HC Deb 24 January 1951 vol 483 cc249-65
Lord Dunglass

I beg to move, in page 5. line 32, to leave out subsection (2).

The Deputy-Chairman

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the later one in the name of the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart), in page 5, line 41, to leave out subsection (3), were taken together.

Lord Dunglass

I quite agree, Sir Charles, that it would be convenient to discuss these two Amendments together.

As I understand it, this is a limiting Clause in that under the present law it is the right and duty of an owner, or, indeed, of any person, who sees the law being broken, to apprehend the offender. Clause 12 restricts the right to apprehend to constables and water bailiffs and to persons appointed by the Secretary of State.

There are two arguments used in favour of this Amendment, the one of expedience and the other of principle. Clearly, when there is a shortage of water bailiffs and of police, and such people find it very difficult to carry out their duties, it would be inadvisable, I should have thought, to limit the classes of persons who can apprehend offenders. But on the matter of principle, and one of really more importance, I always understood—and I am sorry the Lord Advocate has gone—that it was an essential principle of the common law that it was not only the right but the duty of a citizen to uphold the law. For instance, if the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and myself were walking clown the street and I started to break the windows of the house of the Secretary of State, it would be the duty of the hon. Member for Shettleston to apprehend me.

That is, I think, a principle running right through the common law of the land, and it was a principle which was sustained, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, by the Act of 1868 which this Clause is amending. The object of this Amendment is simply to continue the status quo that exists under the Act of 1868, where an owner, or, indeed, any person, has the right, and the duty, I would add, to uphold the law. We think that this Clause seriously weakens that position and we are strongly opposed to it as it stands, and strongly in favour of this Amendment. I hope the Secretary of State will give us some satisfaction on this because it is something to which we attach considerable importance.

Mr. McNeil

Unhappily my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is not here at the moment. I must say that the noble Lord has offered a most unusual and novel interpretation of my duties as a citizen, and I will certainly confer with my right hon. and learned Friend on this strange aberation. Whatever the law may be, I would most respectfully suggest that, in the unlikely event of the noble Lord finding my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) breaking my windows—

Lord Dunglass

I put it the other way round.

Mr. McNeil

Even so, far from it being my hon. Friend's duty to arrest the noble Lord I do not think he has powers to do so, and it would certainly be more discreet to call a policeman.

Lord Dunglass

If he could find one.

Mr. McNeil

Even if he could not find one at that moment I would be inclined to think, subject to what my right hon. and learned Friend says, that he would be discharging his duty if he went to the nearest police station and said "That bad chap the noble Lord has been smashing windows again."

Commander Galbraith

Suppose my noble Friend was about to cut the Secretary of State's throat. Would the right hon. Gentleman then suggest that his hon. Friend should do no more than go to the nearest police station?

Mr. McNeil

I do not think the situation is as critical as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. In that event, however, I hope that out of affection as well as a sense of duty my hon. Friend would come to my assistance and seek to restrain the noble Lord in this unusual and passionate exercise. I would say it was also the duty of my hon. Friend as a citizen to make sure that the unusual and passionate activities of the noble Lord were brought to the attention of the police, and his further duty to offer evidence. I will consult my right hon. and learned Friend on this, but I think it is an unusual suggestion that each of us has the obligation as a citizen to behave as a policeman, even to the point of apprehending people whom we arbitrarily think are committing an offence, although it is clearly our duty to uphold the law.

Sir Ian Fraser (Morecambe and Lonsdale)

Having reason to believe they are committing an offence.

Mr. McNeil

That might be an argument to put forward in a court if I subsequently sued the noble Lord in a civil action. However, this interesting discussion and these imaginative exercises are a little outside the point.

I quite understand the worries of the noble Lord and his hon. Friends in putting down these two Amendments. As he said, under the Act of 1868 people were empowered to seize and detain a person found committing an offence. I hope the noble Lord will agree that we have changed our thinking since those days. I anticipate that not all sections of the public would approve of my, continuing to have this unusual and arbitrary endowment of power.

Lord Dunglass

That provision in the Act of 1868 has remained the law to this day. It may be unusual, but today we do not seem to have any legal advice available in the Committee. I still believe that this Clause weakens the general law, in that under the common law it is the duty of a citizen to attempt to apprehend another citizen who is breaking the law.

