HC Deb 12 November 1934 vol 293 cc1529-77

(1) If a judge of the High Court is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Act in connection with an unlawful lottery has been committed, and that evidence of the commission thereof is to be found at any premises or place specified in the information, he may, on an application made by an officer of police of a rank not lower than that of inspector, grant a search warrant authorising any such officer as aforesaid named in the warrant together with any other persons named in the warrant and any other officers of police to enter the premises or place at any time within one month from the date of the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and every person found therein, and to seize anything found on the premises or place or on any such person which the officer has reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of the commission of such an offence as aforesaid.

Provided that—

  1. (a) a search warrant shall only be issued in respect of an offence suspected to have been committed within the three months prior to the laying of the information thereof; and
  2. (b) if a search warrant under this Act has been executed on any premises, it shall be the duty of the officer of police who has conducted or directed the search to notify the occupier that the search has taken place, and to supply him with a list of any documents or other objects which have been removed from the premises, and where any documents have been removed from any other person to supply that person with a list of such documents.

(2) No woman shall, in pursuance of a warrant issued under the last foregoing sub-section, be searched except by a woman.

(3) Anything seized under this section may be retained for a period not exceeding one month, or if within that period proceedings are commenced for an offence under this Act until the conclusion of those proceedings, and, subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of this Act conferring powers on courts dealing with offences, the Police (Property) Act, 1897 (which makes provision with respect to the disposal of property in the possession of the police), shall apply to property which has come into the possession of the police under this section as it applies to property which has come into the possession of the police in the circumstances mentioned in that Act.—[Sir W. Davison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.43 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

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

It will save me a good deal of explanation if I read the new Clause. It is identical with the Clause which the Government themselves eventually decided to accept and which is now included in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. It will be in lieu of Clause 27, Amendments to which, to be proposed by the Home Secretary, stand on the Paper. The Clause reads: (1) If a judge of the High Court is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Act in connection with an unlawful lottery has been committed, and that evidence of the commission thereof is to be found at any premises or place specified in the information, he may, on an application made by an officer of police of a rank not lower than that of inspector, grant a search warrant authorising any such officer as aforesaid named in the warrant together with any other persons named in the warrant and any other officers of police to enter the premises or place at any time within one month from the date of the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and every person found therein, and to seize anything found on the premises or place or on any such person which the officer has reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of the commission of such an offence as aforesaid. It will be seen that the provisions are very wide. The Clause goes on: Provided that— (a) a search warrant shall only be issued in respect of an offence suspected to have been committed within the three months prior to the laying of the information thereof; and That is to say that if someone is suspected of having done something six months or a year ago that will not entitle the police to ask for the premises to be searched: (b) if a search warrant under this Act has been executed on any premises, it shall be the duty of the officer of police who has conducted or directed the search to notify the occupier that the search has taken place, and to supply him with a list of any documents or other objects which have been removed from the premises, and where any documents have been removed from any other person to supply that person with a list of such documents. Here follows a new proviso and a very necessary one which does not appear in the Bill: (2) No woman shall, in pursuance of a warrant issued under the last foregoing subsection, be searched except by a woman. (3) Anything seized under this section may be retained for a period not exceeding one month, or if within that period proceedings are commenced for an offence under this Act until the conclusion of those proceedings, and, subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of this Act conferring powers on courts dealing with offences, the Police (Property) Act, 1897 (which makes provision with respect to the disposal of property in the possession of the police), shall apply to property which has come into the possession of the police under this section as it applies to property which has come into the possession of the police in the circumstances mentioned in that Act. Under Clause 27, as the Home Secretary proposes to amend it, any justice of the peace if satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that premises are being used for the purpose of committing an offence under Part II, in connection with a lottery, may grant a warrant authorising any constable at any time or times within one month to enter premises if necessary by force, in order to search for and to seize and remove documents therefrom. In the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill the Government, after full discussion both here and in another place and in view of the strong objection taken by Members on both sides of the House to the powers of search which were there proposed, decided that no search should take place except under the order of a judge and that no police officer under the rank of inspector should conduct such a search. Surely the offence of being concerned in bringing lottery tickets into this country is much more venial than the offence of inciting soldiers or sailors to disaffection. If Parliament has now decided in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill that private persons houses and premises are only to be searched on the warrant of a High Court judge, how much more should it be insisted upon, that, in the case of the comparatively minor offence of being concerned with starting a lottery or bringing lottery tickets into the country, people's houses should not be searched without admittedly good grounds for doing so?

In the case of the other Measure to which I have referred it was decided that the best means of reassuring the public on the question of search was as I have said to provide that the search warrant should only be granted by a High Court judge. Clause 27 of this Bill in my opinion would be made worse by the Amendment to it which is on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary. He proposes to leave out the words "named in the warrant," with the result that any constable could carry out the search. It would be a blank warrant so far as authorising a particular constable is concerned. I think it is most important that the person who is charged with the very important duty of carrying out the search should be named in the warrant. We go much further in our proposal. We say that as in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill it should not be an officer under the rank of inspector. A search of this kind would be an onerous and unpleasant duty. It is something which should only be resorted to in cases where the evidence is very clear. To give magistrates the power to launch a constable at any time into a private home for the purpose of carrying out a search is something of which I think the House would hesitate to approve.

I do not like a provision of the kind at all with reference to such matters as the possession of lottery tickets which nobody really regards as a criminal offence but if there is to be the right of search at all it ought to be under the strictest regulations and ought not to be on the order of a magistrate but on the order of a High Court judge. We have men of different opinions as magistrates. There are magistrates who hold the views on this question of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). I have already given the instance of tickets having been sent to me and I have been told since that some people have had as many as a dozen books of tickets sent to them. If a magistrate held the views of the hon. Member for Bodmin and if somebody told him that a lot of Irish lottery tickets were lying about a person's house he might in such circumstances issue a search warrant. I would regard it as monstrous if my house were searched under those conditions. I would have a very good mind to offer a certain amount of resistance.

Mr. WEST

Did the hon. Gentleman hold those views a fortnight ago regarding the danger of the power to search?

Sir W. DAVISON

I do not think the hon. Member can have been listening to me. Before he puts any further ill-timed questions I would ask him to listen to what I am saying. I have just said that the offence to which the earlier Measure related was a much more serious offence than the one contemplated in this Bill. In the case of the offence of seducing men from their allegiance the House in its wisdom decided that certain restrictions on the right of search were necessary. That may have been right and probably was right. The hon. Member opposite and his friends in another place secured that, in connection with the suspected perpetration of a serious crime, search should only be made by an order of a High Court judge. In this case we are dealing with something which every one admits is a much less serious offence. In fact many of us do not think it is a crime at all. I believe that to be the view of an overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country. Why then, in connection with such a supposed offence, should the minions of the law be let loose at the instance of any magistrate in any part of the country, to go into the homes of the people if necessary by force to search for and to seize documents? [An HON. MEMBER: "Q.E.D."] No, it is not "Q.E.D." It is not half demonstrated yet. There are many things which the hon. Member will have demonstrated for him yet.

If the House is unwilling to accept my view on the matter may I remind them of the views expressed by an eminent person who is not concerned with politics, namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury. He had great hesitation in accepting the principle of the power to search even in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. It was only when it was decided that the search warrant should be issued by a High Court judge and executed by an officer of a rank not less than inspector, that he felt able to give his approval to that provision. The case is a very simple one. There is nothing about which the people of this country are more jealous than that the privacy of their homes should not be invaded unless a crime has been committed. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I say so and I am glad that hon. Members opposite agree with me. Surely they are not going to take the petty view that because they were not successful in getting all that they wanted in connection with one Bill in which they were particularly interested, they are going to try to "get their own back" on people who do not agree with them, by opposing the same principle in connection with another Bill. I say that if there was such a provision in the earlier Bill, then a fortiori—which being interpreted means with far greater reason—there should be a provision in this Bill that the homes of people should only be searched by the order of somebody in whom the whole community has confidence.

When a person applies for a search warrant and gives evidence in support of his application it is an ex parte statement. The other person is not there. There is no opportunity of hearing the other side. Therefore, it requires a man of great judicial experience to know whether it is a proper case in which to issue a warrant or not. I think the House will agree that unless there is reason to suppose that some serious crime is going to be perpetrated we should hesitate about granting the right of search except under the strictest conditions. The alternative is to have wholesale searches of the homes of the people. It used to be said that an Englishman's home was his castle. We want to keep the truth of that as much as we possibly can, and certainly I cannot believe that any body of citizens of this country would allow an Englishman's home to be broken into without very careful consideration in order to search for lottery tickets.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES

I beg to second the Motion.

