Walter Russell|
|Holdsworth, Herbert||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)||Remer, John R.||Major George Davies and|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Commander Southby.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Cove, William G.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur|
|Banfield, John William||Cripps, Sir Stafford||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)|
|Batey, Joseph||Daggar, George||Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Edwards, Charles||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Cape, Thomas||Gardner, Benjamin Walter||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)|
|Jenkins, Sir William||Mainwaring, William Henry||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Milner, Major James||Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)|
|Lawson, John James||Smith, Tom (Normanton)||Wilmot, John|
|Leonard, William||Thorne, William James|
|Lunn, William||Tinker, John Joseph||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-|
|McEntee, Valentine L.||West, F. R.||Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
|Division No. 267.]||AYES.||[11.19 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Grimston, R. V.||Ramsden, Sir Eugene|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Rankin, Robert|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Hales, Harold K.||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Albery, Irving James||Hamilton, Sir George (llford)||Ray, Sir William|
|Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Hammersley, Samuel S.||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Hanbury, Cecil||Remer, John R.|
|Apsley, Lord||Hanley, Dennis A.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Harbord, Arthur||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Bailey, Eric Alfred George||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas|
|Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ruggles- Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Balniel, Lord||Hepworth, Joseph||Runge. Norah Cecil|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Hope, Capt. IIon. A. O. J. (Aston)||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Bateman, A. L.||Hore-Bellsha, Leslie||Rutherford, John (Edmonton)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Hornby, Frank||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Horsbrugh, Florence||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Howard, Tom Forrest||Salt, Edward W.|
|Bernays, Robert||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Bllndell, James||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Boulton, W. W.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Selley, Harry R.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Knight, Holford||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)||Knox, Sir Alfred||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-ln-F.)|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Leckie, J. A.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Ab'd'n. & K'dlne, C.)|
|Burnett, John George||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswelt (Brmly)||Llewellin, Major John J.||Soper, Richard|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Carver, Major William H.||Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)||Spencer. Captain Richard A.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)||Spens, William Patrick|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)||Loftus, Pierce C.||Stevenson, James|
|Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leotric||Mabane, William||Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||McCorquodale, M. S.||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Strause, Edward A.|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||McKie, John Hamilton||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.|
|Conant. R. J. E.||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Cook, Thomas A.||McLean, Major Sir Alan||Sutcliffe. Harold|
|Cooke, Douglas||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Macquisten, Frederick Alexander||Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Craven-Ellis, William||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Thompson, Sir Luke|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Martin, Thomas B.||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinlord)|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Dixey, Arthur C. N.||Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Mitcheson, G. O.||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Dunglass, Lord||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Munro, Patrick||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeoar|
|Eimley, Viscount||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Wells. Sydney Richard|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Normand. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||O'Donovan, Dr. William James||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt C. C. (Blk'pool)||Patrick, Colin M.||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Peake, Captain Osbert||Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Pearson, William G.||Wilson, G. H. A (Cambridge U.)|
|Fleming, Edward Lascelles||Penny, Sir George||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Fremantle, Sir Francis||Percy, Lord Eustace||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Fuller, Captain A. G.||Petherick, M.||Womersley, Sir Walter James|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Gledhill, Gilbert||Pike, Cecil F.|
|Glucksteln, Louis Halle||Radford, E. A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.||Major George Davies and Dr. Morris|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Jones.|
|Greene, William P. C.||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Cape, Thomas||Edwards, Charles|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)|
|Banfield. John William||Cripps, Sir Stafford||Gardner, Benjamin Walter|
|Batey, Joseph||Curry, A. C.||George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Daggar, George||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur|
|Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Leonard, William||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||Lunn, William||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)||McEntee, Valentina L.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||West, F. R.|
|Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mainwaring, William Henry||White, Henry Graham|
|Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)||Mallallsu, Edward Lancelot||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Harris, Sir Percy||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|Holdsworth, Herbert||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Wilmot, John|
|Jankins, Sir William||Milner, Major James|
|Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||Rea, Walter Russell||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Rothschild, James A. de||Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald|
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
|It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.|