Mr. McNeil

I will certainly find an opportunity to comment upon that point on the Report stage. If the noble Lord is found to be right beyond all dispute in the literal interpretation of that, I will consider his proposition. I have something to say which, I am sure, has not occurred to him and which may encourage him not to press his Amendment. It is true that we confine the power to the police constable and to the water bailiff and to such officers of the district board as may be authorised by the Secretary of State. It seems to me quite plain that if they had reason to believe or reason to suspect that poachers were unusually active, and representations were made to me by the board that their resources were insufficient to maintain normal policing in the area, I certainly would not hesitate to endow with the power under the Clause other officials of that district board. I hope that the noble Lord and his hon. Friends will think that that is reasonable.

I am against specifically endowing everyone with the statutory right to apprehend anyone whom they have reasonable cause to think is behaving improperly. Indeed, I think, though this is only a debating point, that if the common law is as the noble Lord thinks it is, there would be no need for me to gild the lily by writing it into this Act. I do not think that it is. I can understand the reasons which made it necessary in the Act of 1868, and I do not think that the same reasons obtain today; but should it be shown that there were insufficient forces in any area, then I can scarcely imagine that any Secretary of State would hesitate to vest the officers of the district board with necessary powers, and certainly I would.

Mr. Stuart

I was not here earlier in this discussion and I apologise for intervening, but I should like the Secretary of State to think of this point, because, as I understand this matter, under the present law any person can seize and detain a salmon poacher. The reasons for this are perfectly plain. There are many rivers where there are no bailiffs at all, as we know, and vast stretches of rivers which the bailiffs cannot entirely cover. Any legitimate angler or owner or gamekeeper, or whoever it may be, can at the present time act, and if they cannot act it appears that, if this becomes law. all that will be possible is for the person who witnesses an act of poaching—as, for example, people who are employed by the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association—to say to the poacher, "Wait there until I fetch a policeman," and the police constable may be 15 miles away. That would not be at all a satisfactory way to apprehend a person who is deliberately poaching. Therefore, I think that my noble Friend is right in what he said, and I hope that the Government will consider this matter further.

9.30 p.m.

Sir I. Fraser

The noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) deplored the absence of a lawyer. I am only an amateur lawyer, but I have had occasion, quite fortuitously, to deal with a question analogous to that we are now discussing, and I would submit this point to the Secretary of State. There may be. perhaps, a good reason why this power was included in the old Act. Contrary to the opinion expressed by some of my hon. Friends, I believe that the common law does not go so far as to make it the duty of a citizen to apprehend any person thought to be committing such an offence as we have in mind.

It is true that it is the duty of any citizen to apprehend a person he has good reason to think is committing a felony. If it were to be shown that the person was not committing a felony but merely brandishing a knife for fun, or merely sharpening his razor for amusement, the person who apprehends him would not be guilty of assault, because he would be carrying out his duty. While that may be the common law in relation to felony, it may not be the position in the case of misdemeanours we have in mind.

The difficulty my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) has just indicated was the reason why this was made a statutory right or duty. The fact is that when this particular misdemeanour occurs it is in a remote place, and the only way of apprehending anyone is to give power to the citizen to do it. In the light of that, I ask the Secretary of State to consider accepting the Amendment or taking legal advice on the matter.

Mr. Gage

I intervene only because the Secretary of State expressed surprise that a person is not entitled to arrest a fellow citizen. It has always been the law of this country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has just said, and I am sure it is the law of Scotland, although the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong, that a citizen has the duty to arrest another citizen whom he reasonably considers to have committed a felony. That is certainly correct so far as England is concerned, and no doubt it is correct so far as Scotland is concerned. I am unable to say whether the offence under the 1868 Act is a felony—it may be only a misdemeanour.

The Lord Advocate

As we are dealing with Scotland, let me say that a felony and a misdemeanour do not find any place in the law of Scotland.

Mr. Gage

That only reinforces what I said earlier that it is high time the law of Scotland was brought into line with the law of this country. I recall that there is a duty in Scotland on a citizen to arrest in case of a serious offence. That does not necessarily imply that my right hon. Friend is right in saying that these two subsections should be deleted, because I, in common with other Members, have always felt very chary about extending the rights of arrest in minor offences. The common law of England, which says that it is the duty of the citizen to arrest in cases of felony, refers largely to murder, manslaughter and really serious cases of larceny where it should be perfectly clear that a crime is being committed. It is, therefore, very different to give the power of arrest in what might be called more minor offences. We have to be exceedingly cautious about extending the power of arrest.