I regret a certain amount of levity which there seems to be on the other side of the House with regard to this very important and serious question of search. All through our history the question of search warrants has been examined with very grave anxiety whenever further steps which might injure the privacy of the home have been proposed, and they ought never to be used except with most careful safeguards. It is astounding to find that a mere ordinary justice of the peace—although justices of the peace are very estimable; I am one myself—who may, of necessity, have no great experience, is to have the power, as matters stand now, to make it possible to send the police into any private citizen's house. The position is exaggerated and surely ought to be checked, and can be checked, by the very reasonable Clause which my hon. Friend has brought forward. I appeal to the Opposition to support it. Surely there ought to be equality between the unfortunate man who may have a bundle of tickets in his house and the avowed seditionmonger who wishes to incite the troops. We only ask for justice and equality, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will assist us, in the interests of common justice.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I feel sure that the House will agree with me when I say that never was there a more flimsy case put forward in favour of any new Clause to a Bill introduced in this House. In fact, the hon. Gentleman who supported the Mover could hardly find words to express anything in favour of the Clause. He had to taunt the Opposition to find his arguments. After all, we must remember that the House of Commons has decided emphatically against big lotteries. Consequently, what the hon. Gentleman is now asking us to do is to see to it that the law shall not be put into force as far as he can persuade us to that effect. He proposes to use a steam-hammer to crack a nut. What does the proposed Clause say? If a judge of the High Court is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting. Well, really, when all that is required to be done there will be no prosecution at all at any time, apparently. It is probably the intention of the hon. Gentleman that some of the Clauses of this Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, shall be null and void. The hon. Gentleman is quite frank—he does not want any prosecution to ensue when anybody breaks the law in connection with big lotteries. I feel sure that I am not misinterpreting his mind when I say that. In fact, he does not want houses to be searched for lottery tickets at any time. He told us that it is not a crime, in his view, to run a lottery in this country and he has done his level best to see to it that the State should run a lottery. Consequently, he has not convinced me in favour of his proposition.

Then the hon. Gentleman used the old argument about an Englishman's home being his castle. He did not refer to a Welshman's, Scotsman's or an Irishman's home. On that assumption the Englishman will still have a home which is his castle, but those of us who belong to the Celtic race will not be immune in the same way, I suppose. If this Clause were carried, it would not only keep inviolate the Englishman's home as his castle, but would make every rogue's den into a sanctuary, and, unless I am mistaken, that, again, is the view of the hon. Gentleman. I feel sure the Home Secretary will, not accept this Clause, and if the hon. Member divides the House upon it, I feel certain that I can see a number, if not the whole of the Members of this side, voting against it. Consequently, we shall have the very delightful picture of the hon. Gentleman opposing his own Government, and the Opposition voting with his Government.

Sir W. DAVISON

This is a Socialist Bill.

Mr. DAVIES

Finally, the hon. Member's comparison of this Bill and the Incitement to Disaffection Bill will not avail him, because if he is against searching people's houses on principle, the speech he delivered to-day ought to have been delivered on that Bill. I cannot understand any hon. Gentleman who does not believe in search warrants at all saying that on principle he will oppose them on every occasion, but votes on one occasion in favour and then opposes the same instrument on another. I cannot understand an hon. Gentleman not moving that the same instrument should apply to the two cases. Yet the hon. Gentleman to-day is trying to convince this House that on principle he objects to search warrants.

Sir W. DAVISON

On principle, I object to a search warrant unless it is proved that the law which the State has passed will be damnified, and I say that you ought not to allow any magistrate to issue a search warrant. It ought to be done by a High Court judge in a case of this kind.

Mr. DAVIES

I may be doing the hon. Gentleman a wrong, but I understood that he did not hold these views when we were dealing with the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. I feel that the Government will be strong enough to resist this Clause in spite of the presence in this House of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). At any rate, I feel sure that the Clause will be defeated this afternoon.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT

As the hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause referred to the Debate on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, and I was one who sat in Committee on that Bill, I would like to offer a few brief observations on the Clause. Comparing the search warrant Clause originally in this Bill with the Clause which the hon. Baronet proposes to substitute for it, one finds that the substituted Clause actually extends in one very important respect the power of search contained in the original Bill. The hon. Gentleman read out the whole of his Clause, which are in the exact words of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, as amended, and he laid particular emphasis on the words: No woman shall, in pursuance of a warrant issued under the last foregoing subsection, be searched except by a woman. The hon. Gentleman broke off in reading the Clause to say that that was very important, but under the search warrant Clause as in the Bill no one, either a roan or a woman, can be searched at all, so that the hon. Gentleman's Clause actually extends in a very important respect the powers of search originally proposed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman drew an analogy between the arguments used on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill and the power of search proposed to be conferred by this Bill. There are, however, one or two important distinctions. The first is that with regard to lotteries the power of search already exists, and has existed, I think I am right in saying, ever since the year 1802. I have not looked up the Act, because I did not anticipate the line of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I would put this question to the learned Solicitor-General, if he is going to reply: Am I not right in thinking that the search warrant contained in the Act of 1802 with regard to lotteries will still be effective after this Bill has passed? The mover of the Clause is dealing with something here with respect to what has been a power of search for over a century. In the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill there had never been a power of search, and we got along perfectly well for more than 130 years without it.

Then the hon. Gentleman went on to object to the proposed omission of the words as to the constable "named in the warrant." I feel as jealous as anyone about extending powers of search, but I cannot see that the inclusion or omission of those words really makes very much difference. If a house is to be searched by a constable, does it make much difference to the householder or owner of the premises what constable is selected? At common law there is only one example of power of search, that is, with respect to stolen goods, but it is also true, and was repeated a great many times in the Committee stage on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, that Parliament has seen fit to make exceptions to the general rule in a very large number of cases. There was some dispute as to the exact number, but I think it was eventually fixed by the learned Solicitor-General at 52. So that there are 52 cases already existing, apart from the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, where Parliament has thought fit to grant the right of search, and although a great many of us, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee upstairs, had a, great deal to say about the particular search warrant which was proposed in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, I do not think we ever said that Parliament ought to abolish the power of search in all those 52 cases, and I do not think we ever suggested that it ought to be necessary to apply to a High Court judge in every case where a search warrant was instituted.

I have already referred to one difference between the power of search proposed with regard to lotteries and the power of search with regard to incitement to disaffection, but there is a further distinction which, I think, is a vital one, and it lies not in the gravity of the offence but in the character of the offence dealt with. In this Bill the constable, whoever it is who conducts the search, is looking for something perfectly definite. It was pointed out in the Debate on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, when comparison was drawn between this search warrant and the warrant there proposed, that a lottery ticket is a, lottery ticket, and that there cannot be very much room for error on the part of the person who conducts the search.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

Can the hon. Gentleman say what is a "chance"?

Mr. FOOT

I should have thought it was a specific document and it is easy to determine whether or not a document has reference to a lottery, but in the Disaffection Bill you were dealing, not with a document itself, but with a document copies of which might cause disaffection, and copies presumably included copies of a part. It was pointed out, when we were discussing Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 of that Bill, that it was impossible to say what documents or books might not have a certain effect on a soldier's mind if extracts were taken from them, and all kinds of documents and books were quoted showing that even in the works of the late Mr. Disraeli and a great many other books you could find extracts which, if they were cunningly put together or presented in a certain way, might have this particular effect upon a soldier's mind. We were dealing then with something which was and must be largely a matter of opinion, as to whether a document was likely to have a particular effect, but here, as I suggest, we are dealing with something definite and tangible. Our objections to the right of search in the Disaffection Bill were based upon the nature of the offence and the connection of the right of search with the new offence of the possession of documents, so that there is no real analogy between the power of search there proposed, and unfortunately carried, and the power with which we are now dealing.

We have never at any time suggested that the power of search should be altogether abolished or that it should be necessary to apply to a High Court Judge in every one of the 52 cases in which that power is included in Acts of Parliament. If we were to require application to a High Court Judge in this case, there is no particular reason why we should not make it necessary in every one of the 52 cases, and it would be obviously impossible, if in all those cases, where you might be dealing with very minor offences, application had to be made to the police inspector of the district, who would have to travel to London or send an affidavit to London, and apply in one way or another to a Judge in chambers and get his search warrant in that way. We should have to appoint, not two, but a dozen new Judges if we were to adopt that procedure in every case. Therefore, I suggest that there is no analogy between the two cases and that there can be no real in- consistency when we on the Opposition side vote against this Clause.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. LEVY

The Clause in the Bill on this subject of search is one of which the Opposition both above and below the Gangway apparently approve, and when I find the Opposition approving something which the Government are doing, I immediately become very suspicious. I ask myself whether the responsibility which the Government obviously are taking in this Bill is one that meets with the approval of the Opposition because they feel that it will help to create enemies against the Government. The Government say, rightly or wrongly, that an application shall be made to any justice of the peace, who shall grant a blank warrant, and that any constable shall have the right of search on that warrant and shall make forcible entry if it is resisted in any way. That is an innovation in the law as far as I have been able to gather, and it is one that will not redound to the credit of any Government. My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) said that an Englishman's home is his castle, but it certainly will not be if the Government's Clause comes into law. The only difference that my hon. Friend is asking is that he requires an application to a High Court judge and asks that that judge shall be satisfied that a search warrant is necessary, and, further, if it be necessary, that it shall be carried out by a police inspector, somebody who, by his official position, should have more discretion than the ordinary, common or garden constable. I am not casting any aspersions on the police force, or on the constables, but the very fact of a man having been promoted to be an inspector certainly gives him a different status from that of the ordinary constable.

I support the proposed new Clause, I hope in a friendly spirit to the Government and not in opposition to them. I want them not to see how many enemies they can create among the public in this country; this Bill as it stands is doing sufficient harm to the National Government. No more irritating Measure have they brought forward, and if they are starting down the slippery slope with this Measure, they are certainly having the whole-hearted support and assistance of the Opposition, both above and below the Gangway. As a supporter of the Government, a loyal supporter, if I may say so, I ask my right hon. Friend, before he rejects the proposed new Clause, to give it very serious consideration and to see whether he thinks the National Government should be responsible for allowing an ordinary, common or garden constable to walk into anybody's home and to search the premises for an unknown quantity, not specific, as the hon. Gentleman opposite says, but for a ticket or chance—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

Does the hon. Member suggest that the word "chance" is something intangible?

