Clause 8 (Duration.)

HC Deb 15 October 1945 vol 414 cc846-81

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 5, line 38, leave out "five" and insert "two."—[Mr. Churchill.]

In page 5, line 38, leave out "five" and insert "one."—[Mr. Clement Davies.]

9.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

May I, for the information of the Committee, say that it is proposed to take the next two Amendments together.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Does that mean you will not call the Amendment standing in my name and that of my colleagues? Will there be a Division on only one Amendment, or on both?

The Deputy-Chairman

I think I can tell the hon. and learned Member that after the discussion the Question will be put "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. Davies

That will not help me very much, because my colleagues and I do not like either five years or two years, and they want to express their opinion in the Lobby.

Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington)

I do not want to intervene on a point of Order, but, with respect, would it not be better in the circumstances if both Amendments were put formally, and the discussion on both taken together?

The Deputy-Chairman

The second will be put if the first is defeated.

Mr. Eden

I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, leave out "five," and insert "two."

I feel that Members in all parts of the Committee will share in the regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), whose name appears first to this Amendment, is unable, owing to indisposition, to move it. We all, I think, feel that a Debate is always enlivened and enriched by any participation on the part of my right hon. Friend and so I think I may be allowed, if the Committee will let me, to send a message of expression of good will on the part of all of us to him, with the hope that he may soon be restored to us to assist in our labors.

I was impressed by the speech we have just listened to from the Minister of Supply. If he will forgive me for saying so, he speaks for the Government Front Bench as to the manner born. He was so praiseworthy that I felt sure that the Home Secretary would accept this Amendment later. What did the right hon. Gentleman say in reply to my hon. Friend? He said, "You ought not to criticise this particular Clause; it is a very good Clause, because it is a Coalition Clause." I am pleading with the Government to say that they will be good enough, in their turn, to accept this modest little Coalition alteration. I will give a little time for an exchange of views between the Home Secretary and the Minister of Supply. Let me try to put this issue to the Committee as it seems to us. It is a simple issue but, as I shall show the Committee, an important issue, both to the House and to the nation. We are not disputing the need for the Government to retain for the period of transition from war to peace some powers, as the Bill says: …for purposes connected with the maintenance control and regulation of supplies and services… In our view, retention of these powers is not a matter for excessive rejoicing, but we regard it as inescapable. We are not challenging that to-night. The right hon. Gentleman will, I think, agree that the powers we are being asked to give are very wide. They are sweeping. They are such as no Government has ever asked the country for before in time of peace—

Mr. Gallacher

We have never had a Government before.

Mr. Eden

The hon. Gentleman's support of the present Government is their chief embarrassment. If I were the right hon. Gentleman opposite I would say every time the hon. Gentleman got up, "Save me from my friends." It was different when we were sitting on the opposite side of the House. I apologise for that diversion. The issue raised by this Amendment is this: how long should these very far-reaching powers continue in force without further reference to Parliament?

Let me put to the Committee for a moment the history of this two-years period. As the Committee may know, and as has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman before, a Bill was drafted during the life of the Coalition Government, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman who now leads the House, with other distinguished names on the back like that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton). That Bill enacted that the period of its existence should be two years, unless it was continued from year to year in pursuance of an Address presented by both Houses of Parliament. At that time, that was our proposal, when the Japanese war was still waging. I think it is fair to say that we had in our minds then—for the purpose of planning you have to have some date in your mind—that the Japanese war would, perhaps, last 18 months, and there would be a further six months after the conclusion of that war during which these powers would run. I think it is generally accepted that was the position when this Bill was drafted and introduced in the days of the Coalition. I submit that to night the conditions are entirely different. The Japanese war is over and we are immersed in the problems of the transition. Under these conditions, what do we suggest the Government should do? We say to them this: Take these powers, these very weighty and exceptional powers, for two years. Come back at the end of that period to Parliament, which is still sovereign in this country. Report to us on the situation then, and, according to how it has developed, make any demands you have to make to us afresh. That seems to me to be a very reasonable proposal to make.

Let us look for a moment at what may be the position, supposing the Government accept our Amendment, two years from now. They come back to the House. It may be that the position as regards shortages will be as serious and as acute as it is to-day. If that should be the position, the Government will certainly be severely cross-questioned before they are given these powers again. But is not that right? Is not that what Parliamentary Government is for, and is not that what the Government themselves should wish for? Supposing, Mr. Deputy Chairman, as I think is more likely, that two years from now we have not all of us exactly and correctly foreseen the situation, and you find, in certain respects, shortages are more acute than were expected, and, in other respects, much less acute. Some raw materials, for instance, may come to hand to a greater extent than we reckon to-day. Supposing that is the situation, then the Government will still want certain powers, but not the powers exactly in this Bill. They can then come before Parliament make their demands, and the House can debate them, and approve them or reject them. It seems to me that is a very reasonable proposal.

I have read through the whole Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. Like a diligent inquirer after truth, I tried to find why the Government did not like to continue what had been in their minds when they formed part of the admirable Coalition, that is to say that the term of the Bill should be two years. I did not get very much enlightenment from that Second Reading Debate. I only found one reason given why the term of two years could not be accepted and that was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House, and his argument was this: If we were going to limit the period now to two years we would give the country a falsely-optimistic impression that within those two years the period of shortages would be at an end. If I may say so with respect, I think it requires something more than that from the Government to give the country a falsely-optimistic impression. The outlook is too grim all round. But even admitting the force of that argument, I cannot really believe that the Government expect us to take that argument seriously.

What happened during the war? We came to the House, not after two years but every single year—year by year—to ask the House to give us the emergency powers which we needed. Nobody is going to tell me that because we said: "We want our emergency powers for one year," the last Parliament thought that that was going to be the last year of the war. Supposing I had come to the House and said: "This war is going on for at least three years. Give us these emergency powers for seven years." Hon. Members in the last Parliament know what would have happened. We should not have got them, because the House would have said, rightly: "If you want these exceptional powers which are never granted to a Government in normal times, you must ask for them year by year." That is all we suggest, except that we are rather more generous to the Government than we ourselves asked Parliament to be to us during the life of the last Parliament.

Now I come to the question of the difference between the Amendment put down by my hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway and our Amendment. Let me say at once that if the right hon. Gentleman finds it easier to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend than ours, I will gladly bow to that decision. I suggest that the Government should consider whether it is not reasonable to take this attitude and say "In war we came down and asked for our powers year by year, but in peace we will come down and ask for our powers for two years and then come and ask for them year by year." I noticed that this morning the "Daily Herald" was very indignant about this Amendment and wrote a whole leader about it, which was very flattering to us. They said that it was—I think the word was "criminal"—that anyone should think that there would not be shortages under this Government two years from now. Far be it from me to suggest any thing of the kind. Indeed, this Amendment does not suggest anything of the kind. All we do say is that we are not quite clear what the position will be two years from now, and we would like the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to come down and tell us and get the necessary powers from us. Why two years? We have rested ourselves upon the Coalition Bill, the terms of which are so dear to the heart of the Minister of Supply. The parentage of the Bill, which the Home Secretary was so ready to attribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot—

Mr. Ede

He was one of the godparents, not the parent.