Lord Dunglass

I am not suggesting extending the power. It has been the power up to now.

Mr. Gage

My knowledge of the Scottish law is at fault there. I am, however, a little surprised to find that there is in Scotland the powers to detain and seize someone who is committing an offence which I assume is of a poaching nature. That possibly might be going further than many of us would care to go. One has to be very cautious about extending the power of arrest. In the case of the water bailiff, constable, or officer appointed by the Secretary of State there arises the question of the deputy water bailiff. I recognise that there is much in my hon. Friend's argument that there may be occasions when water bailiffs and officers are not sufficient and one has to be appointed temporarily to carry on that duty. Therefore, I think it would be right to extend the power of arrest to such persons.

I find a good deal of difficulty in cases of this nature in saying that the power of arrest should just simply be given to anyone who happens to be a citizen. It is quite true that for serious offences in England there is the general duty of the citizen to arrest. In these circumstances, I hope that the Secretary of State will look at this again, because I think there is great force in the argument that the water bailiff, constable or officer appointed by the Secretary of State is not sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman ought to consider the question of other people who ought to be allowed to arrest, and I confess that I am not anxious to see that power extended simply to any citizen who might be there.

Mr. C. Williams

I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), that there is nothing in this Amendment which extends the law as it stands at present. The fact is that under a Clause in the Bill the present law is being changed. I was amazed at the speech of the Secretary of State. I always regarded him as an orderly and quiet person. Surely there is an old habit in this country—I think it goes north of the Border—that if, for instance, an old lady is robbed of her bag she will shout, "Stop thief." I always understood that it was the moral duty of anyone seeing the person running away to stop that thief. The right hon. Gentleman said that apparently one's duty would be to seek and inform a policeman. That would give a very considerable start to the person committing the offence.

Mr. McNeil

I am sorry if I misled the hon. Member. In the case of the old lady who lost her purse or, to go back to the original proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass), attempting to do me grave bodily injury, I do not suggest that anybody should stand aside. What I understood the noble Lord to argue was that the citizen had a duty—the hon. Member for Torquay says a moral obligation—to arrest the offender. I said that that was not my understanding of the position, and that he had neither the power nor the legal obligation to make an arrest. If he had a legal obligation and failed to discharge it he would be proceeded against. He has a moral right to track the thief, recover the money and detain him.

Everyone has a moral obligation, and, I think, an obligation as a citizen, to assist the police to uphold the law, to prevent the breaking of the law. But we were talking originally, inside this Clause, about arrest. That is the word in the Clause—"arrest"—and I say that I should be extremely surprised if I were to be told that that is a right resident in the citizen.

Mr. C. Williams

Yes, but I was trying to deal with that when I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not a lawyer, and I will not take the word "arrest" in the meaning in which I was understanding it in dealing with this Amendment. I will say, rather, "apprehend" or "keep" the person until a form of "arrest" can be made. It has always been the duty, and I think everyone will agree that it is the duty of everyone to try to stop crime. That is the first point.

The second point is this. If, in the Bill, we were putting in something new, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), seemed to imagine, then there would be something in not allowing this power to be extended; but we are not extending this power: we are only, in our Amendment, wishing it to continue. The whole of the Bill is apparently an appeal from the Government to try to stop certain forms of attack on the salmon of Scotland. They ask us to do that, yet, in the remote areas, there must be many occasions when it cannot be possible for a water bailiff to be in the place where the attack is being made. Surely in this great appeal which the Government are putting forward in this Bill, which is unexpected, coming from those quarters, and for which their case is sound, as I believe it to be, they must be wrong in weakening the power for the preliminary stopping of this form of despoliation of the salmon fisheries.

I really cannot see any reason for their opposition to our case. We are not giving powers of arrest. We are leaving the powers which exist today of detaining the person until the police can catch him and give the appropriate evidence. As I said at the beginning, I think that the procedure which follows upon the cry "Stop, thief !" is a perfectly sound one. The man who tries to stop him or does stop him does not arrest him in a formal way. He simply holds him until the police come. That is all of the power that exists under the old Act, which is now being taken away, thus weakening the whole of the Government's case in the Bill.