Sir W. DAVISON

We do not know what it means.

Mr. LEVY

My hon. Friend has only to look in the dictionary to find what "chance" means, and it is certainly very intangible. Nobody knows what it is. It certainly means in this case that a constable can make an exhaustive and very complete search throughout the whole of the building and the contents of it, and that is very definite. If everything else be ambiguous, that is not ambiguous, and I ask my right hon. Friend, in all seriousness and in the greatest friendliness, to consider before he puts this on the Statute Book, because it will not redound to the credit of the National Government, and it is a great pity to spoil such a marvellous record' and achievement as the Government have built up.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. WEST

I never before heard so many supporters of the Government so keen about an Englishman's home being regarded as his castle, and nobody would have thought that that was the case some two or three weeks ago, when we were discussing another Bill, but I am most of all surprised to discover in the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) such an extraordinary supporter of this principle and such a defender of the Englishman's home.

Sir W. DAVISON

Why?

Mr. WEST

Having watched the hon. Gentleman's record, locally and nationally, I should never have thought he was so keen about this old-established principle. I was very much opposed to a search warrant under the Disaffection Bill, and I am equally opposed to search warrants being easily obtainable even under this Bill, so perhaps some hon. Members on this side are more consistent than the hon. Member opposite, who is sufficiently inconsistent to have been in favour of the principle three weeks ago and to be opposed to it now. I have been opposed to the principle on both occasions. I do not believe that it is right and proper for a search warrant to be issued by a justice of the peace in this case. I do not believe that our justices of the peace are so extraordinarily unbiased and impartial as other hon. Members seem to think. In fact, I think very few people on either side of the House have any right to regard themselves as unbiased. I think we are all very biased and partial to our own point of view; and a justice of the peace, who is, generally speaking, a local man, concerned with local affairs and events, is just as biased as the hon. Member for South Kensington, and no more so, because he could not be. Because I believe that these people are biased, because they are Liberal or Labour or Conservative justices of the peace, I think there is something to be said for the proposed new Clause limiting this power to a Judge of the High Court. I am certainly of opinion that a High Court Judge is very much less biased than are the great majority of justices of the peace, and because I believe that they are less biased and less easily obtainable in order to get a search warrant, and because it will be in some measure a safeguard against the misuse of search warrants, I shall support the hon. Member for South Kensington in the Lobby on this Clause.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD

I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) on the robust and sensible line that he has taken. I should also like, briefly but firmly, to support the proposed new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). My hon. Friend the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) must, I think, have amused the House very much by his elaborate attempt to reconcile the attitude of his party on this proposed new Clause and their attitude on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. It was my pleasure, many years ago at Oxford and in other places, frequently to cross swords with my hon. Friend, and however trivial the measures we debated at Oxford, however far removed from realities, I do not think we have ever taken part together in a discussion so far removed as is this from the mandate which the National Government received or so little concerned with the proper steps that ought to be taken to bring liberty to our peace-loving people. As far as I can make out from the attitude of my hon. Friend, a search warrant is justified if it is to search for something that may offend against the moral sense of the Liberal party, but it is not justified if it is to prevent an attempt to seduce our troops.

I want to make a reference to what my hon. Friend said on the effect which he assumed the new Clause would have. He thinks that, instead of two new judges who are to be appointed, we shall require 12. That seems to demonstrate clearly what many of us have held and what the Liberal Party have frequently denied, that it is improbable that this Bill with all its Clauses will be observed as a whole in the country. If 12 judges are required if this new Clause is instituted, it suggests that there will be a widespread attempt to break the law.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT

I did not say we should require 12 new judges under this new Clause. I said that if we extended this practice to every search warrant in every statute, we should require 12 new judges.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD

My hon. Friend's explanation is very interesting, but I cannot help thinking that the Under-Secretary, if he were a private Member, would not welcome the quality of the recruitment which he has received. I should like to support the new Clause, and I hope the Government will see fit to adopt it.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. CAPORN

The speeches of the hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) show how flimsy was the opposition to the powers of search under the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. I do not, however, propose to follow them on that question. My purpose in rising is to ask my hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, to give us a little information about the existing powers of search, which I think are under the Betting Act of 1853—not 1802, as the hon. Member for Dundee suggested. If my recollection be correct, there is under Section 12 of the Betting Act, 1853, power for the Commissioner of Police to issue a search warrant in the Metropolitan Police area authorising a superintendent of police to enter and search premises and to arrest and remove any person found in the suspected premises. Will that right of search by the Commissioner of Police remain under the Bill as it stands, and will it apply to the more trivial offences which the Bill now makes penal?

4.33 p.m.

Mr. TINKER

I enter this question with an open mind, and, after hearing the arguments on both sides, I am inclined to support the proposed Clause. Only a fortnight ago I was strongly of the opinion that nobody's house ought to be searched on the mere warrant of a magistrate. I fought strongly against that, as most of my friends did, because we claimed that the household of any man or woman was something that ought not to be treated lightly, and that a search warrant signed by a magistrate ought not to be sufficient for a house to be searched. Eventually, we managed to get the Government to see our point of view. Our argument was that there might be among the magistrates certain biased men, by which I mean people who look on the particular activities of another person with disapproval. We were then examining political literature and we had in our mind an old Conservative country squire who might look upon any change in orthodox political views as wrong, and he might sign a warrant without examining the case properly.

There are in this country a number of people bitterly opposed to gambling and lotteries. It is possible that a magistrate with such views might take the same attitude as the other magistrate and authorise a search warrant without going into the matter as fully as he ought to do. If a man's home is a sacred place in the one case, it ought not to be entered lightly in the other case. As I argued under the Incitement to Disaffection Bill that it was not right for magistrates to sign a warrant, I cannot agree with it in this Bill, and on that broad principle I am prepared to support the new Clause. I like to be consistent in a matter like this, and sufficient time has not elapsed to allow events to cause me to change my view. I do not want it to be argued that I am supporting the Members who are opposing this Measure altogether. I believe a Bill of this kind ought to be passed, but, if there are certain points on which it can be improved on grounds of equity, it is only right that one should help to put it right.

4.37 p.m.

Sir ALFRED BUTT

Like the hon. Member who has just sat down, I am anxious to do all I can to support the Minister in bringing in a Measure to deal with the anomalies of gambling and betting and in giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It seems to me, however, that throughout the Debates on this matter the Home Secretary has been entirely inconsistent and illogical. He seeks to get the assistance of the Royal Commission when it suits the purpose of the Government, and, when it does not suit their purpose, he totally disregards the recommendations of the Commission. This Bill will hold the Government up to ridicule and make us a laughing stock. In the Clause dealing with search, the Home Secretary is seeking to use a steam roller to drive in a tin tack. Under the existing law there is adequate machinery for the right of search if the circumstances are sufficiently serious. It is perfectly ridiculous that the House should pass legislation giving a constable a right to search on he mere suspicion that some one or other has a lottery ticket or even several tickets. If the Minister wants to stop lottery tickets being sold in this country, he has, as has already been pointed out, means to do it, namely, by confiscating the prizes. In the circumstances, I propose to support the new Clause.

4.39 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell)

As I understand this discussion, we are debating a search Clause. The search Clause in the Bill was passed in Committee without discussion, and I do not think that any of the various subsidiary points which are raised by the proposed new Clause were raised in Committee. The only point I want to make at the outset is that we are discussing a search Clause and therefore the question whether it be desirable to have a search Clause in the Measure seems to be outside the discussion. The only question is whether it will be better to have the search Clause in the Bill or the proposed new Clause. That, as I understand it, is what we are discussing. Reference has been made to the discussions which took place on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. I will briefly summarise those discussions as I understood them. The Government, in the first place, justified the existence of a search warant Clause by pointing to 52 other Statutes in which Parliament had given powers of search, subject to similar conditions. That argument was countered by the argument that that might be possible, but that the Incitement to Disaffection Bill dealt with matters of opinion. Our answer to that was that it did not deal with matters of opinion, and we gave reasons for saying why we thought that argument was unfounded. Then it was argued that, even assuming the Government were right, it raised difficult questions which might be clear to a trained mind, but not clear to an untrained mind.