Mr. Eden

The parentage is good enough. He associates himself and my right hon. Friend with it. All I ask him to do is to take care of the Bill to-night, and not forget it and throw it over for five years. We also rest ourselves on the words of the White Paper, also produced by the Coalition Government, and quoted by the Home Secretary in the Debate last week. These were the words: It is not yet possible to forecast the length of the transition period during which the prevailing tendency will be for demand to outrun supply. That is exactly the position to-night, and that is the reason why we ask the Government to come back for these powers if they need them again, or for any modification of these powers they may need, two years from now.

9.30 p.m.

Let us see what is the real objection to doing it. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to ask me to believe it is because it will raise false hopes in the country. He does not think that any more than I do. I know the objection and so does every old Parliamentarian. It is that it does not suit the Government to have to come back to Parliament two years hence on this issue, and every year thereafter. Because of their great majority they say "Now is the time to get this out of the way for five years." [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am very much obliged; I did not dare to hope for that. They say "We have a heavy legislative programme. We have a lot of work to do." Nothing is so disagreeable as to have to submit your work to Parliament from time to time. If by any chance a Bill is likely to become more and more progressively unpopular, more than ever you do not want to appear before Parliament two years from now.

I submit that hon. Gentlemen who are so enthusiastic about getting rid of this, might consider that there is something more at stake in this than even the convenience of the Government or their convenience. There is the question of the duty of this Committee. I cannot accept that it can be thought right that we should confer upon this Government or indeed upon any Government what is now asked. We never asked for these powers for so long for ourselves in the war. I do not think any Government should come and ask for such powers as these which interfere in the daily life of the ordinary citizen without reference back after a reasonable interval. If this Committee were to agree to that we should be shirking our job. Let me tell hon. Members, wherever they may sit, even in serried ranks behind the Government, that it is still their duty to keep watch over the power of the Executive.

Let me sum up my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not arguing the merits of the Bill. What I am asking is a simple constitutional issue: For how long is Parliament justified in granting such wide powers to the Executive without reference back? Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway say a year, we say two. We base ourselves on the previous Bill and on our desire to make a reasonable allowance for what we know are the Government's present difficulties. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that for every reason, constitutional, democratic, practical and national, it will be wrong for Parliament to part with these powers for five years. In conclusion I greatly dare to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. They have a great majority. The right hon. Gentleman may comfort himself by saying, as a great commander once said, that God is on the side of the big battalions. I would ask him to remember that that particular commander lost his last battle. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can defeat our Amendment in the Lobby to- night; he can defeat the Amendment of the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway if it is put. In this House majority rules, but a wise majority seeks to take account of the views of the minority.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Morpeth)

Did the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Eden

Most certainly. Never on any occasion, as Leader of the House in war-time, did I ask the House for powers as wide as this for as long as this. I hope that next time—one never knows how things will change—

Mr. Taylor

I shall not be alive when the right hon. Gentleman is back.

Mr. Eden

The hon. Member is always a pessimist. Nobody can pretend that this is a wrecking Amendment. You can only pretend it is a wrecking Amendment if you have no confidence in being able to carrying this Bill again two years hence. It would be a confession of impending doom which I do not expect a Government, recently elected, to make.

When I look at the Amendments, I am staggered at our own moderation. All we ask is that, at the end of two years, the Government should come back and ask for these powers, or any modified powers, if they feel that they need them. If they ask for modified powers they will be readily acclaimed by all sections of the people. I hope that the Government will listen to the arguments I have sought to urge. I am sure that if they will do so, and if they will take account of the views expressed in these Amendments, they will not do themselves as a Government any harm but they will show that they can fulfil their function. They will get the Bill with good will, which must be of value to its future operation, and they will show that they are guardians of the liberties of Parliament as much as any other party.

Mr. Clement Davies

The Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, and the one standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends, raise a most serious, fundamental and constitutional question. In regard to the Amendment moved so eloquently by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, may I point out that those very arguments might be put forward with equal cogency against his own Amendment, which sets a period of two years during which Parliament parts with its own great rights? Before I come to the actual Amendment, may I make some admissions?

In the first place, of course, the economic position in the country is critical, serious and precarious, more critical, more precarious and more serious than it has ever been in its long history. So is the position in the whole country. That is a situation which is inevitable after a long war. The abnormality which was in existence during the period of world-wide war continues to-day and it is absolutely essential that the Government should have full powers in their hands to do whatever it is necessary for them to do during this abnormal time, and to take such measures as they think right for the safety and well-being of the people of this country. On that statement I, and my hon. Friends, are in complete agreement. May I go further and admit at once that it would be impossible by successive Measures to pass the necessary Acts of Parliament that would be required to enable these powers to be exercised? It can only be done in the way the Bill suggests, namely, by Regulations made by Order-in-Council. Thirdly, it is impossible to prophesy how long the abnormality will continue. One recalls the serious situation after the last war, first the boom and the inflation, followed by deflation, unemployment and suffering, which continued for years afterwards. In fact, it continued during the whole period between the wars. No one can foretell what this abnormal period will be and what will be needed.

I admit all that. But having admitted all that, may I draw the attention of the Committee to what we are proposing to do to-day? We are proposing to part, if the words of the Sub-section are passed, for five years, and, if the Amendment is agreed to, for two years, with the sovereign and constitutional rights of Parliament, a right with which we do not part even in the terrible time of war. We are asked to part with the power of the Legislature and to put it into the hands of the Executive—controlled, I agree—for that definite period, with no liability on the Executive to come down to the House and give an account of its stewardship during that time. What we are proposing is that it is right, fitting and proper that these full powers should be given to the Government and exercised by them, but not for a longer period than the usual period during which this House parts with powers, namely, one year. After that time, the Government have to come to the House and ask for a renewal of their powers and give an account of their stewardship.

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I listened to the Debate and re-read it to see what were the objections urged from the Opposition bench to the period of five years. May I say in passing that I thought the case for the need of these powers was much more strongly put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) than by the Government Front Bench. Having put the strong reasons for the powers, somehow the right hon. Gentleman began to regret his words, and all he could then say was that he thought that it was a sort of notice to the world at large that we would not be able to put our house in order for five years and that, therefore, we were taking a pessimistic view. The Lord President of the Council took the exact opposite view, and said it would be humbugging the people to suggest that our difficulties would be over in two years and that that would be taking too optimistic a view. We should not take either an optimistic or a pessimistic view, but a realistic view of the situation to-day and face up to the problems as they arise.

I would beg the Government to stick to the constitutional practice. To use an analogy, there is no right to a standing Army in this country except with the consent of Parliament given year by year. For the safety and defence of this country the Executive has to come to the House each year and ask for its sanction to maintain a standing Army. The Government are taking exceptional powers to-day. They are entitled to take them, but Parliament is also entitled to have year by year an account of their stewardship and to decide whether they have made out a good case for its renewal or whether their powers shall be curtailed. Now that they are starting on the great task which is awaiting them, the Government, if they fulfil that task, will carry with them the goodwill of all the people; but I conclude by imploring them, do not part with a single constitutional right which has been so hardly won for the people of this country.

9.45 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Hollis (Devizes)

I claim the indulgence of the Committee for a maiden speech, and I promise that I will not keep the Committee long at this late hour. The Government are asking for very large powers. We are told in a speech of obvious sincerity by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) that they are justified in asking for these powers because they will use them for public purposes. We are told by another hon. Member that they will use them for the general good. No one wishes to doubt the sincerity of hon. Members, but unfortunately the problem is not as easy as that. Many of the things that were said by Karl Marx were not true, but one thing he said was that human history consists of new governing classes arising out of, and extracting, old governing classes in the name of the general good, and then establishing their power in their place.