The Secretary of State thinks the Scots are logical people, but when he and the Scots lawyers come here and make this suggestion it appears to me, and, I think, to anyone of Celtic or Saxon blood, that they are losing the whole of their sense of logic—unless they accept this Amendment, which, after all, is not to extend the powers.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

I wonder if the Secretary of State is not regarding this matter as an exercise in theory on this occasion rather than as a very practical question. Let us consider what we are dealing with. We are dealing with the possibility—nay, almost the certainty—that we shall have a group of two or three men going to a pool in a river miles away from any police office. My home in Scotland is at the top of a glen, 16 miles from the nearest policeman. Some evening, shall we say, a gamekeeper or owner, or a member of his staff, comes along and sees a man casting explosives into a pool, or casting poison into it, or using an electrical appliance—

Mr. McGovern

Or an atom bomb.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

—to kill 20, 30 or 40 salmon. Does a man like the Secretary of State, a Scotsman, and a keen fisherman—really suggest that this owner, gamekeeper or ploughman, seeing such an act being committed, shall say nothing except, "You ought not to do this, you naughty man. Stand where you are until I go to the telephone a mile away and call a policeman 16 miles away. Stand here until he comes"?

9.45 p.m.

I never thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be made to look so silly as that suggestion makes him look. What is the sense of this? At present the right hon. Gentleman knows that he has not the number of bailiffs, policemen or officers to police, or anything like it, the Scottish rivers. Yet he will not move in this matter and will not appoint a single deputy officer unless the crimes have been carried on for some time and the local board says, "We cannot cope with this continuity of crime. For goodness' sake give us additional policemen, bailiffs or officers."

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, as a practical measure, that until he has that staff and until he has seen the new process functioning he ought as a sensible man, a keen fisherman and one who is prepared to defend the place of salmon in the Scottish economy, not to alter the present law. If, in a year or two's time, he can come to the House and say, "I have provided the servants which I need for this operation. I am satisfied that these men are adequate to stop salmon poaching," the House would not for a moment hesitate to accept his request. But it is madness to do it now and it is foolishness on the part of one who holds the great office of a practical Secretary of State for Scotland to ask for such a stupid measure as this.

Lord Dunglass

The proposition that it is the duty of the citizen to apprehend an offender has started a considerable discussion with a wealth of illustration. What we are asking the Secretary of State to do is simply to leave the law as it is in the Act of 1868 under which an owner or any person has the right to apprehend. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows it, but what he is doing here is to put us in a much more restricted position than exists even in England. In the English Gaming Act and the Act of 1923 dealing with fishing, owners, occupiers, gamekeepers, servants and their assistants may apprehend and hand over to a police officer. We shall have to divide unless we get satisfaction. If the Lord Advocate will look into this with a view to leaving the law as it is and not restricting us to the small categories of people with a right to apprehend, we shall be grateful.

The Lord Advocate

I think there is a certain amount of misapprehension about the powers which exist under the Acts of 1868 and 1857. We are not dealing merely with either the common law right or the common law duty of a citizen to prevent the occurrence of a crime. I think that there would be a distinction between the right and duty of a citizen to prevent a crime which was a common law crime and that which was a statutory crime. In the obviously apparent case of the common law crime of theft, the citizen knows that an offence is being committed, but we get into more difficult territory when dealing with statutory offences about which the ordinary citizen may not have the same knowledge.

If we go back to Section 29 of the 1868 Act, which hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to see restored, we shall find these words: It shall be lawful for any person, without any Warrant or other Authority than this Act, brevi menu to seize and detain any Person who shall he found committing any Offence… contained in certain sections in the Act. Moreover it says: and to carry such Person before any Sheriff or Justice of the Peace or other Magistrate.… So it is not just a question of seizing or detaining or preventing them from getting away. It is the further power of carrying them bodily before a sheriff or magistrate or, alternatively, handing them over to a police constable.

Look at the difficulty into which one might be getting oneself. Here is a person without any warrant, such as a water bailiff or a person appointed by the Secretary of State would have, without the ostensible authority of a police constable who is wearing a uniform, suddenly saying to another person, "Stop." The person stops. He seizes him and then proceeds bodily to carry him before a sheriff or magistrate. Nothing more calculated to create a breach of the peace is conceivable. Whereas the water bailiff or the person appointed by the Secretary of State can produce a warrant of his authority, the ordinary citizen not embraced by that definition is not able to show any such authority. Therefore what hon. Members opposite wish to see restored—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Maintained."]—is the right of any citizen not only to seize and to detain but to carry such person before any sheriff or justice of the peace.