It was with a view to meeting apprehensions, which we did not think were well founded, but of which we appreciated the existence, that we inserted certain special safeguards, in particular the safeguard that the search warrant could be issued only by a Judge of the High Court. I will come to the other safeguards in a little more detail in a moment. So far as one or two observations have been made in this Debate that the Clause in the Bill is something new in our law, I say that that is not so, for Parliament has in some 50 Statutes given this or similar power of search wherever some document or object is so intimately associated with, or is itself the instrument of, a crime that it has been thought desirable that this power should exist for the suppression of the offence.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Caporn) asked me about the existing law on this matter. I do not want, nor do I think he would want me, to weary the House with any details, but warrants under which houses can be broken into may be issued under the Gaming Act of 1802, the Gaming Act of 1845, the Betting Act of 1853, and, I think, the old Lotteries. Act. Under some of them the only power is to arrest the persons found. Under some there is also the power to seize documents. I only refer to them to make it clear that we are dealing with an area where Parliament has on successive occasions thought proper—

Sir W. DAVISON

One hundred years ago.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

—thought proper to give this power of search. No evidence has been brought before the House that the powers concerned have been abused or unreasonably used. I now come to the difference between the proposed Clause and the Clause in the Bill, and, if I may, I will refer to later Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend. The Clause in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill contains the special safeguard that the warrant can only be issued by a judge of the High Court after an application by an officer of the police of the rank not lower than that of an inspector. There is a further safeguard with regard to the duty to given an inventory. The reasons these safeguards were inserted in the Bill, were based on the arguments put forward that, however clear we might be in our minds, or a judge of the High Court would be in his mind, as to the distinction between political opinion and incitement and also the extent of the onus which lies on the prosecution to prove intention these matters would be clear to the trained mind of a judge, but might not be so clear to those justices of the peace who have not had any judicial training. It was to meet the special considerations then put forward that those special safeguards were inserted, but the Government made it quite clear that they did not regard it as desirable to introduce them in every case where power was given to issue a search warrant in the ordinary administration of our criminal law for dealing with ordinary offences on which no question of peace propaganda or political opinions could arise. Therefore, I ask the House to resist the Clause in so far as it would import into this particular branch of the law safeguards which for special reasons were inserted in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill.

My hon. Friend referred to the three months limit in his Clause which is not in our Clause. I ask him to look at the words on the Order Paper which my right hon. Friend proposes to insert as an Amendment to Clause 27—in page 25, line 40, to leave out from "that," to "may," in page 26, line 1, and to insert: any premises are being used for the purpose of the commission of an offence under this Part of this Act in connection with a lottery or proposed lottery. Those words show that we are even more up to date than is my hon. Friend, because it is necessary to satisfy the magistrates that the premises are being used for the commission of an offence.

Sir W. DAVISON

How does that fix the time?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The words are—"premises are being used." It will not be enough to say that they were being used six months ago. I think it will be agreed that those words completely meet that point. I can show, I feel sure, that the Clause in the Bill as it is to be amended will be less oppressive than my hon. Friend's Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) pointed out that under my hon. Friend's Clause there is power to search any persons found on the premises. That is not the case under the Clause in the Bill, where the power is restricted to searching premises, and therefore the question of putting in a special provision to ensure that women shall be searched by a woman does not arise. Further, under my hon. Friend's Clause a search warrant can be granted if evidence of the commission of an offence is to be found on the premises. That is to say, one has merely to indicate any particular premises and say there is evidence of the commission of an offence there, and search warrants can be issued. Under words which have been put down by my right hon. Friend, and which we shall ask the Committee to insert, we make it clear that a search warrant cannot be issued on the mere submission on oath that there was evidence of the commission of some offence under this Measure on the premises, but the justice of the peace has to be satisfied that premises are being used for the purpose of the commission of an offence under this part of this Measure. I think that meets the point which was raised as to the case of a person having a bundle of tickets somewhere in his house. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but the House will judge. Surely it cannot be suggested that the mere casual presence of a bundle of tickets in a house or room would be sufficient to satisfy a magistrate that that room was being used for the purpose of the commission of an offence.

Sir W. DAVISON

I can explain Why I am not satisfied. This is a Clause authorising premises to be searched. It might very well be that someone had been engaged in this practice six months or a year before and that tickets were on the premises, and it might be that someone who strongly objected to lotteries might know that there were stacks of lottery tickets there. He could go to the magistrate and say, "There are large numbers of tickets there and the fellow does not have those tickets there for nothing," and his house might be searched, and, even though nothing came of the search, what we want to do is to prevent the search. A judge would probably find out the position, but an ordinary magistrate who happened to hold very strong views about lotteries might say, "This is quite enough for me; here is your search warrant."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Of course. If people were prepared to commit perjury—

Sir W. DAVISON

Not necessarily that.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

If my hon. Friend is suggesting that false information might be given to the magistrate—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was not suggesting that."] I take it, then, there is no suggestion that any false information is being given to magistrates. All I can say to the House is what I have said just now, that if all the evidence a person has got is as to something that happened six months ago he will not satisfy the magistrate that the premises are being used for the purpose of promoting a lottery, because clearly that cannot be done by pointing to the fact that there were tickets on the premises six months before. The point is that whereas, under my lion. Friend's Clause, it is sufficient to show merely that an offence has been committed, we are asking the House to insert words which will confine the use of this power to the use which my right hon. Friend stated to the Committee that it was his intention to confine it, namely, cases where a magistrate is satisfied that particular premises are being used for the commission of an offence under this part of this Measure. I would like, also, to say one or two words on a somewhat contemptuous reference that was made to the "common or garden policeman" and as to justices of the peace. Our justices of the peace and, our police are entrusted by this House, under our present constitution and organisation, with the carrying out of very responsible and very difficult duties.

Mr. LEVY

I think I am within the recollection of the hon. and learned Gentleman in saying that I cast no aspersions upon the police at all. I was merely referring to the rank of the police officer, and asking that he should be a senior officer.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I am very glad to hear that. Possibly it was my fault that I misunderstood the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a common expression."]

Mr. CHURCHILL

It is usually applied to butterflies.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

What I wish to say is that there are a large number of Statutes, and in the vast bulk of them power is exercisable by one justice of the peace authorising a constable, a common or garden constable. Evidence of the abuse of that power by constables carrying out their duties is not in existence, or at any rate it is very negligible, and we see no reason for departing from the procedure which has been laid down by Parliament in other statutes, under which no objection has been raised. For this and other reasons we ask the House to reject this Clause, and, later in our proceedings, to accept the Amendments to which I have referred.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I ask myself with some surprise whether this is really all the Government have to say in answer to the speeches we have heard from every quarter of the House in criticism of their proposals and in advocacy of this alternative. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General made us an agreeable speech, showing a high degree of Ministerial precocity, which I am quite sure was not at all unwelcome to the House, but he in no way attempted to face the broad, main, popular, public issue which is at stake to-day. I would first address myself to the Labour party, His Majesty's official Opposition. We have heard two voices from those benches to-day. I do not say that in reproach, but am using it to reinforce my appeal. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is now in his place, and I will address my remarks very particularly to him, because I have not the slightest doubt that his authority will produce unity among those whom he leads—not perhaps on every question, but I am sure on this.

A sort of argument has been put forward that the Labour party should vote for the Government on this point of the searching of workmen's and other people's dwellings out of revenge for votes which were given by Conservatives on the Disaffection Bill. I feel sure that any man who is considering his public duty with calmness and composure will see that that argument ought not to weigh with him at all. I shall show later that there is no logic in it, but, apart from that, it is certainly not right that a representative of a working-class constituency should address himself to a topic of this kind in that spirit. We are not here to score off each other—or, rather, we may score off each other, but, ultimately, what happens here affects the lives of the people who send us here and to whom we are answerable and responsible.

There is another misconception into which an hon. Member who spoke from the second bench below the Gangway seems to have drifted. He appeared to proceed under the supposition that the doctrine that an Englishman's home is an Englishman's castle had come into existence with the present democratic constitution of this country. Far from it. It existed long before the vote had been extended even beyond the narrowest class, and is deeply ingrained in all of us. I put it to the Leader of the Opposition, who all his life has fought for liberty, that it is a melancholy fact that during the period when the Socialist forces have gained great recognition there has also been—not by their wish—a concomitant and simultaneous inroad upon the liberty of the subject which is very grievous, and they owe it to themselves and to their movement, in view of what is taking place all over the world, to be particularly careful, on all questions which arise, to preserve the liberty of the individual. Certainly they ought; and I am sure they could not allow a difference between two parties in the House upon the Disaffection Bill to bias them in giving sincere and frank consideration, and that is all I am asking, to this particular Measure.

This is class legislation of the most objectionable character. Rich people have not the slightest difficulty in gambling to their heart's content. The provisions of the Bill make it perfectly clear that the Carlton Club, and, I dare say, the National Liberal Club—although I do not often go there—will have every facility to conduct their sweeps. Everything is done to make it easy for those who are in a well-to-do position. The old Betting Acts were passed 100 years ago, and in those old days betting was an aristocratic thing and it was thought that the working classes had to be kept in good order. Their betters could do what they pleased, but it was not for the working classes to have such indulgences. I am addressing myself entirely to the Opposition benches, and I suggest that they should think about all these matters before they decide to give a vote against what I may call the fair rights of the ordinary man to have his home respected.

Take the question of the domicile. We are asked to authorise a new intrusion into the domicile. It is very serious to treat that as trivial, and to say that it does not matter and that the people concerned are only poor workpeople. It does matter. I see that the Under-Secretary of State is shaking his head. He will be able to speak presently, and he had better keep that valuable organ in a state of repose. Look at this question of a constable entering a home; never mind whether he is a "common or garden" constable. That was not said in any disrespect about our admirable police force, and I am glad that the Solicitor-General realised that he could not make that quite cheap point with any effect. How would the Home Secretary like to have a constable entering his home? He might be out of office in a year and a-half. How would he like a constable coming to his door and someone coming up to his study and saying: "There is a policeman at the door with a search warrant. We do not know whether he is common or garden or not, but here he is with a search warrant"?