I was reading the other day the speeches of Richard Cobden, and it struck me how very similar were the phrases which he used to the phrases used by hon. Members opposite. At last sectional interests would be overcome, legislation in the future would be solely for the general good, and the only difference was that those arguments which Richard Cobden used in order to establish the capitalist system, hon. Members opposite are now using to overthrow it. Surely the one certain lesson of politics is that dreams do not come true. What emerges after five years of a legislative programme is very different from what people wished to emerge, and I do not say that in any criticism of right hon. Members opposite except in so far as it is a criticism of them to say that they are human beings. But whatever the world will be like in five years' time, it will certainly by no means be the world which right hon. Members opposite wish it to be.

Some 10 years ago, shortly before he was shot, Governor Huey Long of Louisiana said a very striking thing. He said, "It is child's play to create a Fascist party—all you have to do is to call it an anti-Fascist party". That was perhaps a somewhat cynical observation, but, if anyone looks around the world that has existed during the 10 years since Governor Long was shot, I doubt whether he can deny that there is an unpleasant degree of truth in the cynicism. We were told the other day that liberty marches on. I will not dispute the aphorism, if only because I am not quite certain what it means, but a much more important truth about liberty is that it is continually under fire. First one element in the body politic, and then another, gets too strong, and the test of statesmanship is, at any given moment, to see who is the enemy of liberty and not to waste the ammunition of the country in attacking abandoned dug-outs on deserted battle fields.

There may have been a time in the history of this country when kings had too much power, a time when landlords had too much power, when the capitalists had too much power. Hon. Members opposite are eminent Victorians if they imagine that is the danger to-day. They are creatures of a bygone age, preaching gospels which went out of fashion in Queen Victoria's day. Nobody could imagine that it was capitalists who had too much power to-day when the poor, cringing creatures could hardly blow their noses without getting relief from a Government Department. It has been a very wise tradition of the English people to be most reluctant to part with exceptional powers to the Executive, or to the bureaucracy. That is why there is a very strong case that this Committee should be extremely reluctant to vote exceptional powers. On the other hand, there is the case that the times are exceptional, and that the immediate abolition of all exceptional Regulations, or legislation, would cast the country into chaos.

How are we to reconcile these two problems? They can only be reconciled by a compromise, and, surely, the obvious compromise is that proposed by one or other of these Amendments—that the exceptional powers should be granted, but that they should be granted for a very strictly limited time.

We are not asking the Government to say to-day that in two years' time the world will be normal. Everybody admits that it may be necessary for the Government to come down to the House again in two years' time and ask for further exceptional powers, which, if they have good reasons for asking, will be granted. But the all-important point is that exceptional powers should be granted for short periods, subject to continual examination and debate, in order that the people of England, willingly accepting discipline when it is necessary to accept it, should, nevertheless, be continually reminded that England was once a free country, and that, God helping us, she will be a free country again.

Mr. Ede

In replying to what is admittedly a critical Amendment on this Bill, it is well that the Minister should be able to start on a point at which he will carry the whole Committee with complete unanimity. I do so by expressing our pleasure and delight at the speech to which we have just listened. It is no small test to make a maiden speech at any time, and, speaking for myself, looking back on the distant days when it fell to my lot, I was thankful that the audience was small. It is almost the supreme test to have to make a speech in a crowded House, at the end of a long day, in which the Debate has been keen and in which the subject has been ventilated from almost every point of view, and then be able to bring into the discussion an atmosphere of freshness, of good humour, and, from the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member making it, sound common sense, is an achievement for which the hon. and gallant Member may well feel satisfied. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that, much as the Government at about this time of the evening will often be anxiously looking at the clock, some of our apprehensions will be allayed if the hon. and gallant Gentleman rises to give us another treat like the one he has given us this evening.

May I now come to a second point on which I know the Committee will be unanimous, and ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Lamington (Mr. Eden) to associate all of us in the note he is going to send to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? We all of us regret his absence, for he is, with all the differences we have had with him, a very great House of Commons man, and we hope that in the days not far distant he will return to us with all his accustomed strength and vigour.

Carrying on in the same spirit, may I endeavour to meet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Lamington on this point of the Coalition? He wants two years, we want five. I am told that seven is the perfect number. We would both get what we wanted then. He could have the first two, and we would have the last five. But I realise that that would be asking too much of him even in the genial temper of the Committee at the present moment. There is one thing I want to say with regard to the Coalition. I occupied a very subordinate place in the Coalition Government, but I had the very good fortune to be associated with a Minister, of an opposite party to mine, in promoting one of the great legislative achievements of the Coalition Government. I said it in the last Parliament, and I repeat it here—he and I were very good friends in the discussions we had, but there came moments when I had pressed something very hard upon the right hon. Gentleman and he said, "Well, you know, the boys behind me won't stand for that"; and the boys behind him being more than the boys who would have been behind me had I been on the appropriate side of the House, I had to bow to the inevitable logic of the Division Lobbies. I think we are entitled to say that when you have a Bill that was promoted by the Coalition, it does indicate what the mind of the Conservative Party was, because they had the power to impose on the Coalition House of Commons their view if they wanted to do so; but it does not by any means follow that when you have an Act passed in the Coalition period of the last Parliament, it represents what the Labour Party regarded as a satisfactory way of dealing with the situation. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether I was wise to be associated with the Education Act of 1944, and whether I ought not to have waited for the Education Act of 1946.

10 p.m.

We have had put before us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Lamington his case on this matter. I could not help remembering, while he was speaking, one of the aphorisms of Sir Charles Oman, whom some of us recollect as one of the Members for Oxford University: Man learns nothing from history except that man teams nothing from history. The people of this country have had a very bitter history during the last 25 years. They are not as alarmed at this Measure as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they recall that it was two years after the last war that all controls were swept away and Britain took the plunge into the economic abyss from which it did not emerge until the opening of the war which has just past. Therefore, they are more prepared now than they were at the end of the 1914–18 war to believe that the future is grim and that the task in front of them as well as the Government is exceedingly difficult and that we shall only emerge from that period successfully if we have no hasty improvisation but long term planning. I do want to emphasise those last three words "long term planning." My right hon. Friend paid a well-deserved tribute to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. How can be embark upon the policy which, in spite of the caricature which was given by the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron Leader Donner), is essential if we are adequately to harness ail the great resources of this country to the task of building up our comfort and reasonable prosperity at home and regaining the export trade. He must be in a position to be able to plan for at least the period for which we ask in this Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman made some play with the fact that his Government brought the Emergency Powers Bill before the House annually. There were many differences between the emergency powers and the powers that are given in this Measure. The power that, in my experience, most exercised the House, the one on which the most critical Debates occurred was the use that might be put, or was being put, on Regulation 18B and the Regulations that were associated with the necessities with which that Regulation dealt. There are no similar powers in this Measure. Most of those powers were revoked on the day after the end of the German War by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. We are here engaged on the task of building, at home and abroad, the future prosperity of this country.

I am quite sure that every hon. Member in the House knows that, if we came back in two years' time, judging by what happened in 1920 and compared with what might happen in 1947, in the light of the experience of the people of this country, we should have to ask for a continuance of most, if not all, of the powers in this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not do it?"]. Really, I have just tried to explain that. You could not expect the Minister of Supply and the other Ministers to embark on a long-term plan if their powers were limited by as early a recall as two years.