Mr. C. Williams

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

The Lord Advocate

No, the time is getting short. We looked at this from the point of view of maintaining the peace. We came to the conclusion that there was no longer any justification for giving these wide powers to every citizen in the land because, in so far as there may be certain common law rights of which hon. Members are aware, manifestly the provisions of the 1868 Act were importing additional powers to the citizen, otherwise there would not be any need to import them into that Act. All we seek to do by this Clause and the other Clause is to say that, in so far as these common law powers have been extended by the 1868 Act, we wish to restrict them to water bailiffs, officers appointed by the Secretary of State and police constables. They are the people with the ostensible authority to carry out rather drastic measures, whereas the ordinary citizen would be at a great disadvantage and would probably create circumstances that might lead to a breach of the peace.

Mr. Williams

May I ask one question to save a lot of time?

The Lord Advocate

Let me finish this point and then I will give way. With regard to the English position, under the 1923 Act the power to apprehend without a warrant is confined to water bailiffs and their assistants and not given to the large category of people whom the noble Lord considered, and certainly not to the citizens at large. The noble Lord referred to the Gaming Act, but I am referring to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act of 1923, which is the Act dealing with the subject with which we are dealing in this Bill. There the right to arrest without a warrant under Section 71 is confined to water bailiffs and to their assistants.

Mr. Williams

Has the Lord Advocate had any case at all where the existing law has been abused which would give some justification for the change? Apparently he only made the supposition of what might happen.

The Lord Advocate

This is a question of looking at the extended powers under this Bill which are covering a larger territory than the 1868 Act. There have not been a great number of prosecutions under that Act and the circumstances envisaged here have not often arisen; but in the wider context of this Bill they are more liable to arise oftener. What I am really concerned about is that it is very dangerous to give the right, not only of seizure and detention, but of apprehension, to the ordinary citizen who has no ostensible warrant of authority. In so far as the section extends the common law right and the duty of the citizen, we think it should be restricted to the classes contained in the Clause.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

Am I right in assuming that if this Clause becomes law, an owner who sees two men operating as I suggested a few minutes ago, and who holds those two men until a policeman is brought, commits an illegal act?

Mr. McNeil

He does not commit an illegal act. The hon. Member, who chastises me for being so stupid, must reflect upon his own experience. No one in that situation commits an illegality, although it is quite true that he does it at his peril. I am not a lawyer, but I recollect reading a case recently where a man, wanting to help the police, made a rugby tackle upon a man coming out of a picture house, but he discovered that he had tackled a plain-clothes policeman. As the Committee will remember, that man was proceeded against. If a proprietor tackles the wrong man, he may be proceeded against, but he commits no illegality.

I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will look at this matter again. I am anxious to meet them if there is a reasonable case. There is power under Clause 10 (5) for the Secretary of State to vest power in any person or officer if he thinks that a case is proved. Indeed, the case put by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), is precisely the case we are offering.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has an intimate knowledge of the situation. As far as I know, no one, certainly in recent years, has employed the 1868 Act, which the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), finds so attractive and so essential, and the powers of which the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart), finds so attractive and such a disaster to desert. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, only the officers equipped under the Fishmongers' Corporation—I gladly concede that they did an excellent job we will be discussing that later—used those powers. The ordinary person, the ordinary proprietor, did not use them, I imagine, because, as I think would be admitted, the powers originally embodied in the 1868 Act would no longer be very cheerfully accepted by a 20th-century society. If there is an area where I can help, then I or any subsequent Secretary of State will certainly do so, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Stuart

What we want to do is to make the Bill an effective Measure. It is quite clear that the existing powers have not been abused. It is clear also that the Bill would remove those powers from certain people. If we want to make this an effective Measure, and if it is indeed the desire of the Government, as I believe it to be, to stop poaching, then we think that it is a great pity to remove these powers at present. There having been no abuse, no harm would be done if these powers were retained.

Question put, "That subsection (2), to 'officer' in line 32, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 124.