That constable might search for one thing and he might light on another thing. I am not afraid that the Home Secretary has anything more to conceal than any of us, but I put it to him that he would feel insulted. So would any of these hon. Gentlemen here. Is it not a greater injury to the ordinary working man, in his cottage standing in a long row of streets? He lives so close to his neighbours, who see everything and see everybody arrive. When the constable comes to the house, they do not know what it is about. All they know is that the police are after him. The policeman comes in and rummages his house, looking through everything that is there. It is a very serious thing. In these days, people ought not to worry too much about party feelings and that kind of thing, when it comes to firmly holding on to the good old liberties which have been built up in this island and which, thank God, we have been able, to a large extent, to preserve.

The question comes as to how you compare the procedure which is adopted in this Bill with the procedure of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. My hon. Friend has moved that the same procedure shall be applied to this Bill as Parliament insisted upon being applied to the Disaffection Bill. There are great differences between the two. The first Bill affected very few people. Not a great number of people want to throw a seditious leaflet over the wall of a barracks. There is happily very little danger of that, but the offence is grave. it was agreed that a judge of the High Court should deal with the offence of trying to cause disaffection among the troops. But here is an offence which everybody admits is trivial, that of trafficking in lotteries or breaking the law in regard to sweepstakes—being guilty of the crime of sweepstake-mongering. This new offence upon which we are invited to turn the whole battery of British law is regarded by most people as exceedingly trivial. There is not one of us, if he searches his conscience, who will not find that there was some moment in his life when he trespassed over the strict line which divides gambling from earning.

This is a very trivial offence, and, if the Bill be passed, nobody will think any the worse of those who take part in lotteries, although the Bill will affect enormous numbers of people. That is the point. How many homes are you exposing to these inroads? Under the Disaffection Bill you could count the number in a period of five years on your fingers, but under this Bill there will be thousands, or scores of thousands of search warrants, and magistrates all over the place will be beseiged by enthusiasts—Liberal enthusiasts, who are not only found in this House but have their representatives in the constituencies—who, with all the fanaticism and energy of prohibition fanatics, will be busily trying to stop this terrible evil while a world of misery is surging around them. I daresay that magistrates will be signing thousands of these search warrants in the course of a year. If that be not so, let us take measures to make sure that it is not so. Opening all these cases where the domicile may be violated by the entry of a police officer, and where exposure and injury will be done by such an event occurring, is incomparably more injurious to our society than the successful sale of ten thousand lottery tickets. I put that to the sense of the House, for hon. Members to consider with some attention.

You have lost your sense of proportion. Because you have great power, and by ringing a bell you can bring in an enormous brigade—an army corps—you set yourselves and you say that you will appeal to the sense of the House. You will appeal to the sense of those who were not in the House. You will bring them in, and because you can do that and imagine that all power is at your disposal, you feel inclined to have your will enforced in a manner which goes beyond the spirit of the times in a matter so small. You must keep your search warrants for the safety of the State and for the detection of brutal and villainous crime. You should not extend them, as you are doing in this Bill, to matters which are considered to be petty and venial by the vast mass of your fellow countrymen. I say to hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Government benches—not because they may have been impressed by some of the advocacy which has come from the Liberal benches—that there is nothing that those gentlemen would like better than to see the Conservative party put itself in the position where it is weakened by associating itself with this legislation. Having advocated it for their special anti-gambling purposes they will not hesitate to go about the country and prate liberty on the largest scale.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I think hon. Gentlemen should welcome the return of the Liberal Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who has brought back recollections of 25 years ago when he was just as irresponsible as any Member could be. He certainly ought to know all about the Liberal party's acrobatics in regard to liberty and freedom as well as their alphabet from A to Z. The right hon. Gentleman rather issues a challenge to hon. Members on these benches—

Mr. CHURCHILL

An appeal.

Mr. WILLIAMS

—or an appeal, as he says. He urged the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement based upon the Debate up to that moment and in regard to my two hon. Friends who intimated that they were likely to support the Bill. Every Member of the Labour party is entitled to vote as he likes on any part of this Bill, and I hope that my two hon. Friends will act as their conscience dictates in regard to this Clause. I resent the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman when referring to search warrants being employed in workmen's homes. My understanding of the working-class of this country is that they are largely law-abiding citizens. The people who would attempt to get away with an illegal lottery are not the ordinary working-men but sharpers, of whom there are quite a number and who do not belong to the working-class. That does not justify or otherwise the Minister's Clause, or the Clause which is before the House at this moment. After listening to the Solicitor-General, I am not sure that I agree with my two hon. Friends in the point that they made. I have looked at Clause 27 and at the Amendments on the Order Paper, and I am convinced, apart from the High Court judgment which was intended to allow lotteries to take place, that they will be a bigger safeguard than the Clause proposed by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).

One of my hon. Friends referred to the impartiality of magistrates. I am inclined to agree that if it were a question of determining whether a search warrant should be issued in a case of alleged sedition I should not care for it to be considered by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause. I am convinced that he would not require a lot of information before agreeing to the warrant. I am also convinced that if it were a question of an illegal lottery he would hesitate a long time before he would sign any warrant to allow a search to take place.

Sir W. DAVISON

That is what we suggest, that there are lots of people who are not independent.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I must remind every hon. Member who is supporting this new Clause that they were willing to hand over every bit of liberty of the average Englishman's position on a recent occasion. They did not think then that an Englishman's home was his castle. An English workman's home is not only not a castle but not a home at all, because, in many cases, of the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and his colleagues when they sat on the Government front bench and refused to give that defence to the average working man to which we think he is entitled. If an agricultural labourer is dismissed for any reason, such as redundancy or what not, he is out of his house in a week. From the working man's point of view there is a good deal of humbug about this idea of an Englishman's house being his castle.

Viewing the position as impartially as I can, and desiring as much as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping to preserve the liberty of the individual, I feel more inclined to agree to the Amendment, which would require that the offence should have been committed at the moment when the warrant is being issued, and not dated back for three months as is suggested in the proposed new Clause. I am not anxious to rob any individual of the freedom and liberty to which he is entitled, and I should lament any vote that I gave which would result in denying any one that liberty. The Solicitor-General has told us that there are numerous Acts of Parliament in which similar points are embodied, and no hon. Member has disproved his statement with regard to the administration of those Acts. Now that the House has declared that huge lotteries shall not take place, I think the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is justified in taking steps to see that that part of the Bill is carried out.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. ALBERY

Not being versed in the law, and having had a comparatively virtuous existence up to the present, I have remained, like a good many other people, in blissful ignorance of the fact that, on a statement made on oath, a justice of the peace could send one constable to make a forcible entry into my house. I must admit at the same time that probably one of the reasons why I have remained unaware of that fact is that this power is so seldom exercised, and is only, no doubt, exercised with very proper discretion. After all we are dealing with a Betting Bill, and it is no use passing this Bill—I know that a lot of people do not want is passed, but it is no use even those who think it ought to be passed voting for it unless the Government are allowed to have in the Bill those means which are necessary for enforcing it after it has become law.

I imagine that this right of search is mainly required, not for visiting the cottage of any ordinary man who may have bought his ticket, but for visiting the house of the agent who, contrary to the law, is making a business and a practice of disposing of these tickets, and I cannot think of any other way in which it would be possible adequately to deal with that matter. I should, however, like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to one aspect of this right of search which he may not have considered, and which seems to me to be a very serious one. The Clause provides, among other things, that it is the duty of this constable, who has to go to the house alone, to collect documents, papers and money. This may involve at different times the collection of quite a considerable amount, and I hardly think it is fair to any police officer to send him alone with a search warrant to the house of a private citizen and ask him to take responsibility for collecting what may be quite a large sum of money, and accounting for it afterwards, without any friend or comrade who can support him.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The word "any" in the Act covers more than one; and in such a case as my hon. Friend suggests certainly one man would not be sent alone.

Mr. ALBERY

With all due respect to my hon. and learned Friend, it seems to me that this Clause with reference to search warrants is being passed for a specific purpose, and in many cases probably the circumstances will not be known beforehand, and, for that among other reasons, surely it would be wiser to specify in the Clause that there shall not be less than two constables when premises are searched in connection with a matter of this kind.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

With regard to the criticism which has been made of the action of our party, I need only repeat what I said on the Third Reading of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, namely, that in my opinion there is all the difference in the world between a search for a specific document and a search for a document that is open to varying political interpretations. There is a difference between going to look for a sweepstake tickets or a chance ticket and going to look for something which would be interpreted in one way by one Member of this House and in another way by another Member.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is no such thing as a chance ticket in this matter? The chance in a lottery may well be contained in a private letter from one individual to another. That is one of our difficulties.

Mr. FOOT

If it is a letter, it is a tangible thing dealing with that specific matter. Everyone agreed, when the Incitement to Disaffection Bill was being discussed, that you might have literature which was open to different interpretations, and it was accepted in the course of those discussions that we were dealing with something that was new. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was not dealing with facts, but gave us rhetoric from beginning to end. What he said had no relation whatever to the realities that we are discussing in connection with this Bill. At the beginning of his speech he talked about the difference between rich and poor, and tried to appeal to my hon. Friends above the Gangway on the ground that machinery is being estab- lished here which is going to let the rich man go free while coming with crushing weight on the poor, or something of that kind.

Mr. CHURCHILL

What I said was that, although it would be taken as a great insult by a well-to-do person if a constable were sent to search his house, it would inflict material injury upon the workman.