If the House at any time feels that we have abused these powers or that any of them have been unnecessarily or oppressively used, there is, of course, the terrific weapon of the Vote of Censure; there are the annual Estimates of the Minister; there is the opportunity of raising the matter at Question Time, and on the Motion for the Adjournment. We have no desire to escape from any of these necessary safeguards which the development of the practice of this House has brought to, the protection of the population and for the due chastisement of Ministers. But I do want to say that democracy in this country is very much on its trial, and we have to be very careful that it does not fall into the same disrespect in this country as that into which it fell in most of the countries of Western Europe by the undue exercise of I criticism, on trivial points leading to the loss of faith in the capacity of democracy to do the things which are required of it.

That is the case on which we base this term of years. We believe that, with a five year term, we can plan with sufficient confidence to be able to make a real inroad into the problems that confront us, and we believe that, with the constant watching of the House of Commons, we shall be kept fully keyed up to the necessity of observing all those proprieties which it is our earnest wish to observe. As the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes (Sqdn.-Leader Hollis) so wisely said, even on this side of the Committee we are human and we realise that, good as our intents are, it is just as well that we should be under constant surveillance by an alert and energetic Opposition. We feel that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Lamington and those associated with him are well skilled in the Parliamentary arts and will enable us to make a great success of this five year experiment.

Mr. Raikes (Liverpool, Wavertree)

I claim the right to criticise a Minister, even at ten minutes past ten at night. I do not propose to give up an old tradition of Parliamentary life. For my part, I was very disappointed with the reply of the Home Secretary. He said, "We must have five years, because the people of this country have learned a good deal since 1918, of the disadvantages of immediately removing controls." Well, if that is so, why is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of giving the opportunity of a lifetime to the present Parliament to re-examine the position? The right hon. Gentleman goes beyond that. He says, "The Government have to have an opportunity of long-term planning so far as these controls are concerned." I wonder whether the Government, in their desire for a long-term planning for industry, are going to tell manufacturers that there is to be no nationalisation for a long period, so that they can plan? But in this Bill they have to plan ahead. They must not come before Parliament and say, "After two years what do you think we are doing?" If the right hon. Gentleman has any confidence in his long-term planning he would be willing to have an opportunity, in two years' time, of coming to the House and say, "Look how we have advanced; look what we have done; help us to carry on the work." But no, his long-term planning must not be interrupted by Parliamentary debate in the next two years for Parliament may not be so fond of the planners as he is himself.

On the point made all through the Debate, about false hopes, if there is one argument that I never expected to hear from a Labour Government it was fear of inspiring the country with false optimism. Surely, false optimism is a miserable sort of case to trump up at this stage. A few minutes ago, when we were discussing an Amendment regarding the powers of the Ministry of Supply, it was agreed that the powers should be given for a period, if necessary, to encourage State trading and so on, because we were assured by the Minister of Supply that he would deal wisely with the powers that are being entrusted to him. Surely, after two years we should be in a rather good position to see whether the Minister of Supply was a wise man, or whether he had been tempted by State trading in Queensland, New South Wales and elsewhere down the slippery slope, and was going to follow a policy which would empty the pockets of the taxpayers. We are not to be allowed, in the lifetime of the present Parliament, to see whether State trading is going to be a success or a failure. I see the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) opposite. How I wish he were sitting on this side now. What a voice he would raise about the power of the Executive over the rights of Parliament. He would protest in far more eloquent and forceful language than I can employ.

10.15 p.m.

We have been told from the Benches opposite how advisable it is that we should plan for the export trade. Is there not a possibility that under this Measure we may find Government guess work as to who needs new material and who does not need new material, that it is going to lead to increased scarcity rather than the expansion of trade without which this country is sunk? They may, on the other hand, do very well, but surely in the lifetime of this Parliament we should have an opportunity of examining afresh whether these proposals expand the export trade or whether they make nonsense of all trade whatsoever.

In conclusion: I look with some fear at this advance of the power of the Executive which we have seen in many other countries, apart from our own. I fear that Ministers will have a free rein for the whole Parliament to do what they like without proper scrutiny. If that which is to be done in this Bill were to be carried out generally over the country, then Parliament would be nothing more than a Reichstag. [Hon. Members: "No."] What is the use of Debates at all if because the Executive are such nice, pleasant, good-natured looking gentlemen, and so well—mannered, we must not do anything until after the next Election has turned them out to discover whether they are good, bad or indifferent? I have no doubt that our Amendment will be turned down to-night. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Those who cheer now are those who will play their part to-night in riveting once again upon the necks of the people of this country wartime restrictions for an indefinite period of time, hoping that in due course—it has happened in other countries in the course of the last 10 or 15 years—men and women will forget what freedom is. [An Hon. Member: "Freedom to starve."] and those freedoms for which we fought in this war will be lost.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

I rise. Major Milner, only to—

Hon. Members

Speak up.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Pritt

Hon. Members opposite have accused me of almost everything in my time except of not speaking up. If they are serious in their anxieties, I will speak up. I have been listening to this Debate with some interest. Most of us who have studied the Party opposite, and the great interests in this country and in other countries, which they represent, directly or indirectly, have been wondering for some time whether the real attack, which will duly come—and will come, no doubt, below the belt—would take place mainly in this House, or outside or both. Well, they have demonstrated, at any rate this evening, that the things they are going to attack in this House for the moment are matters utterly trivial and unimportant. [An Hon. Member: "Such as liberty."] There is no doubt that they will always attack liberty, but I want to show for a moment that their new-found love for democracy and liberty can find very little to do on this Amendment. It is put forward as a matter of most tremendous importance, an epoch-making change—and heaven knows what. I do not believe that they would have said a word about this, if they did not remember that bogy No. 7 or bogy No. 8—I forget which it was—that was raised at the General Election was something about controls. So when we got a Bill about controls, they said, "We must make a noise about that." Then they said, "Well, we cannot raise a noise about the necessity for keeping on controls, because we should look tremendous fools if we did that, and we only like to look tremendous fools when there is no other way out, so we had better attack some detail in Committee." So they attacked a detail and said "two years instead of five" and then they have had to try to build it up as something of great importance.

Mr. Marlowe

If a man is sentenced to five years' penal servitude and another man to two years' penal servitude, does the hon. and learned Member think that the difference is a detail?

Mr. Pritt

With regard to natural feelings on this subject, I will leave that to the legal experience of my hon. and learned friend. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] If hon. Members really want to listen to me now, the answer to questions of detail will come in the due course of my speech, which will not be very long unless it is interrupted. The hon. Member who has recently travelled 200 miles North-West from his previous constituency says that the planners for exports cannot get on with their planning, if they know that for five years the Government may use upon them these great powers. It is interesting to know that some sections of industry represented by the Tory Party are interested in a little planning, in the light of what was said at the General Election. But does the hon. Member think that if they want a settled legislative period in which to plan, they would be any better off with two years instead of five? What an unimportant detail it is. We are told that the power of the Executive, if it is to last like this for rive years, is a very serious matter. The truth is that the power of the Executive of this House is strong, and so it should be, but the power of the Executive of this country, including the power of the Executive in this House, depends on the hold that the Government have upon the general political support of the country.

