§ Mr. Eccles
I beg to move, in page 25, line 14, to leave out paragraph (b).
This is an Amendment to which the banks and the acceptance houses attach importance. As the Clause stands, any permission granted by the Treasury under this Measure may be revoked by the Treasury. That would make the giving of confirmed credits impossible because, as the Minister knows, the whole point of obtaining a confirmed credit is that it is not revocable, and if one of the conditions of a confirmed credit has to be a permit from the Treasury which can be taken away, he would undercut the normal practice of bankers. The suggestion of the bankers is either that this paragraph be removed altogether—which is the purport of my Amendment—or that the Treasury take power to grant irrevocable as well as revocable permits, and that in the case of permits needed to put through confirmed credits they should issue an irrevocable permit. That would make it possible to carry on with the normal practice of British bankers, and I would ask the Government to do one of those two things if they do not wish to interfere with the business of the City.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
This Subsection provides that permits, consents, and authorities granted by the Treasury may be revoked and maybe made conditional or limited at the discretion of the Treasury. They may also, as the Clause states, be either general or particular. If line (b) of Subsection (1) were deleted this would lead to a very peculiar position. It would mean that no order made or permission given could, in fact, be revoked, and that would sometimes lead to a very serious situation. It is essential that these words should be retained. The credit to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be covered by an exemption order if that should be necessary, but it is essential that, when orders have been made, it should be possible for the Treasury to revoke them if that becomes necessary. When a permission has been given any action taken under such an order is not made illegal because it is, by due notice, later revoked. The situation envisaged by the hon. Gentleman can be met by the Treasury under orders that could be issued by virtue of this Clause. I think, therefore, that we should retain these words. In fact, we must do so, and I ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. Stanley
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consent to look at this again or, at any rate, to give us some further assurance. He will recollect that my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) suggested two alternative methods by which this might be effected. The hon. Gentleman has dealt with only one; he has said that it is impossible to leave out this line altogether, and I think there is a certain weight in the argument he put forward. There might be cases where it would be desirable that permission should be revoked. The alternative put forward by my hon. Friend was that whereas under Clause 37, Subsection (1, b), it must be possible to revoke all permissions of any kind, a special class should be created under this Clause which was irrevocable and which should be used for the particular circumstances to which my hon. Friend has referred. As far as I can make out from the hon. Gentleman's answer, he dealt with that by saying that the Treasury can make exceptions to Clause 37 (1, b), and that under the powers of Clause 31 they can say, "We can exempt this particular consent from the provision that it must be revocable." But is that really so? I should like to hear from the 835 learned Solicitor-General whether it is so, and if it is I think this might very likely meet the case Certainly, my interpretation of Clause 31 does not lead me to think that it would extend to counteracting the express provision of Clause 37 (1) that every permission, consent, or authority when granted may be revocable by the Treasury. I do not know whether we could have any further assurance on this point, but I am certain that in some way or other that particular case has to be dealt with.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
We do realise that and we are quite willing to look at this again, but obviously if we took out the line as proposed that would rob the Treasury and their agents—the Bank of England and other banks who, from time to time, will be acting for them—of powers which must be retained in the Bill. Subject to that, however, we will, as I have said, look at the matter again and see what machinery can be evolved to meet the particular point made by the hon Gentleman.
§ Mr. Eccles
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assurance, in view of which I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. J. Foster
I beg to move, in page 25, line 28, to leave out "or had notice."
Hon. Members will see from the Clause that no person is to be liable to prosecution for an offence against the Clause merely by virtue of the giving of a direction, unless the direction was served upon him, or the person knew of the direction, or had knowledge of it. "Knowledge" is contrasted with having "notice." The purpose of the Amendment is to find out what is in the mind of the Treasury about the notice It is the basis of this provision that the person to whom the notice is given has either knowledge of it or notice. Where the notice is important, he has not had knowledge. It is usual, I submit, in Statutes which make a reference to notice as contrasted with knowledge, when fixing a person with notice of something of which he does not know, for this matter to be attended with great safeguards One either provides that notice shall be an advertisement in certain newspapers or, as in the Companies Acts, that 836 notice shall be deemed binding if it is served at the registered office of the company or, in the case of foreign companies, at the address which the company has given to the Registrar for notices to be sent. In other statutes, notice is deemed to be binding on a person if it has been sent by pre-paid post to his last known address.
I do not see anything in the Bill to provide any of those safeguards. This may be a matter in which the Solicitor-General will say that he will look at it; but to leave "notice" to be construed by the courts or interpreted by the Treasury might open the way to great uncertainty. Suppose a man to be staying in hotels, had moved from a hotel, and notice had been sent to him at the hotel he had just left. I do not want to ring the changes on the times at which notice might be given, but there are a hundred ways. I suggest that the way in which this part of the Clause is worded does not fix the man who does not know with having had notice. The phraseology is too wide and should be restricted in one of the ways I have suggested.