Mr. FOOT

That was not all that the right hon. Gentleman said. He used as an illustration the Carlton Club, as a club of the well-to-do, and he brought in the National Liberal Club—where we still have his picture in an honoured place. I am of a very generous disposition, and I am not going to recall what the right hon. Gentleman said in the days when, as a Member of His Majesty's Government, he was championing the Licensing Bill of 1908 in this House. He had a great deal to say then about liberty, but not on the same lines as to-day. However, I am too generous to dwell on the unfortunate past of the right hon. Gentleman. His reference to the Carlton Club and the National Liberal Club, if it were not intended to suggest that there is a difference between the rich and the poor, would have no meaning. He ought to know, however, that this Bill makes no difference between the poor man's club and the rich man's club. If the rich man's club decides to have a sweepstake among its members, it can have it under this Bill; and if the members of the poor man's club, in the poorest village or in the East End of London, decide to have a sweepstake with their smaller contributions, they can have it under the same conditions as can obtain in the richest surroundings. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and his appeal to the Labour benches, had no basis whatever in reality.

He talked about the thousands of search warrants that there would be, and the minions of the law going out North, East, South and West disturbing poor people living in houses in colliery districts, and all the rest of it; but everything that he contemplated can be done at present. He shakes his head, but will he dispute that what he now talks of as likely under this Measure can be done under the existing law, and could be done under the existing law when he was a Minister of the Crown? There was a search warrant under the Licensing Act, 1910, and it is not proposed in this Measure to give any extended power beyond those that obtained during the years when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister of the Crown. At one time he was Home Secretary, and what was possible under his administration then is possible now, even if this Bill should go no further than the Report stage and should never receive the assent of His Majesty. The right hon. Gentleman was astute enough to evade the main point of the argument, which is that if this proposal be carried there will be a more repressive power of search than if the Bill were allowed to stand with the proposed Amendment. If under the Bill you are being chastised with whips, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal you are being chastised with scorpions.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I am not making any proposal.

Mr. FOOT

The proposal which the right hon. Gentleman is supporting. Does he now withdraw his support? Does he deny that under the Bill as it stands, with the proposed Amendment that is on the Order Paper, there is no power of personal search, but that under the proposal which he has supported with such eloquence, to-day there is a power of personal search? A man may very strongly resent the power of personal search and the harrying of poor people by the minions of the police—the harrying of the poor people in thousands; I think the right hon. Gentleman just hesitated before he suggested millions. All that he has suggested has no association with reality. We made our position perfectly clear on the Second Reading. We said that this was not our Bill, that it was not a Bill that we would have introduced; but we promised support for its main principles, and that support we have maintained. All through the discussion we have stood by the main principles of the Bill, although it was not introduced by us and we did not ask for it in these terms. The right hon. Gentleman must accept the responsibility for a statement which I think neither he nor his friends can deny, and that is that, if this proposal be now adopted, it will establish a more repressive power of search than there is under the existing law, and certainly a more repressive power than that in the Clause for which the Home Secretary himself is responsible. I beg of the right hon. Gentleman in the future Debates on this Bill—and I hope he will join in them all—to help us by directing his consummate gifts to the realities of the case before us, and not to lead us to discuss matters that are really not before the House and are not raised, by the words on the Order Paper.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING

I rise to support this proposed new Clause for a reason which I think has not yet been touched upon by any Member who has spoken. I have listened with very great interest to the speeches which have been made, but there is one thing in the Clause that appeals to me very forcibly, because for the last 12 or 13 years I have agitated that in every judicial area there ought to be at least one magistrate who has been, to adopt the phrase of the Solicitor-General, judicially trained.

In my experience up and down the country before courts presided over by lay magistrates I have been very forcibly struck by their tendency to support on every possible occasion what they look upon as their police officer. I am very much afraid that if ever application be made under this Statute, if it ever becomes a Statute, to the ordinary lay magistrate for a search warrant by a local police officer, so long as there is no stipendiary magistrate on the bench to direct his brothers, the police officer's word in such a matter as laying an information will be the first and last word considered. I have never had that fear when I have been before a stipendiary magistrate, and I am certain that the fear would evaporate entirely if such an information had to be laid before a High Court judge.

Under this Bill, which I sincerely hope will not pass in its present form, there is an opportunity of stating that whenever a search warrant is to be issued for what is looked upon by some people as a trivial matter but by others, I suppose, as a serious one, at least the information laid should be seriously and, above all, unbiasedly entertained by the person who is going to grant the warrant. In my experience, in every instance where a matter like this has cropped up—I could give instances under other Statutes—there is the grave danger of the untrained mind of the man whose own personal views outweigh all the other views that may be put before him. That is what I have always feared, and that is why I have always advocated that in every area, if possible, there should be at least one legally trained magistrate who could advise his fellow magistrates just to prevent that personal bias. It is immaterial to me whether it is an inspector who appears before a High Court judge or a common or garden police constable. What is most material is that the man who has the power of saying Yea or Nay should be unbiased. You will certainly have that if you put the power into the hands of a High Court judge.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD

I rise to appeal to the Home Secretary whether it is not possible for him to meet the point die hon. Member has just put forward. Many of us on these benches, while very anxious indeed to support the Bill in its main principles, look with concern upon this Clause and the power that it gives to an ordinary justice of the peace to issue a search warrant. I am speaking with personal knowledge and experience as a justice of the peace myself. On certain points of view it is impossible to keep the ordinary justice of the peace free from bias. In a poaching case he starts with a bias. On this issue a justice of the peace endowed with the right to issue a search warrant will be inclined to look at the matter from the particular point of view that he himself holds as to how far gambling is a serious offence against the community and the State. I believe it is possible for the Home Secretary to agree that a search warrant should only be granted on the application of a stipendiary magistrate. I believe most of us who have some knowledge and experience in our capacity as justices of the peace would be inclined to say that in a matter of this kind a stipendiary magistrate would be equal to a High Court judge. Further, we feel that the House should be very careful indeed how it extends this power of search.

We have looked upon this matter during the last few weeks from a very serious point of view. While the Bill is directed against a social evil, I hope that, in our desire to cure one evil, we shall not inflict a very serious injury upon the liberties of our people. I think practic- ally everyone is agreed on the principle that there shall be some power of search, but the new Clause sets up a different kind of power of search. If the right hon. Gentleman would see this point of view that I am trying to put and make some attempt to meet the conscientious feelings that some of us have, he would not only satisfy a good many hon. Members opposite but he would go a very long way indeed to satisfy men like myself Who are truly anxious to do the right thing in the right way.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY

I am very anxious to be convinced on this question because, as a loyal supporter of the Government, it goes very much against the grain to vote against them, as I shall have to do if no more arguments are forthcoming than we have had at present from the Front Bench. I appeal to the Home Secretary to supply us with some arguments which are at present lacking. I listened with the greatest interest to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). His first argument was that there is a distinction between the right of search in this case and in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, and he suggested that for that reason the different procedure proposed to be adopted by the Government was justified But there are other differences, and one of them was very well pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). The great difference is that, whereas in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill the right of search will affect very few homes, in the case of this Bill it may conceivably affect many homes. Therefore, we should be all the more careful before we put this power into the hands of those whose use of it we shall not be able completely to control.

I do not care why my home is searched, whether for disaffection literature or because I am supposed to be the holder of a sweepstake ticket. I should resent it in either case unless it were absolutely necessary on grounds of public safety, and I do not think it is necessary on grounds of public safety in connection with this Bill. The hon. Member's second argument was that the Clause goes further in allowing the right of search than the Clause proposed by the Government, because it allows a personal right of search. I should be very grateful if we could be told whether in fact the Government interpret their Clause as not giving to any officer under them a personal right of search. In any case, I see no reason why the two principles of non-personal right of search and allowing a High Court judge to define the matter could not be embodied in a proper Clause.

May I turn to the arguments of the Solicitor-General? First of all, he deplored very strongly the suggestion that the magistrates were not an honourable body, and he said they were men of the highest reputation. I am getting a little tired of that argument, because I find that whenever the Government want them to do anything they are honourable and whenever we want them to do anything they are liable to corruption. The Solicitor-General cannot have it both ways. It is not a question of regarding the magistracy with contempt. We all have the highest respect for them. It would be good for the Solicitor-General's education to hear what I was going to say. He is not, I imagine, as much in contact with these magistrates whom he compliments as some of us. Surely the first principle should be that we should not put upon the shoulders of the magistrates tasks which are likely to lead them to depart from their duty. We value their impartiality. Why put into their hands, therefore, the decision on questions upon which we know that they must hold very strong personal views? On questions of theft the magistrate is impartial and anxious to do his duty, but I defy even the hon. Member for Bodmin to be impartial if it be an application to grant a right of search of the home of someone whom he thought had a sweepstake ticket.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

I do not see under the Bill that anyone could apply for a warrant to search someone's home on the ground that he had a sweepstake ticket, or that anyone could grant it. It has nothing to do with the Bill. I can have a sweepstake ticket, and it is not illegal. Any magistrate who granted a power of search thinking that the householder had a sweepstake ticket would be making himself eligible for the asylum.