The plain truth about two years or five years is this. The power of the Executive really rests on the support of the country. And why I say that the difference between two years and five years is a detail is that if this Executive continues, as I think it will, to hold the main support of the vast body of political opinion in the country, then it could be quite certain that at the end of two years this House would give it this power again. If, on the other hand, it does not maintain its hold on the support of the country, then in two years' time the House will be compelled to turn it out in one way or another or repeal the Act. In two years' time, if there was a real belief in the country that these powers ought not to be held by the Government, they would have to drop them. The real difference between two years and five is that if we maintain our hold on the support of the country in two years' time, to come forward and ask for these powers to be renewed would simply be a waste of Parliamentary time. Numbers of hon.

Members opposite, wise or unwise, would get up and on Second Reading and Committee stages take up two or three days of valuable Parliamentary time to no purpose at all.

Much worse than that, there is another place, and one of these days it may be part of the policy of the Tories to pick a quarrel with us in that place, and it might suit them extremely well, when the time for sabotage comes, to produce a discussion an another place upon a renewal Bill. Then we should be confronted, just as we were getting on with some really useful work, with a first-class constitutional crisis which might have to be resolved by ennobling 600 or700 trade union officials. It would be a waste of good Parliamentary time, and would be a strain on the people who hire out robes. I suggest that like a great deal of what the Opposition has done in this new Parliament this is simply shadow boxing; there is no importance in it, there is no reality in it. This Government will continue to maintain their necessary powers if the country supports them. If the country does not support them the Government will not be able to maintain those powers. I hope the Committee will throw out the Amendment by an overwhelming majority.

Sir Alan Herbert (Oxford University)

I had not intended to intervene in this Debate to-night but if I had had even less intention to speak, that modicum of intention would have been greatly stimulated and increased by the animal cries I have heard from the other side of the Committee when humble Private Members on this side have ventured to do what is their duty—to offer such foolish thoughts as are in their minds. I have been highly interested by these proceedings to-night. Perhaps some Members opposite, all of whom I love dearly, will recall the modest speech I made early this Session, when I predicted that there would be, fairly soon, some element of frustration on that side, and also that I thought that they would very soon find themselves, as another hon. Member has already said, wondering whether they were not in an institution like the German Reichstag. What has happened? The Fuehrer has spoken, the howling down of the Opposition has been tried, and one Member only on that side has ventured to support the case of His Majesty's Gov- eminent. Who is that? A Member who does not belong to the official Party. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) on his courage—the only man who dares to stand up on that side of the Committee and defend the policy of His Majesty's Government. [Interruption.] I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend, my old school friend, who ought to wear the old school tie more often than he does, and who is a very valuable representative of West London. We are facing a situation where hon. Members opposite are slaves, subjects of the Fuehrer, terrified to speak in favour of the Government.

Mr. Beverley Baxter

May I point out that my hon. Friend was a little unfair in saying that the only speech in support of the Government came from an hon. Member who had been expelled from the Party? The Communist Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) also spoke in support of the Government.

10.30 p.m.

Sir A. Herbert

I have only a few disjointed thoughts to offer. One is this and it is a serious thought. These proceedings are an interesting commentary on some remarks recently made in this House by, amongst others, the Leader of the House about the Committee stage not being an important part of Parliamentary procedure. It is thought by some that what ought to happen is that on Second Reading the principle is passed, and then the "trivial details" might be settled elsewhere by delegated powers. But what happens here? The principle of this Bill has been carried without a dissentient vote. Only when you get to Committee do you have this very real and important division of opinion. That may be irrelevant or, possibly, out of Order—[Interruption.] I do advise hon. Members—perhaps new Members—to resist the temptation to interrupt in too impulsive a manner because, believe us, some of us old stagers do know what we are talking about. In the most respectful manner I do suggest that some hon. Members should maintain a modest, decent raticence until a subject does arise on which they have at least some elementary knowledge.

Dr. Morgan (Rochdale)

Take your own medicine.

Sir A. Herbert

I thought I was distributing a little medicine. I have the Floor of the Committee and the new Committee on Procedure has not yet reported. I am quite prepared to walk home six miles to Hammersmith and I do not care two pence how far any other hon. Member has got to walk. The fewer irrelevant interjections I receive the more rapidly will our new Members return to their homes.

Another odd thought is this. One reason I was surprised that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not accepted with alacrity this Amendment, is this. By the terms of the Bill, these new powers continue for five years after the passing of the Act. In other words, these powers expire after the end of this Parliament, in other words, at the time of the next General Election if this Parliament endures its natural term.

Mr. Beverley Baxter

The country endures it.

Sir A. Herbert

This Act will still be in force. However many blessings right hon. Gentlemen opposite bestow on this country, and I think they may bestow a great many, because I am not a partisan. [Laughter.] That is the kind of foolish laughter which will get hon. Members into great trouble before they have finished. I am the only genuine independent in this House, with the exception of my hon. Friend—

The Chairman (Major Milner)

Will the hon. Member kindly address his remarks to the Chair?

Sir A. Herbert

I have never used the word "you" once. I have not addressed hon. Members as "you."

The Chairman

The hon. Member has addressed a great number of remarks to different quarters of the Committee. He should address the Chair.

Sir A. Herbert

I apologise. My voice is not very strong and I was addressing myself to that microphone.

Earl Winterton

Do I understand, Major Milner, your Ruling to be that an hon. Member is allowed to address Members on the other side of the Committee, provided that he addresses them through the Chair?

Major Milner

In my opinion, the hon. Member was not doing that.

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order, is an hon. Member on the other side of the Committee entitled to suggest that our objection to listening to rotten arguments from Members opposite only shows a desire on our part to go home early?

Sir A. Herbert

Major Milner, I have to obey your Ruling, whatever it is, but I have not the faintest idea what I have done wrong. May I say again that I have been endeavouring most of the time to address my remarks to that microphone? I am not the one to address hon. Members as "you" and I have not used that word at all. However, let us get on. This Amendment is fundamentally the most frightful confession of failure that has ever been put upon the Statute Book. I quite understand our friends opposite saying things are difficult, that they must have extensive powers for a couple of years, but by the grace of God and their promises and the plans, all will be well in a very short time. But what do they say? They say they want them for five years, possibly even 10, these widespread powers, these exceptional delegations of power—which are described as trivial by hon. Members opposite, will be necessary, in spite of all their fine plans.

My other point was this—that all the professions we have heard from the other side to-night are similar to those which I heard the other day about Private Members' time. We are told it is long-term planning. And, by the way, is there anything incompatible between long-term planning and the Amendment? Good gracious me, the Prime Minister in the last Government did a good deal of long-term planning: though he had to come for his powers year by year. The fundamental thing is, in spite of all this specious talk about a great legislative programme—which I think is much exaggerated—look what happened last Friday, which should have been our first Friday; the great legislative programme was finished at one o'clock—in spite of all this talk, when you get down to rock bottom it is nothing but a lust for power, a consciousness of power, the determination to retain power. I say to this Committee that there is no man, no party, no country which lusts for power, and governs its activities by the lust for power, that does not rue it in the end—and so will they.

Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)

I will if I may take the mind of the Committee back to the speech which the Home Secretary made in resisting the Amendment, because it does seem to me that there is no issue here of principle in regard to the powers that the Government are to have. It is common ground on both sides of the Committee that a period of emergency is to be met which demands especial powers, and these especial powers it is the will of both sides of the Committee that the Government should have. The simple point of difference between the two sides is whether these should be granted for five years or two years.

It was to that point that the Home Secretary directed the gravamen of his argument. With great respect I want the Committee to look at the arguments the Home Secretary adduced in favour of five years instead of two, because that is the whole point of the Amendment we are discussing here. His first point was that we have—as indeed we have—unhappy memories of the collapse that followed after the last war some two years or so after the war came to an end.