§ 7.15 p.m.
The object of introducing the words "or had notice" is to get within the ambit of the Clause a person who deliberately refrains from seeing something which is right under his nose. I am sure the Committee will agree that this is necessary. Whether the words are the most appropriate that can be used is open to argument, and we will look at the words again. We desire to rope in persons such as I have described who, when something is openly brought to their notice in the shape of a direction, so to speak turn the other way. Those are the people we want to bring in. We shall see whether the matter can be better safeguarded. Perhaps the hon. Member will therefore withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
Before the Amendment is withdrawn I would ask the Solicitor-General to take this matter very seriously. As I read the matter, notice can be of two kinds. It can be something put in front of a man's eye, when he turns away, or something much more general, such as an advertisement in "The Times," or an ordinary advertisement in a trade journal. That might easily be said to be notice. It is unfair, however, to prosecute a man because he 837 did not happen to read a particular advertisement page in a journal. When the Solicitor-General applies his mind to this matter I hope that he will leave out that kind of case altogether. The man who has had something brought personally in front of his notice and who has turned away, would be caught, I think, by the word "know." We infer knowledge by the circumstances in which the ordinary man would know. We can never know whether a particular thing got into a particular man's head, but we do know that it would have got into the head of the ordinary man in the same circumstances. I hope that the Solicitor-General will bear these considerations in mind.
§ Mr. J. Foster
In view of what the Solicitor-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. H. Strauss
I beg to move, in page 25, line 34, to leave out from "any", to "and", in line 35, and to insert:authorised dealers or authorised depositaries.I do not dispute that there may be proper delegations by the Treasury to persons other than authorised dealers or authorised depositaries of powers in the Bill, but, from the working of the existing regulations, I am certain that the Treasury know to whom they wish to delegate those powers. What I question is the propriety of putting in words so general as to give the Government power, if they choose, to make the most improper delegations. I do not suspect the Government of any such sinister intentions, and I do not believe that they propose to make any improper delegations of duty or powers under the Clause; but the fact that they do not intend to do so is all the more reason for not inserting powers which would enable them, if they chose, to make the most improper delegations.
I would suggest that the Government use the words the "authorised dealers or authorised depositaries." If the Solicitor-General tells me that there are others, even under existing regulations, to whom the Government wish to delegate powers, the list can be extended, if necessary. What should not be done is to put in general terms which would enable the Government, if they chose, to delegate all power of control to the Fabian Society or 838 to the T.U.C., or to any other such body. I am deliberately giving a fantastic example in order to bring home to the Government what can be done. I do not believe that the Government wish that sort of thing to be done, but I suggest that in the circumstances they should either accept the words I have proposed or should disclose their intentions.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
We cannot accept the Amendment, which would narrow the wording far too much. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the Clause is very reasonable. We must have something in here. If we were to put in the words he suggests we should narrow the meaning down to those words. We shall want upon occasions to go outside the ranks of authorised dealers and authorised depositaries. It may very well be, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the course of his remarks earlier, we might even desire to use members of the Stock Exchange.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
Possibly, but they might not be so described. We shall also frequently have to use Customs and Excise officials, immigration officers and others. To limit the words to authorised dealers and authorised depositaries makes the provision far too narrow, and we cannot possibly accept the Amendment. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall not use the wide powers that are here proposed indiscriminately. We shall use these powers with discretion, to assist individuals as well as the Government and Government officials in carrying out their duties.
§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
The Committee will not have found the observations of the Financial Secretary particularly convincing or consider that they give us any justifiable reason for withdrawing the Amendment. If that was all the Financial Secretary could say, he would have been wise to leave this matter to the Solicitor-General, who has a soothing manner and generally meets us, instead of confronting us with a direct negative. The assurances the Financial Secretary has given us are of no value. Over and over again since this Government came into office, we have tried to emphasise that what will matter in the years to come will not be what the 839 Financial Secretary might have said but what is in the Bill. That is an old-fashioned preference we have on this side of the Committee but it is none the less a fact that the words written into the Bill are the ones which will count. What has happened is that the Government have lifted for their purposes procedure which exists under the Defence Regulations. This is the sort of procedure that was used during the war when it was convenient to have all sorts of persons authorised to act. That was convenient for the purposes of economic warfare and the sort of things in which we found ourselves involved, but the Government say that they are now engaged in hammering out some permanent legislation and we must, therefore, be more careful what we put into it. The Financial Secretary said that we may want to use other people—stockbrokers, he was kind enough to mention. That is a rather shocking suggestion to come from the other side. However, we have an Amendment to one of the Schedules in which we hope to include such persons as authorised dealers or depositaries. The Financial Secretary can get the best of both worlds. He can say, "I will accept the Amendment. I can bring my beloved stockbrokers into the ambit of it. All I have to do is to include that in the Schedule and everybody will be happy."