Division No. 13.] AYES [5.5 p.m.
Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Channon, H. Fisher, Nigel
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R (Blackburn, W.) Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.) Foster, J. G.
Astor, Hon. M. Clyde, J. L. Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Baker, P. Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.) Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Baldwin, A. E. Cooper-Key, E. M. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Banks, Col. C. Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston) Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne) Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Bennett, W. G. (Woodside) Cranborne, Viscount Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Glyn, Sir R.
Birch, Nigel Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R. Gridley, Sir A.
Black, C. W. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley) Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Boothby, R. Cundiff, F. W. Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Bower, N. Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S) Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Davidson, Viscountess Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Boyle, Sir Edward de Chair, S. Hay, John
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Deedes, W. F. Head, Brig. A. H.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Donner, P. W. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M. Heald, L. F.
Brooke, H. (Hampstead) Drewe, C. Heath, E. R.
Browne, J. N. (Govan) Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Bullock, Capt. M. Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Dunglass, Lord Higgs, J. M. C.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Duthie, W. S. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Elliot, Lieul.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Hollis, M. C. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A. Mellor, Sir J. Snadden, W. McN.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Spearman, A. C. M.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Howard, G. R. (St. Ives) Nicholls, H. Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N Fylde)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Nicholson, G. Stevens, G. P.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Hurd, A. R. Nugent, G. R. H. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) Nutting, Anthony Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Odey, G. W. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Hyde, H. M. Ormsby-Gore. Hon. W. D. Studholme, H. G.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Teevan, L. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G. Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare) Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Jennings, R. Osborne, C. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Keeling, E. H. Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge) Perkins, W. R. D. Tilney, John
Lambert, Hon. G. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Turner, H. F. L.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Pickthorn, K. Turton, R. H.
Leather, E. H. C. Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) Vane, W. M. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Profumo, J. D. Vosper, D. F.
Linstead, H. N. Raikes, H. V. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton) Rayner, Brigadier R. Waterhouse, Capt. C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Redmayne, M. Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.) Remnant, Hon. P. Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)
McAdden, S. J. Roberts, P. G. (Heeley) White, J. Baker (Canterbury)
McCallum, Maj. D. Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Roper, Sir H. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
McKibbin, A. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Russell, R. S. Wills, G.
Maclay, Hon. J. S. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.) Savory, Prof. D. L. Wood, Hon. R.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Scott, Donald York, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Manningham-Buller, R. E. Smith, E. Martin (Grantham) TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Marples, A. E. Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Major Conant and
Mr. Wingfield Digby
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard Dodds, N. N. Jay, D. P. T.
Albu, A. H. Driberg, T. E. N. Jenkins, R. H.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Dye, S. Johnson, James (Rugby)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Edwards, John (Brighouse) Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Awbery, S. S. Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly) Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Ayles, W. H. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Keenan, W.
Bacon, Miss A. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Kenyon, C.
Balfour, A. Ewart, R. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J. Fernyhough, E. King, H. M.
Bartley, P. Follick, M. Kinley, J.
Blackburn, A. R. Foot, M. M. Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Blenkinsop, A. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Lindgren, G. S.
Blyton, W. R. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Booth, A. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Logan, D. G.
Bowden, H. W. George, Lady M. Lloyd Longden, F. (Small Heath)
Bowen, R. Gibson, C. W. McAllister, G.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Gilzean, A. MacColl, J. E.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)
Brockway, A. Fenner Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield) McGhee, H. G.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Grenfell, D. R. McGovern, J.
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton) Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) McInnes, J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange) McLeavy, F.
Burke, W. A. Grimond, J. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Burton, Miss E. Gunter, R. J. McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Haire, John E. (Wycombe) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Callaghan, James Hale, J. (Rochdale) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Carmichael, James Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.) Manuel, A. C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Hamilton, W. W. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Champion, A. J. Hannan, W. Mellish, R. J.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hargreaves, A. Messer, F.
Clunie, J. Harrison, J. Middleton, Mrs. L.
Cocks, F. S. Hayman, F. H. Mitchison, G. R.
Coldrick, W. Herbison, Miss M. Monslow, W.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham) Holman, P. Moody, A. S.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Morley, R.
Crawley, A. Houghton, Douglas Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Crosland, C. A. R. Hoy, J. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Cullen, Mrs. A. Hubbard, T. Mort, D. L.
Daines, P. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.) Moyle, A.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Mulley, F. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Murray, J. D.
Deer, G. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Nally, W.
Delargy, H. J. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Neal, H.
Diamond, J. Janner, B. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Oldfield, W. H. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Oliver, G. H. Silverman, S. S. (Nels[...]) Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Padley, W. E. Simmons, C. J. Viant, S. P.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly) Slater, J. Wallace, H. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham) Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Paton, J. Snow, J. W. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Pearson, A. Sorensen, R. W. West, D. G.
Pearl, T. F. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Poole, Cecil Sparks, J. A. White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)
Popplewell, E. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Pryde, D. J. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. Wilkes, L.
Pursey, Commander[...] Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall) Wilkins, W. A.
Rankin, J. Stross, Dr. B. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Rees, Mrs. D. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Rhodes, H. Sylvester, G. O. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras. N.) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Shackleton, E. A. A. Thurtle, Ernest TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Timmons, J. Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Royle.

Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 14.] AYES [9.59 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange) Neal, H.
Albu, A. H. Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hamilton, W. W. O'Brien, T.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Hargreaves, A. Orbach, M.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Harrison, J. Padley, W. E.
Awbery, S. S. Hayman, F. H. Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Bacon, Miss A. Herbison, Miss M. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Balfour, A. Hewitson, Capt. M. Pargiter, G. A.
Bartley, P. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Pearson. A.
Benson, G. Hoy, J. Peart, T. [...]
Blyton, W. R. Hubbard, T. Poole, Cecil
Boardman, H. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.) Popplewell, E.
Bowden, H. W. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Pryde, D. J.
Bowen, R. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rankin, J.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Rees, Mrs. D.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Rhodes, H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jenkins, R. H. Richards, R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Johnson, James (Rugby) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Burke, W. A. Keenan, W. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) King, H. M. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Callaghan, James Kinley, J. Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Carmichael, James Lee, F. (Newton) Royle C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Lindgren, G. S. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Champion, A. J. Logan, D. G. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Chetwynd. G. R. Longden, F. (Small Heath) Simmons, C. J.
Cocks, F. S. McAllister, G. Slater, J.
Coldrick, W. MacColl, J. E. Snow, J. W.
Collick, P. Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh) Soskice, Rt Hon. Sir F.
Collindridge, F. McGhee, H. G. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Cove, W. G. McGovern, J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Cullen, Mrs. A. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Davies. S. O. (Merthyr) McLeavy, F. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Deer, G. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Delargy, H. J. McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Timmons, J.
Driberg, T. E. N. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Vernon. Maj. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.) Wallace, H. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly) Manuel, A. C. Webb, Rt. Hon, M. (Bradford, C.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Weitzman, D.
Finch, H. J. Mellish, R. J. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Follick, M. Messer, F. Wilkes, L.
Foot, M. M. Middleton, Mrs. L. Wilkins, W. A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Mitchison, G. R. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Freeman, J. (Watford) Moody, A. S. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Gage, C. H. Morley, R. Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)
Gibson, C. W. Morris, P (Swansea, W.) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Gitzean, A. Mort, D. L. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Moyle, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Nally, W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Sparks.
NOES
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Deedes, W. F. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Astor, Hon. M. Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Baker, P. Drewe, C. Linstead, H. N.
Banks, Col. C. Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston) Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.)
Bennett, W. G. (Woodside) Dunglass, Lord Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Bishop, F. P. Fisher, Nigel McCallum, Maj. D.
Boles, Ll.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Foster, J. G. Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Boothby, R. Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone) McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Bower, N. Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Gates, Maj. E. E. Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Browne, J. N. (Govan) Grimston, R. V. (Westbury) Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Buehan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Harris, R. R. (Heston) Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Bullock, Capt. M. Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Mellor, Sir J.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Heath, E. R. Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)
Channon, H. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Nicholls, H.
Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Nugent, G. R. H.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Hornsby-Smith, Miss P. Nutting, Anthony
Cooper-Key, E. M. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Howard, G. R. (St. Ives) Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Craddook, G. B. (Spelthorne) Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Osborne, C.
Cranborne, Viscount Hurd, A. R. Perkins, W. R. D.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R. Hylton-Foster, H. B. Raikes, H. V.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Keeling, E. H. Rayner, Brigadier R.
Cundiff, F. W. Lambert, Hon. G. Remnant, Hon. P.
Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)
Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks) Sutcliffe, H. Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)
Roper, Sir H. Teevan, L. T. White, J. Baker (Canterbury)
Russell, R. S. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Soott, Donald Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F. Wills, G.
Smith E. Martin (Grantham) Tilney, John Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Turner, H. F. L. Wood, Hon. R.
Snadden, W. McN. Turton, R. H. York, C.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Vosper, D. F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Storey, S. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) Mr. Studholme and
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) Waterhouse, Capt. C. Mr. Wingfield Digby
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

It being after Ten o'Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.