We all remember the ugly facts, but does the Home Secretary ask us to believe there is any analogy properly to be drawn between then and now? Then we had a Parliament elected in 1918 of "hard-faced men who had done well out of the war," and who were in favour of going back to the anarchy of unrestricted private enterprise at the earliest possible moment. We have a Parliament to-day in which there are approximately 400 Members of the Labour Party; I cannot say the precise number, but something less than 200 Members of the Conservative Party; about 10 of the Liberal Party, and only one of mine. It is idle to pretend that the Government of to-day resting as it does on that overwhelming majority in the House, is in the same category as the Government of 1920 or 1921, which in the first place did not want to continue controls, and, in the second place, would not have been given the power to do so, if they had wanted to do so.

My right hon. Friend's second point is that it is not enough to plan for two years ahead—we have to plan for five. But does the Home Secretary, who I know is an eminently kindly and reasonable soul—does he ask us to believe that if this Amendment were adopted no Government Department in Great Britain would thereafter plan beyond two years ahead? Does he ask us to believe that? If he does, he is asking us to believe what I, at any rate, regard as utterly untrue. Suppose that the same argument had been advanced against the last Government, or rather the last but one—the Coalition Government. Suppose the then Prime Minister had come to us and said: "This is going to be at least a five years' war, and may be longer; and I cannot begin to undertake the operation unless I know that five years hence I shall still be having the power to carry it through." He had to make plans for five years ahead, and his Government had to plan for five years ahead. But his Government were under the necessity of coming annually to the House for renewal of their powers.

There was another point the Home Secretary made which alarmed me—and when I get alarmed Britain is in danger. That was when he said that one of the causes of the breakdown of democracy in Europe was the undue exercise of criticism. We know that one of the causes of the breakdown of democracy in Europe was the undue suppression of criticism. When the Home Secretary said that I wondered whether the next Bill we are going to get from the Government would be a Bill for the suppression of "dangerous thoughts," because it is only one stage from lamenting criticism to proposing steps to deal with it. I was alarmed about that, especially from the Home Secretary, because he is the man more than any other Minister, who has the power to put us away. What might be an amiable indiscretion from one of his colleagues becomes a very sinister thing indeed from the Home Secretary, who is in charge of the police.

10.45 p.m.

I want to make another point, and it is this. There is a worse thing than capitalism and a worse thing than Communism, and that is in leaving one and not arriving at the other. Whatever Bills the Government carry through in this Parliament, this country at the end of a five-year period will still be a capitalist country. Carry your Bill for the nationalisation of the mines. Nationalise road transport and electricity, and the other things referred to in the programme, and still, at the end of five years, the essential structure of this country will be capitalist. I do not think anybody can deny that. Because there will not be enough legislation passed to uproot capitalism. What this Bill does is to give the Government enormous powers to ham-string capitalism. It gives it no power to establish Socialism. As hon. Members may well find if they are not careful, they will run into the danger of which Bernard Shaw warned the Socialist movement in this country years ago in his "Intelligent Woman's Guide to Capitalism and Socialism," which I commend to the notice of all on both sides. They may find they have lost the advantages, such as they are, of one state of society, without achieving the advantages of another. I suggest that thought for the reflection of hon. Members. It is a reflection Russia had to make at a certain point in its evolution.

In this House the Government have a majority of 200 over every possible combination against them. That is roughly the set-up. At the end of two years, if they still want these powers, they could come to the House and get them. I should have thought that if ever there was a Government "sitting pretty" in that particular regard, it is the Government which now sits on that bench. It is not only the Opposition they have to carry with them—not only my party they have to carry with them. They have to carry the good sense of the country. I am sure they have the good will of the country. But good will is a good thing that can melt like snow under the strains of life. They have not only to start with good will. I believe they have got that. They have my good will. Though I have some doubt about their capacity. But I tell them with some knowledge of the English, the best way to retain the good will of the people is to make it plain that they are prepared to meet any reasonable criticism which does not frustrate the objects for which they have been returned. There is not here unwillingness to give them extensive powers, but the request is that when they have had them for two years it might be time to give the House some statement of how they have got on. I would not object to an Amendment in that sense. The Government are strong enough to be generous in things of this kind, above all in things in which the prestige of the House of Commons is involved.

Captain Crookshank

I think my hon. Friends are ready to take a decision now on this point. May I for this side of the Committee congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devizes (Squadron Leader Hollis) on his brilliant maiden speech, and say we, too, look forward to hearing him again. May I also say how extremely disappointed we were at the Home Secretary's failure to answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). The Home Secretary found himself in rather a dilemma because at one time he was saying "We, the Government, must have these powers for five years in order to form the basis of a long term plan" and then he said in the very next sentence "You cannot have a long-term plan if you have to come to the House after two years." That was the dilemma or test submitted to the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Member who has just spoken. He said that in his view if the Government come back to the House after two years they would have to ask for most of the powers now in the Bill and, ex hypothesiif, after two years they could count on the support of the same number as to-night they presumably would get exactly the same powers, with the difference that the House as a whole would have had the opportunity of looking at the picture once more without granting powers for so long a period.

The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary disappointed me because he did not deal with the point which is the really important one. After all, he says democracy is on its trial and must not fall into disrespect. I do not think this House of Commons is likely to fall into disrespect. Everyone thinks of the extraordinarily fine part the House played throughout the war when the then Prime Minister came and told us of the difficult endeavours in which the Government were engaged on behalf of the nation. But the Home Secretary really tried us a little when he said the danger that was to be watched against was over-criticism—"the over-exercise of criticism" were his words. But surely it is for the purpose of criticising that hon. Members are sent here. Hon. Members are not sent here

primarily to support this, or that, or the other thing. They are sent here primarily as representatives of their constituencies, for whom they speak in this House. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody else that there often arise occasions upon which the most loyal member of a party finds himself in criticism of leaders of his party because of some paramount point raised by his constituents, and all leaders of parties recognise that this is a possibility and it is something for which they always show respect. We come as Members of Parliament, elected by our own constituents, and these powers are just the sort of thing about which all our constituents are going to be worried in the years during which this Bill lasts.

We are individually responsible and that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington pointed out that we would be shirking our job if we gave these great powers to the Executive for so long a period as five years—which outruns the lifetime of this Parliament. Make no mistake about that, because this Act will continue in force five years and last after that shorter period unless there is some intention of prolonging the life of Parliament, of which there is no indication. It is a disappointment to us that the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with these great issues at all. He spoke of wanting a long-term plan and said that more people to-day were prepared now to believe that the future is likely to be grim. Having heard some of the speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen since the Election, I agree that is probably true, because they have, rightly, given warning of the dangers and difficulties ahead, and it is for that reason we do not agree to give so long a period as five years. We feel we would be shirking our job as Members of Parliament if we gave the Executive these long-term powers and we do not intend to shuffle out of our responsibilities.

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 183.