How much better if the Financial Secretary had used congenial language of that kind, which unites both sides of the Committee, instead of confronting us with that blunt negative. I am particularly grieved that after a day which appears to have gone so congenially, a day when there is a smile on the face of the Patronage Secretary, who has not even suggested that the Question be now put, and a day when the Solicitor-General has, time and again, met us with such fairness and courtesy, the Financial Secretary should be the first to strike a jarring note. It is a grievous incident, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will yet think better of it. He has a reputation for pacific compromise and conciliation. How shocking it would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is probably now snatching a frugal meal before returning to the scene, if the Division bells should ring because the Opposition have to register a protest against the harsh manner in which this Amendment has been received.
§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
I can assure the Financial Secretary that we cannot allow this to remain where it is. Time and again we have heard from the Government side throughout these proceedings that it is true that this is a most stringent Bill but that the discretion of the Treasury in working it out fairly can be relied upon. Perhaps we can rely on that discretion, but what do we find here? The Treasury may delegate all these most stringent powers to other people who may not have that discretion. It is one thing for us to be asked to accept extremely stringent provisions knowing that every point of difficulty will be considered by a responsible civil servant, if not by the Minister, and one at least who is well accustomed to dealing with these matters, but suppose it is left to some body outside the Treasury which is of a much lower status and much less knowledge. With the best will in the world one cannot rely on such people having the same good discretion as one finds in the Treasury. The Financial Secretary cannot have it both ways. If he wants extensive power to delegate, he must reduce the stringency of a great number of these provisions, but if he wants to maintain the stringency of the provisions, we must be certain that the discretionary power will be exercised by someone we know about and in whom we have confidence. I must, therefore, advise my hon. Friends to press this matter, unless the Financial Secretary is prepared to take it back and look at it again in an attempt to produce some much less wide form than we have here.
§ Mr. J. Foster
I only want to reinforce what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has said by asking the Financial Secretary to look at Clause 4.0 to see what kind of power he is taking power to delegate to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Under Clause 40 anyone who leaves the country for a day can have all his securities and his property blocked in any manner that the Treasury sees fit, and that power can be delegated to anybody. That is potentially a very serious matter. The Financial Secretary will say that the Treasury do not intend to do that, but we get a most unfortunate result if we add Clause 40 to the powers of delegation in this Clause. In this Clause the power to give authority to apply for a search warrant has been excluded, but 841 the powers under Clause 40 could be more serious for a person than a search warrant. A person who lives in this country, whether he is resident or not, may find that money standing to his credit, or securities, can be subject to any restrictions which the Treasury sees fit. I support the pleas that have been made to the Financial Secretary to consider whether some limiting words should not be put into those Clauses which give very extensive powers, or whether some words should not be put into this Clause to limit the powers of delegation.
§ Mr. H. Strauss
I am surprised at the line the Financial Secretary has taken. The first example he gave of a person to whom he might want to delegate would have come under the words I myself have used. Another example he gave was delegation to another Government Department. I confess it had not occurred to me that it was necessary to put that in expressly, but if it is necessary, I am sure my hon. Friends and I would not mind adding "other Government Departments" to the words I have suggested.
|Division No. 30.]||AYES||[7.31 p.m.|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Chetwynd, G. R.||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Clitherow, Dr. R.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)||Cluse, W. S.||Gibson, C. W.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Cobb, F. A.||Glanville, J. E. (Conett)|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Cocks, F. S||Gooch, E. G.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Collick, P.||Goodrich, H. E.|
|Austin, H. L||Colman, Miss G. M.||Gordon-Walker, P. C.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Comyns, Dr. L.||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)|
|Ayles, W. H.||Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Grenfell, D. R.|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B||Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well N. W.)||Grey, C. F.|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Corlett, Dr. J||Grierson E.|
|Baird, J.||Cove, W. G.||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)|
|Balfour, A||Crawley, A.||Gunter, R. J.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J||Crossman, R. H. S||Haire, John E (Wycombe)|
|Barstow, P. G||Daggar, G.||Hale, Leslie|
|Barton, C.||Daines, P||Hall, W. G.|
|Battley, J. R.||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)|
|Belcher, J. W.||Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Hardy, E. A.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Harrison, J.|
|Benson, G.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Berry, H.||Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)|
|Binns, J.||Deer, G.||Hobson, C. R.|
|Blackburn, A. R||Diamond, J||Holman, P.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Dobbie, W.||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Dodds, N. N||Horabin, T. L.|
|Boardman, H.||Donovan, T.||House, G.|
|Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Hoy, J.|
|Bowen, R.||Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Dye, S.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C||Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)|
|Bramall, Major E. A.||Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)||Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Edwards, John (Blackburn)||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)|
|Brown, T. J (Ince)||Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Irving, W. J.|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A|
|Burke, W. A.||Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Jay. D. P. T|
|Byers, Frank||Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)||Jeger, G. (Winchester)|
|Callaghan, James||Ewart, R.||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Farthing, W. J.||Jones, J H. (Bolton)|
|Chamberlain, R. A||Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)|
|Champion, A. J.||Follick, M.||Keenan, W.|
|Chater, D.||Foot, M. M||Kenyon, C|
§ In the absence of that, for the reasons given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), we must divide. There is a sound test here for the Government if they are democrats. Let them assume that this Bill is being worked by a Government in office whom they detest—
§ The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting rather wide of his Amendment.