Mr. BAILEY

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for keeping me so meticulously to the point of accuracy. I agree that a sweepstake ticket which had been obtained lawfully would not come within the purview of the Bill. I was giving my hon. Friend credit for a higher degree of intelligence than he apparently possesses, in that I did not explain myself fully. I meant a sweepstake ticket connected with a lottery which would be illegal. I would say without disrespect to the hon. Member that it is impossible for anyone who holds strong views on the subject to be impartial, or else why do not we allow magistrates connected with the drink trade to be on the licensing bench? One cannot have it both ways. You realise perfectly well when a thing is going against you that these people are not being impartial, and that it is only when they are in your favour that wou can conceive that they are impartial in character. There is great danger when you give magistrates power to deal with matters which are highly controversial and upon which they hold the strongest personal opinions.

There is another point. It is not a question of whether a magistrate is anxious to do justice or not, but of whether he can do justice. What is the only protection of a member of the public against whom an application for search is being made? It is that the person before whom the application is heard shall have the power to determine whether it is made on good grounds or not. When you see motorists convicted at the rate of 10 a minute you know quite well that that is not impartiality. That happens before local magistrates. I am not condemning them, but they have to carry on their business at such a rate that they cannot possibly give a case like this all the attention it merits. The only safeguard you can have in dealing with this type of application before a tribunal is the safeguard of cross-examination by a person competent and with the experience to cross-examine. That is really the point. That safeguard would not exist before any magistrate. I am not criticising magistrates at all, but the average magistrate is not chosen by virtue of his experience of the law.

A policeman who may not believe in betting may hear that there is something illegal going on in a certain house. He may therefore make an application before a magistrate who would grant power of search as a matter of course. The magistrate would not know what questions to ask the policeman. The High Court judge, when a policeman came along to make an application because he had reason to suspect, would ask why he had reason to suspect, and would go into greater detail. I am sure that in practice that would be a real safeguard against vexatious search. If the matter were raised before a judge, you would give to the citizen a reasonable safeguard that his home would not be searched and that he would not be subject to very grave personal inconvenience. We get very blase about the things we are passing. We get so much legislation poured down our throats by a Government which never knows when to let well alone, and we are in the position that we pass things as a matter of course. We seem to be too weary and tired to give them the criticism they deserve, but here we are giving a very serious precedent for something which may be used very wrongly in the future. Frankly, I regard the right of search with the utmost suspicion, and instead of trying to extend it, we should do all we could to limit it. I sincerely hope that the Government will, on this occasion, at any rate, feel that it is possible for them to make some concession in this matter.

5.50 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour)

I rise to appeal to the House to come to a decision upon this problem. We have been discussing the matter for very nearly two hours. It is a problem upon which Members are entitled to take different views, but I say with emphasis that the attempt to bring into this discussion, whatever the merits or demerits of either side, the suggestion that it is class legislation is clearly out of court. Those who disagree with the decision of the House that large lotteries should cease are quite justified in arguing against, and in producing criticisms of, the proposals which the Government are adopting in order to carry out the decision of the House. But let us make no mistake about tins problem. It is not a question of an attempt to go in and seize a single ticket or a single individual. The House knows from past experience in these matters that there are people who make a regular professional business of this matter, and it is essential that some method should be found to deal with this kind of professional people. The question of the search warrant was dealt with in the report of the Royal Commission, and they state that under Section 4 of the Gaming Act, 1802, and Section 59 of the Lotteries Act, 1823, justices can issue to-day a warrant authorising the entry of premises where a lottery is believed to be carried on and arrest those found on the premises. We are asking here that, at any rate, we shall have a practical method of dealing with this problem. We are not, in fact, giving the power of search of the person unless—and this is true apart from any search warrant—a constable acting in this matter has reason to suppose, whether it be by search warrant or otherwise, that a person is doing something illegal and contrary to law. He has powers of arrest, if there be obstruction—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

Under the existing law.

Sir J. GILMOUR

Under the existing law. If this House is to be honest and carry out what it has decided, it is essential that there shall be a right to search. [An HON. MEMBER: "And arrest!"] Yes, and the right of arrest, if it be necessary. Of course it has to be justified. Whether it be a constable or one of higher rank, he would have to justify that arrest before the proper authority. People talk to me as if all the magistrates throughout this country are biased, either one way or the other, upon the question of lotteries. The truth is that it matters not at all whether the view of the individual magisrate is in favour or against lotteries. He has to consider whether the evidence of the police constable or the police officer gives him the power of entry. The constable has to justify that evidence. You say to me that I should not like the police to come to my house because I belong to a different class from the poor people of this country. What utter rubbish! Do the police come to my house to see whether I have proper authority for carrying arms? Of course, they do. What rubbish it is to say that anybody resents a decent and honest chief constable, or officer, or plain clothes constable coming into his house. Of course, if you are doing something contrary to law, no doubt you would object.

Sir W. DAVISON

What about the Sedition Bill?

Sir J. GILMOUR

I am not dealing with that Bill. I think that the Incitement to Disaffection Bill is necessary, and that this Bill is also necessary.

Sir W. DAVISON

Why not have the same procedure?

Mr. CHURCHILL

Would my right hon. Friend like the police to come to his house with a search warrant?

Sir J. GILMOUR

Yes; if they came to my house with a search warrant, what reason have I to object? If I am acting wrongly and against the law, I have no reason to dissent. The law has to be carried out, and I hope that it will be carried out. Why this nonsense? What is the reason of these arguments? The House can decide for itself. All I say is that these powers in the main exist to-day. They have not been abused, and is it to be assumed that they are to be abused in the future? On the contrary, I do not believe that that will be the case. I think that we have debated this matter long enough, and I hope that the House will now come to a decision.

Sir W. DAVISON

rose—

HON MEMBERS

Divide!

Sir W. DAVISON

This is a very important matter. The Liberals want to divide, but this is the serious question of domiciliary search of the home. The learned Solicitor-General said that my Clause was a much more stringent one. Why do not they accept it if that is so? He has not said a word as to why a judge should not be preferable to a magistrate, and with regard to what was said that there was no right of search under the present Clause, may I point out to the Home Secretary that if a policeman—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

I have allowed the hon. Member to ask a question before the Minister sat down, but he has exhausted his right of speech.

Sir W. DAVISON

I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that my Clause is different, and that if a policeman got into my house and thought that I was concealing tickets he could search and arrest me.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

The Home Secretary has addressed us with great passion, as is his practice when he has no intelligible defence. I suggest to him that we all like it, but that when he is not in a passion he makes a better speech and one more likely to appeal to our minds. The Home Secretary thinks that this Clause applies only to large lotteries. Does his own Clause in the Bill apply to large lotteries? On this, as on previous occasions, he has not troubled to read his own Bill, which applies equally to private lotteries. The Clause which we are seeking to amend by the new Clause of my hon. Friend is Clause 27 which refers to an offence under this part of this Act, and accordingly an offence committed under Clause 24 is "an offence under this part of this Act." Clause 24 relates to private lotteries, but the Home Secretary said "large lotteries." If the Conservative Club at South Croydon, through which, as I mentioned the other day, I won a goose and a bottle of whisky last year, permits a lottery in future arid provides me with some posters of the lottery, and a supply of tickets, and I put one of the posters in my house cc, that when friends come in I may have a better chance of selling tickets in the lottery, I shall have committed an offence under the Act. If any maliciously-minded member of the Liberal party happened to call at my house and saw that poster, he would then be entitled to go to a magistrate and swear an information that in my house there was a poster contravening Section 24 of the Act. The magistrate would be compelled to issue a search warrant, and the police could come to my house at a time when it was empty and locked up and obtain a forcible entry. The Home Secretary denounces us with great vigour, and gets terribly excited instead of applying his mind to the very serious problem we have been trying to study carefully since a quarter to four o'clock. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a large number of speakers have taken part, as the speeches have been commendably brief, but only two Socialist Members and two Liberal Members of the section that opposes the Government have shown the slightest sympathy with the proposal of the Government.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

And an hon. Member at the back.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Oh, no; the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) by no means commended this policy. He said that he thought that it was right that the Government should have the right of search. The Clause proposed by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) does not take away the right of search, but safeguards that right. Therefore, it is impossible to quote the hon. Member for Gravesend as supporting the policy of the Government.

We are considering under what conditions the search may be conducted. So far, I have heard no arguments to sustain the point of view put forward from the Government bench. The only serious attempt to defend the Government position was not made by the older generation but by the younger generation, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) who gave us a legal lecture which had little or no connection with the subject matter. He indicated that it is quite easy to identify lottery tickets, and different from the position under the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, where you may be looking for a mass of literature. I asked him if he knew what a chance is. I am not clear what a chance is, because it is not defined in the Bill. I can think of many chances which indicate something different from the possession of tickets. There are things known on the Stock Exchange as share certificates, bearer bonds and inscribed stock. Inscribed stock may bear the same relationship to a share certificate as a chance does to a lottery ticket. If I enjoy the confidence of people to a sufficient extent that they will hand me their money in a lottery, without receiving a ticket in exchange, solely because I have inscribed their name in a book, that, clearly, is a chance in a lottery.

If people want to dodge the new Act—I am certain that great masses of people will try to dodge it, and they will not be confined to those who have criticised the Bill, but will include large numbers of people who have voted for the Conservative party—one of the dodges which will be attempted will be that of having a chance of some sort or another in a ticket. If you are going to use your search Clause to deal with the kind of evasion that will arise, you will have to search for chances. That is not like looking for a nice tidy bundle of tickets in a parcel which clearly indicates that it has come from a printer and you know what you are looking for. You may have to look with not less assiduity than Cromwell exercised when he searched for the Mace.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

He never searched for it.