Division No. 4.	AYES.	[10.55 p.m.
Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)	Anderson, A. (Motherwell)	Bacon, Miss A.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)	Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	Baird, Capt. J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.	Attewell, H. C.	Balfour, A.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)	Austin, H. L.	Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Awbery, S. S.	Barstow, P. G.
Alpass, J. H.	Ayles, W. H.	Barton, C.
Bechervaise, A. E.	Grierson, E.	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Bellenger, F. J.	Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Benson, G.	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby).
Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.	Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)	Noel-Buxton, Lady
Bing, Capt. G. H. C.	Gunter, Capt. R. J.	Oldfield, W. H.
Binns, J.	Guy, W. H.	Oliver, G. H.
Blackburn, A. R.	Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J.	Orbach, M.
Blenkinsop, Capt. A.	Hale, L.	Paget, R. T.
Blyton, W. R.	Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)	Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Boardman, H.	Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Bottomley, A. G.	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.	Palmer, A. M. F.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.	Hannan, W. (Maryhill)	Parker, J.
Bowles, F. G.	Hardman, D. R.	Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)	Hardy, E. A.	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Harrison, J.	Paton, J. (Norwich)
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Pearson, A.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Peart, Capt. T. F.
Brown, George (Belper)	Herbison, Miss M.	Perrins, W.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)	Hicks, G.	Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Hobson, C. R.	Popplewell, E.
Buchanan, G.	Holman, P.	Porter, G. (Leeds)
Burden, T. W.	House, G.	Pritt, D. N.
Burke, W. A.	Hoy, J.	Proctor, W. T.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)	Hubbard, T.	Pryde, D. J.
Callaghan, James.	Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Randall, H. E.
Champion, A. J.	Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Ranger, J.
Chater D.	Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)	Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.	Hynd H. (Hackney, C.)	Reeves, J.
Clitherow, R.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Reid, T. (Swindon)
Cluse, W. S.	Janner, B.	Richards, R.
Cobb, F. A.	Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)	Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Cocks, F. S.	Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)	Robens, A.
Coldrick, W.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
Collick, P.	Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Collindridge, F.	Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)	Rogers, G. H. R.
Colman, Miss G. M.	Jones, J. H. (Bolton)	Royle, C.
Comyns, Dr. L.	Keenan, W.	Sargood, R.
Cook, T. F.	Kenyon, C.	Scollan, T.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)	Key, C. W.	Scott-Elliot, W.
Corlett, Dr. J.	King, E. M.	Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.
Corvedale, Maj. Viscount	Kinley, J.	Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Cove, W. G.	Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.	Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)
Crawley, Flt-Lieut. A.	Lee, F. (Hulme)	Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Leonard, W.	Shurmer, P.
Daggar, G.	Leslie, J. R.	Silkin, L.
Daines, P.	Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.	Silverman, J. (Erdington).
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)	Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Davies, A. E. (Burslem)	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Simmons, C. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)	Lindgren, G. S.	Skeffington, A. M.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Longden, F.	Skinnard, F. W.
Deer, G.	Lyne, A. W.	Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)
de Freitas, Sqn.-Ldr. G.	McAllister, G.	Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Diamond, J.	McEntee, V. La T.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Donovan, T.	Mack, J. D.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Douglas, F. C. R.	McKay, J. (Wallsend)	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Driberg, T. E. N.	Maclean, N. (Govan)	Snow, Capt. J. W.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)	McLeavy, F.	Sorensen, R. W.
Dumpleton, C. W.	MacMillan, M. K.	Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Durbin, E. F. M.	Macpherson, T. (Romford)	Sparks, J. A.
Dye, S.	Mainwaring, W. H.	Stamford, W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Steele, T.
Edwards, John (Blackburn).	Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)	Stewart, Maj. M. (Fulham, E.)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Strachey, J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	Marquand, H. A.	Strauss, G. R.
Fairhurst, F.	Marshall, F. (Brightside)	Stubbs, A. E.
Farthing, W. J.	Mathers, G.	Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)	Mayhew, Maj. C. P.	Swingler, Capt. S.
Follick, M.	Medland, H. M.	Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Foot, M. M.	Messer, F.	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Foster, W. (Wigan)	Middleton, Mrs. L.	Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)	Mitchison, Maj. G. R.	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Gaitskell, H. T. N.	Monslow, W.	Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Gallacher, W.	Montague, F	Thomas, J. R. (Dover)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Moody, A. S.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Gibbins, J.	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Thomson, G. R. (Edinburgh, E.)
Gibson, C. W.	Morley, R.	Thorneycroft, H.
Gilzean, A.	Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)	Tiffany, S.
Glanville, J.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham)	Titterington, M. F.
Goodrich, H. E.	Moyle, A.	Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Gould, Mrs. B. Ayrton	Murray, J. D.	Turner-Samuels, M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Nally, W.	Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.
Grenfell, D. R.	Naylor, T. E.	Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Grey, C. F.	Neal, H. (Claycross)	Viant, S. P.

Walkden, E.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.	Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Walker, P. C. G. (Smethwick)	Whittaker, J. E.	Wilson, J. H.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)	Wigg, Lt.-Col. G. E. C.	Wise, Major F. J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)	Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.	Woodburn, A.
Warbey, W. N.	Wilkes, Maj. L.	Woods, G. S.
Watkins, T. E.	Willey, F. T. (Sutherland)	Wyatt, Maj. W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)	Yates, V. F.
Weitzman, D.	Williams, D. J. (Neath)	Younger, Maj. The Hon. K. G.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)	Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)	Zilliacus, K.
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)	Willis, E.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Wills, Mrs. E. A.	Mr. R. J. Taylor and Mr. J Joseph
		Henderson.
NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.	Grimston, R. V.	Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Aitken, Gp. Capt. The Hon. M.	Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)	Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.	Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H.	Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Astor, Hon. M.	Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.	Nicholson, G.
Baldwin, A. E.	Head, Brig. A. H.	Nield, B.
Barlow, Sir J.	Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Baxter, A. B.	Herbert, Sir A. P.	Nutting, A.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Beattie, F. (Cathcart)	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Bennett, Sir P.	Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Birch, Lt.-Col. N.	Holmes, Sir J. Stanley	Pitman, I. J.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.	Holt, Lieut.-Comdr. J. L.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Bossom, A. C.	Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.	Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Bowen, Capt. R.	Horabin, T. L.	Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
Bower, N.	Howard, The Hon. A.	Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.	Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.	Raikes, H. V.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.	Hurd, A.	Ramsay, Maj. S.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)	Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh W.)	Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Bullock, Capt. M.	Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)	Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)	Jarvis, Sir J.	Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)
Byers, Lt.-Col. F.	Jeffreys, General Sir G.	Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Carson, E.	Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. The Hn. L. W.	Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Challen, Flt-Lieut. C.	Kerr, Sir J. Graham	Robinson, Wing-Comdr. J. R.
Channon, H.	Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Ropner, Col. L.
Clarke, Col. R. S.	Lambert, Lt.-Col. G.	Ross, Sir R.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Sanderson, Sir F.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Scott, Lord W.
Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Shephard, S. (Newark)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)	Shepherd, Lieut. W. S.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Linstead, H. N.	Smithers, Sir W.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.	Lipson, D. L.	Snadden, W. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.).	Spearman, A. C. M.
Darling, Sir W. Y.	Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)	Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.
Davidson, Viscountess	Lloyd-George, Lady M. (Anglesey)	Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)	Low, Brig. A. R. W.	Studholme, Maj. H. G.
De la Bère, R.	Lucas, Major Sir J.	Sutcliffe, H.
Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.	Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.	MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.	Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)	McCallum, Maj. D.	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)	Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)	Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Drayson, Capt. G. B.	Mackeson, Col. H. R.	Touche, G. C.
Drewe, C.	M'Kie, J. H. (Galloway)	Turton, R. H.
Duthie, W. S.	Maclay, Hon. J. S.	Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.	Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)	Wadsworth, G.
Erroll, Col. F. J.	Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)	Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.	Maitland, Comdr. J. W.	Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Ward, Group-Capt. The Hon. G. R.
Foster, Brig. J. G. (Northwich)	Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A. A. H.	Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Fox, Sir G.	Marples, Capt. A. E.	Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)	Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)	Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.
Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir I.	Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)	While, Sir D. (Fareham)
Gage, Lt.-Col. C.	Maude, J. C.	White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)
Gammans, Capt. L. D.	Mellor, Sir J.	Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.
Gates, Maj. E. E.	Molson, A. H. E.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Glossop, C. W. H.	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.	York, C.
Glyn, Sir R.	Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.	Morris-Jones, Sir H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—
Gridley, Sir A.	Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)	Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Major
		Sir Arthur Young.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 139.