§ Mr. H. Strauss
I am sorry, Sir Charles. I will not pursue that. Whether these words are too wide or not can be established easily by that test. If the Financial Secretary rejects this Amendment, it is well that the Committee and the public should know that it will be entirely lawful for the Treasury under this Bill to delegate all their powers to the T.U.C.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 83.
|Key, C. W.||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)||Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)|
|Kinley, J.||Pargiter, G. A.||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Kirby B. V.||Parker, J.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Land, G.||Parkin, B. T.||Symonds, A. L.|
|Lavers, S.||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Leslie, J. R.||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Levy, B. W.||Pearson, A.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Lewis A. W. J. (Upton)||Peart, Capt T F||Thomas, John R. (Dover)|
|Lewis, J (Bolton)||Perrins, W.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'bgh, E.)|
|Lipson, D. L.||Popplewell, E.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Lipton, Lt. Col. M||Porter, E. (Warrington)||Thurtle, E.|
|Longden, F.||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Tiffany, S.|
|Lyne, A. W.||Proctor, W. T.||Tolley, L.|
|McAdam, W.||Randall, H. E.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|McEntee, V. La T.||Ranger, J.||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|McGhee, H. G.||Rankin, J.||Usborne, Henry|
|Mack, J. D.||Rees-Williams, D. R.||Viant, S. P|
|McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Reeves, J.||Wadsworth, G.|
|Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Walkden, E.|
|McLeavy, F.||Rhodes, H.||Walker, G. H.|
|MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Robens, A.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Macpherson T. (Romford)||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Mainwaring, W. H.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Warbey, W. N.|
|Mallalieu J. P. W.||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Weitzman, D.|
|Marquand, H. A.||Rogers, G. H. R.||Wells, W. T (Walsall)|
|Mathers, G.||Royle, C.||West, D. G.|
|Mayhew, C. P.||Sargood, R.||White, C F. (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Medland, H. M.||Scollan, T.||White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Mellish, R. J.||Scott-Elliot, W.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Messer, F.||Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E A. A.||Wigg, Col. G. E.|
|Middleton, Mrs. L.||Sharp, Granville||Wilkes, L.|
|Mitchison, Maj. G. R.||Shurmer, P.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Monslow, W.||Siiverman, J. (Erdington)||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Moody, A. S.||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)||Williams, D J. (Neath)|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Simmons, C. J.||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Skeffington, A. M.||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E)||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)||Willis, E.|
|Mort, D. L.||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)||Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J|
|Moyle, A.||Snow, Capt. J. W.||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Naylor, T. E.||Solley, L. J.||Woods, G. S.|
|Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Sorensen, R. W.||Wyatt, W.|
|Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.||Yates, V. F.|
|Noel-Buxton, Lady||Sparks, J. A.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Oldfield, W. H.||Stamford, W.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Oliver, G. H.||Steele, T.|
|Orbach, M.||Stephen, C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Paget, R. T.||Strachey, J||Mr. Collindridge and|
|Amory, D. Heathcoal||Glyn, Sir R.||Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G||Neven-Spence, Sir B.|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Grant, Lady||Nield, B. (Chester)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Gridley, Sir A.||Peto, Brig C. H. M.|
|Barlow, Sir J.||Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.||Pitman, I J.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Head, Brig A H||Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)|
|Birch, Nigel||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Prescott, Stanley|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Hogg, Hon. Q.||Ramsay, Maj. S.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Hollis, M. C.||Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)||Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Renton, D.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Keeling, E. H.||Roberts, H. (Handsworth)|
|Carson, E.||Lambert, Hon. G.||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Challen, C.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Lindsay, M. (Solihull)||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. D. E.||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.||Macdonald, Sir P. (Is, of Wight)||Turton, R. H.|
|Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G (Penrith)||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Drewe, C.||Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)||Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie|
|Eccles, D. M.||Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Erroll, F. J.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)|
|Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||Mellor, Sir J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||Molson, A. H. E.||Commander Agnew and|
|Gage, C.||Morris-Jones, Sir H.||Major Conant.|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.844
§ Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.