Mr. WILLIAMS

At any rate, he found it. As a result of that enterprise on his part our door bears evidence of the fact that that kind of search is no longer tolerated. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) had greater respect for constitutional principles than he has shown in the Debate to-day.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS

I should have a greater chance of voting for the Government if I only knew what the Government want. The Solicitor-General, in a charming speech, assumed that the House was perfectly innocent and without any of the guile which we know is in the mind of every lawyer, however sweetly he may speak to us. He told us that we all assumed that these powers are necessary. We do not assume that. That is the trouble. Practically no one has assumed that these powers are necessary. I have listened to both the speeches from the Government bench, and neither of them laid it down why these powers are necessary. If they would tell us that they are necessary because under certain new Sub-sections they have not the powers they require, I would not mind supporting them. What is the position in regard to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? Has he not the power to search in various ways and to stop betting if he wants to stop it? If he has not sufficient power, why can we not be told? There are immense powers under the law in regard to search, but they are very rarely used. If there are new offences being set up under this Bill which require that additional powers should be given to deal with them, let the Government say that that is so and the House will give them the powers without any trouble.

The Government tell us that they want these powers of search to deal with what many of us consider to be a gross gamble, that is, the sale of Irish sweepstake tickets in this country. If that is what they want to deal with, and on a large scale, they could have got the Debate through an hour or two ago without any trouble. They must separate clearly in the minds of hon. Members the question whether they want to deal with a big issue and a real scandal, or whether they want to use these powers merely for the purpose of pin-pricking individuals here and there, which may be done when we have as Home Secretary not one as good and honest as the present Home Secretary but some appalling prig, as we have had within the memory of this Parliament, or very shortly before. That is what we want to avoid. If it is to be laid down that the Government must have the power of search and it is really necessary to have it, let them tell the House quite clearly why they want it and let them narrow down the issue. If they will assure us in that way many of us may feel it more easy to support them.

If the granting of a search warrant is to be left to the magistrate, it means leaving it to the administration of some local person. I say quite frankly that in a matter of this importance it is far better to have big general administration and the right of search granted by a judge, as set out in the proposed new Clause, rather than leave it to the administration of a local magistrate. The Home Secretary does not think that that is possible. He has not said that by going to a magistrate you can get the administration to work more quickly. If we were told that, we might agree with him, hut none of these reasons has been given. All that we have been told is that the Government want these powers, and we must leave it at that. I have not yet voted against the Government on this Bill. Although I thoroughly dislike much that is in it, I believe that some parts are good. I would like the Government to go a little more out of their way to meet those of us who give them full and loyal support rather than meet those people who kick them on every occasion outside the House. It seems to me that those who are being pampered are the people who are always kicking the Government outside the House.

Sir J. GILMOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 56.

Division No. 395.] AYES. [6.9 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Perkins, Walter R. D.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Petherick, M.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Albery, Irving James Grigg, Sir Edward Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Grimston, R. V. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Power, Sir John Cecil
Apsley, Lord Gunston, Captain D. W. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Aske, Sir Robert William Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Pybus, Sir John
Assheton, Ralph Hales, Harold K. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Ramsbotham, Herwald
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Hammersley, Samuel S. Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Rea, Walter Russell
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portam'th, C.) Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Been, Sir Arthur Shirley Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Bernays, Robert Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Rickards, George William
Blindell, James Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Robinson, John Roland
Boothby, Robert John Graham Horobin, Ian M. Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Boulton, W. W. Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.) Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Boyce, H. Leslie Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Btraithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.) Hume, Sir George Hopwood Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hurd, Sir Party Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Burnett, John George Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Savery, Samuel Servington
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Jamieson, Douglas Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Ker, J. Campbell Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Kirkpatrick, William M. Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Skelton, Archibald Noel
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Lees-Jones, John. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Clayton, Sir Christopher Lewis, Oswald Smith, Sir R. W. (Ab'd'n. & K'dine, C.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock) Somervell, Sir Donald
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Lindsay, Noel Ker Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Lloyd, Geoffrey Soper, Richard
Cook, Thomas A. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Cooke, Douglas Loder, Captain J. de Vero Spens, William Patrick
Copeland, Ida Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell Lyons, Abraham Montagu Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) Stones, James
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Storey, Samuel
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) McCorquodale, M. S. Strauss, Edward A.
Cross, R. H. MacDonald, Rt. Hen. J. R. (Seaham) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Crossley, A. C. McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. McKie, John Hamilton Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Denman, Hon. R. D. McLean, Major Sir Alan Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Drewe, Cedric Magnay, Thomas Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C. Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Train, John
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Tree, Ronald
Dunglass, Lord. Mason, David M. (Edinburgh. E.) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Eales, John Frederick Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Turton, Robert Hugh
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Meller, Sir Richard James Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Elmley, Viscount Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Milne, Charles Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Everard, W. Lindsay Morgan, Robert H. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Morrison, William Shephard Whyte, Jardine Bell
Fox, Sir Gifford Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fuller, Captain A. G. Munro, Patrick Withers, Sir John James
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Womersley, Sir Walter
Ganzoni, Sir John Orr Ewing, I. L. Worthington, Dr. John V.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Patrick, Colin M. Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Glossop, C. W. H. Peake, Osbert
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Pearson, William G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Penny, Sir George Major George Davies and
Commander Southby.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Groves, Thomas E. Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Grundy, Thomas W. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Attlee, Clement Richard Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Tate, Mavis Constance
Bailey, Eric Alfred George John, William Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)
Banfield, John William Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Templeton, William P.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Knox, Sir Alfred Thorne, William James
Broadbent, Colonel John Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Tinker, John Joseph
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Buchanan, George Leonard, William Wayland, Sir William A.
Cape, Thomas Levy, Thomas West, F. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Daggar, George Lunn, William Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) McEntee, Valentine L. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Edwards, Charles McGovern, John Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Maxton, James Wilmot, John
Fleming, Edward Lascelles Parkinson, John Allen
Gardner, Benjamin Walter Pike, Cecil F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Sir W. Davison and Mr. Wise.
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Remer, John R.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 201.

Division No. 396.] AYES. [6.18 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Glossop, C. W. H. Remer, John R.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles Groves, Thomas E. Robinson, John Roland
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Grundy, Thomas W. Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Hales, Harold K. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Selley, Harry R.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Bring) Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Banfield, John William Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Tate, Mavis Constance
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.) John, William Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Thorne, William James
Broadbent, Colonel John Knox, Sir Alfred Tinker, John Joseph
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Todd, Lt.-Col, A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Buchanan, George Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Butt, Sir Alfred Leonard, William Wayland, Sir William A.
Cape, Thomas Logan, David Gilbert West, F. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Lunn, William Whyte, Jardine Bell
Dagger, George McEntee, Valentine L. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) McGovern, John Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon S.)
Drewe, Cedric Marsden, Commander Arthur Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Edwards, Charles Maxton, James Wilmot, John
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Parkinson, John Allen
Everard, W. Lindsay Pike, Cecil F. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fleming, Edward Lascelles Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Sir W. Davison and Mr. Wise.
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Albery, Irving James Clarke, Frank Fox, Sir Gifford
Allen, Lt Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) Clayton, Sir Christopher Fuller, Captain A. G.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Cobb, Sir Cyril Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Apsley, Lord Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Ganzoni, Sir John
Asks, Sir Robert William Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Assheton, Ralph Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Cook, Thomas A. Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cooke, Douglas Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Copeland, Ida Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Bernays, Robert Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Grimston, R. V.
Blindell, James Cross, R. H. Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Boothby, Robert John Graham Crossley, A. C. Gunston, Captain D. W.
Boulton, W. W. Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Denman, Hon. R D. Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Doran, Edward Hammersley, Samuel S.
Boyce, H. Leslie Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Dunglass, Lord Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Eales, John Frederick Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Burghley, Lord Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Elmley, Viscount Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Barnett, John George Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Hurd, Sir Percy
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Morrison. William Shepherd Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe) Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Somervell, Sir Donald
Jamieson, Douglas Munro, Patrick Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Ker, J. Campbell Orr Ewing, I. L. Soper, Richard
Kirkpatrick, William M. Patrick, Colin M. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Peake, Osbert Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Penny, Sir George Spent, William Patrick
Lees-Jones, John Perkins, Walter R. D. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Lewis, Oswald Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple) Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock) Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Stones, James
Lindsay, Noel Ker Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Storey, Samuel
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- Power, Sir John Cecil Strauss, Edward A.
Lloyd, Geoffrey Pownall, Sir Assheton Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n) Pybus, Sir John Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Loder, Captain J. de Vere Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Templeton, William P.
Loftus, Pierce C. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Ramsbotham, Herwald Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Lyons, Abraham Montagu Ramsden, Sir Eugene Train, John
Mabane, William Rea, Walter Russell Tree, Ronald
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Renwick, Major Gustav A. Turton, Robert Hugh
McCorquodale, M. S. Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
McKie, John Hamilton Rickards, George William Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
McLean, Major Sir Alan Rosbotham, Sir Thomas Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Magnay, Thomas Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D, R. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Meller, Sir Richard James Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard Withers, Sir John James
Milne, Charles Savery, Samuel Servington Womersley, Sir Walter
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Worthington, Dr. John V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell) Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Molten, A. Hugh Elsdale Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Morgan, Robert H. Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Skelton, Archibald Noel Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward
and Major George Davies.