Division No. 5.	AYES.	[11.10 p.m.
Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)	Griffiths, Capt, W. D. (Moss Side)	Pearson, A.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)	Gunter, Capt. R. J.	Peart, Capt. T. F.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.	Guy, W. H.	Perrins, W.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J.	Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Alpass, J. H.	Hale, L.	Popplewell, E.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)	Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)	Pritt, D. N.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.	Proctor, W. T.
Austin, H. L.	Hannan, W. (Maryhill)	Pryde, D. J.
Awbery, S. S.	Hardy, E. A.	Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bacon, Miss A.	Harrison, J.	Randall, H. E.
Baird, Capt. J.	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Ranger, J.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.
Barton, C.	Herbison, Miss M.	Reeves, J.
Bechervaise, A. E.	Hewitson, Captain M.	Reid, T. (Swindon)
Bellenger, F. J.	Hobson, C. R.	Richards, R.
Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.	Holman, P.	Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Bing, Capt. G. H. C.	House G.	Robens, A.
Blackburn, A. R.	Hoy, J.	Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
Blenkinsop, Capt. A.	Hubbard, T.	Rogers, G. H. R.
Blyton, W. R.	Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Royle, C.
Boardman, H.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Sargood, R.
Bottomley, A. G.	Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Scollan, T.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.	Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)	Scott-Elliot, W.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)	Janner, B.	Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Brown, George (Belper)	Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)	Shurmer, P.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)	Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)	Silverman, J. (Erdington).
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Simmons, C. J.
Burden, T. W.	Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)	Skeffington, A. M.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)	Jones, J. H. (Bolton)	Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.
Callaghan, James.	Keenan, W.	Skinnard, F. W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Kenyon, C.	Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)
Champion, A. J.	King, E. M.	Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.	Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Cocks, F. S.	Lee, F. (Hulme)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Coldrick, W.	Leonard, W.	Snow, Capt. J. W.
Collick, P.	Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.	Sorensen, R. W.
Collindridge, F.	Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)	Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Colman, Miss G. M.	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Sparks, J. A.
Comyns, Dr. L.	Lindgren, G. S.	Steele, T.
Cook, T. F.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Stewart, Maj. M. (Fulham, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)	Longden, F.	Strachey, J.
Corlett, Dr. J.	McAllister, G.	Strauss, G. R.
Daggar, G.	Mack, J. D.	Stubbs, A. E.
Daines, P.	Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)	Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Maclean, N. (Govan)	Swingler, Capt. S.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)	McLeavy, F.	Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	MacMillan, M. K.	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Macpherson, T. (Romford)	Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Deer, G.	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
de Freitas, Sqn.-Ldr. G.	Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)	Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Diamond, J.	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Thomas, J. R. (Dover)
Donovan, T.	Marshall, F. (Brightside)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Douglas, F. C. R.	Mathers, G.	Thomson, G. R. (Edinburgh, E.)
Driberg, T. E. N.	Medland, H. M.	Thorneycroft, H.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)	Messer, F.	Tiffany, S.
Durbin, E. F. M.	Middleton, Mrs. L.	Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Dye, S.	Mitchison, Maj. G. R.	Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Monslow, W.	Viant, S. P.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)	Montague, F.	Walkden, E.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Walker, P. C. G. (Smethwick)
Fairhurst, F.	Morley, R.	Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Farthing, W. J.	Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)	Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham)	Warbey, W. N.
Follick, M.	Moyle, A.	Watkins, T. E.
Foot, M. M.	Murray, J. D.	Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Foster, W. (Wigan)	Nally, W.	Weitzman, D.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)	Neal, H. (Claycross)	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Gaitskell, H. T. N.	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)	White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Gibbins, J.	Noel-Baker,Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby).	White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Gibson, C. W.	Noel-Buxton, Lady	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Gilzean, A.	Oldfield, W. H.	Whittaker, J. E.
Glanville, J.	Oliver, G. H.	Wigg, Lt.-Col. G. E. C.
Goodrich, H. E.	Orbach, M.	Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Gould, Mrs. B. Ayrton	Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)	Wilkes, Maj. L.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Grenfell, D. R.	Palmer, A. M. F.	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Grierson, E.	Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Paton, J. (Norwich)	Willis, E.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.	Woodburn, A.	Zilliacus, K.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.	Wyatt, Maj. W.
Wilson, J. H.	Yates, V. F.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—
Wise, Major F. J.	Younger, Maj. The Hon. K. G.	Mr. R. J. Taylor and Mr. Joseph
		Henderson.

NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Gates, Maj. E. E.	Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Aitken, Gp. Capt. The Hon. M.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.	Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.	Grimston, R. V.	Nield, B.
Astor, Hon. M.	Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Baldwin, A. E.	Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H.	Nutting, A.
Baxter, A. B.	Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Head, Brig. A. H.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Beattie, F. (Cathcart)	Herbert, Sir A. P.	Pitman, I. J.
Birch, Lt.-Col. N.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Bossom, A. C.	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
Bowen, Capt. R.	Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.	Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Bower, N.	Holmes, Sir J. Stanley	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.	Holt, Lieut.-Comdr. J. L.	Raikes, H. V.
Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.	Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.	Ramsay, Maj. S.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.	Howard, The Hon. A.	Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Bullock, Capt. M.	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n	Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.	Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Carson, E.	Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh W.).	Robinson, Wing-Comdr. J. R.
Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.	Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)	Ross, Sir R.
Channon, H.	Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. The Hn. L. W.	Sanderson, Sir F.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.	Kerr, Sir J. Graham	Scott, Lt.-Col. Lord W.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Shephard, S. (Newark)
Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Shepherd, Lieut. W. S.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Smithers, Sir W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Lipson, D. L.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.).	Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.
Crowder, Capt.J. F. E.	Low, Brig. A. R. W.	Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.	Lucas, Major Sir J.	Studholme, Maj. H. G.
Darling, Sir W. Y.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Sutcliffe, H.
Davidson, Viscountess	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Digby, Maj S. Wingfield	MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.	McCallum, Maj. D.	Turton, R. H.
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.	Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)	Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)	Mackeson, Col. H. R.	Wadsworth, G.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)	M'Kie, J. H. (Galloway)	Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Drayson, Capt. G. B.	Maclay, Hon. J. S.	Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.
Drewe, C.	Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)	Ward, Group-Capt. The Hon. G. R.
Duthie, W. S.	Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)	Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.	Maitland, Comdr. J. W.	Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.
Erroll, Col. F. J.	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)
Fletcher, W. (Bury)	Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A. A. H.	Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)
Foster, Brig. J. G. (Northwich)	Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)	Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.
Fox, Sir G.	Maude, J. C.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)	Medlicott, Brig. F.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)	Mellor, Sir J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—
Gage, Lt.-Col. C.	Molson, A. H. E.	Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Major
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.	Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)	Sir Arthur Yonng.
Gammans, Capt. L D.	Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)