"At the end of sub-section (1) of section eighty of the Army Act (which relates to the mode of enlistment and attestation) the following sub-section shall be added: —
The general conditions of the contract to be entered into shall include a stipulation that the recruit shall not be liable, nor shall it be lawful in pursuance of this Act to call upon such recruit, to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. Provided that, in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a state of emergency exists, this stipulation shall not apply so long as such state, of emergency exists."—[Mr. George Hall.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. GEORGE HALL
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The subject of this Clause has been considered on several occasions but, although concessions have been, made in the matter of capital punishment, no concession has been made in the very important matter raised by this new Clause. The purpose of the Clause is quite clear. It does not seek to interfere with any powers existing at the moment for dealing with difficulties during a case of emergency. It is not only the duty of the soldier but of every citizen to assist in the maintenance of order in such circumstances. It should also be made clear that the Clause does not propose to curtail any of the powers which are at present present possessed by the civil authorities; but we do ask that it should be made quite clear to the recruit, when he joins the Army, that he is not to be called upon to take part in any industrial dispute, or to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a 84 trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. In other words, the purpose of the Clause is to provide that a soldier shall not be called upon to "blackleg" his fellows during industrial trouble.
For the soldier it can be said that, if there is one thing that he dislikes more than another, it is to be called upon to do something other than his job of soldiering and to be mixed up with any trade dispute in any way. We do not desire in any way to attempt to persuade the soldier not to do his job, but we are anxious to avoid, if possible, the unpleasant duties which soldiers sometimes find themselves called upon to do. We must remember that almost all the men who join the fighting forces come from working-class homes and were trade unionists before they joined the Army. By the acceptance of this Clause Parliament would lay it down definitely that the State in all industrial disputes should always be impartial as between the two sides. It can be said that in no country in the world are the masses of the citizens as law-abiding as are the citizens of this country. The best evidence of that is that during almost every emergency the citizens come to the assistance of the civil power. If we look back into the history of the last hundred years we find that the military authorities have seldom been called in during industrial disputes. Where they were called in, the action almost always led to disastrous results; in almost every case it stiffened the opposition of the workmen engaged in the dispute, and it left a very bad feeling behind it, especially in such cases as Featherstone, Peterloo, and later, Llanelly and Tonypandy.
During the 1926 stoppage, that long and terrible struggle, on no single occasion were the military authorities called in to intervene. That speaks well for the country. I do not think it could be said that such a thing could happen in any other country in the world when faced with such a dispute as that of 1926. All this bears out my statement that the civil authorities are capable of dealing with all these matters. I know that in some instances police have been imported into certain districts. Where that occurred difficulty at once arose; there was con- 85 siderably more trouble because of the importation of strangers than there would have been had the districts been left to the ordinary police. We must also remember that the civil authorities have additional powers under the Trade Disputes Act of last year. Under that Act the police can prevent huge demonstrations of men marching from place to place. They can prevent large meetings. The powers of picketing are so strengthened that very few people can escape the law in that connection. What is more important is that the discipline amongst trade unionists themselves is very much better than it was previously. I know of no trade union leader who deliberately advocates the interference with individuals or the breaking down of property—what one might regard as smashing methods.
In these circumstances we ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the Clause. If he refuses to accept it, it will mean that, even when there is no emergency proclaimed, he has the power to order soldiers to take the place of men engaged in an industrial dispute. The case of a soldier is entirely different from that of the ordinary working man. When a workman is asked to take the place of a fellow-workman who is engaged in a dispute, he can obey or disobey. If he disobey, the result is invariably the loss of his job. The position of a soldier or naval man acting under orders is entirely different. If he refuses to take the place of the man engaged in a dispute, he is subject not merely to the loss of his job and not to any ordinary civilian penalties, but to the extreme penalties which may be inflicted on a member of the Forces even in peace time for disobeying the order of his superior officers. When the average man joins the Army he does it to fight the foreign enemies of his country. He is also aware that when a state of national emergency has been proclaimed he must obey the orders of his superior officer. We say that, except in those circumstances, no Government Department should have any right to call upon a man to face drastic punishment if he refuses to carry out the instructions of his officers. For those reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give sympathetic consideration to the Clause, and we trust that he will accept it this year.
§ Mr. BATEY
I desire to support the Motion. We have two clear objects in view. One is that soldiers shall not be used to "blackleg" in industrial disputes, and the other is that they shall not be used in a dispute even to aid the civil power. During a dispute peace can be best maintained by the police, who know the people. To bring in soldiers is obnoxious not only to trade unionists but to the whole of the working classes. When a dispute occurs the bringing in of soldiers into a locality is like showing a red rag to a bull; it makes things worse instead of better. My experience of the working class generally is that the British workman is a sportsman, whether engaged in games or in fighting a severe industrial fight. He loves fair play, and when he is forced into an industrial fight he ought to be given fair play. To bring soldiers into a dispute is simply loading the dice against the workmen. In such cases soldiers can be used for a double purpose—either to shoot down the workers or to act as "blacklegs." That is neither fair nor British. It is not fair because the Army is paid for by the working classes as well as by the employers of labour.
To bring soldiers into a dispute is an abuse of the Army. It is giving an advantage to the capitalist, for soldiers are never brought in to assist the workmen. This House debated the question of having a Standing Army 241 years ago. It is interesting, in reading the history of those days, to discover that the House did not readily agree to the setting up of a Standing Army. There were Members who argued that a Standing Army and a free constitution could not exist side by side. They mentioned that soldiers once took the Mace from the Table, and they said that that was a very strong argument against a Standing Army. The argument then used in favour of a Standing Army was the danger of invasion. In the King's Speech of those days it was mentioned that the state of affairs abroad was such thatfor the present England cannot be safe without a land force.The House hesitated, however, before agreeing to set up a Standing Army. This House only agreed to the establishment of a Standing Army because of the danger of invasion, and, even then, they did not agree to what the King wanted. 87 The King wanted an Army of 180,000, but the House would only agree to an Army of 10,000 and an expenditure of £350,000 a year.
I cannot imagine that the Members of the House in those days, thought the time would ever come when the Army would he used for any purpose other than the protection of the country against foreign invasion. I cannot imagine the House of Commons of that time thinking that the Army would ever be used in industrial disputes, and I feel sure that, if they had thought so, it would have been a strong reason to them for objecting altogether to a Standing Army. The hon. Member who moved the proposed new Clause referred to two or three occasions on which soldiers have been used in industrial disputes. I am glad to think that in a long period of years they have not been used in this way very often. It may be argued by the representatives of the War Office that the fact that they have not been used very often in this way is a reason against our proposal, but the fact that they have been so used at all justifies us in putting forward this new Clause. When soldiers are used in industrial disputes, it is only for the purpose of frightening the workers. I remember during 1926 seeing soldiers passing along Oxford Street wearing their tin hats and accompanied by armoured cars, the only object being to frighten the workers.
I ask the Secretary of State to remember that though the Government to-day, with their big majority, may be in a position to reject this proposal, though they may be able to use the Army in industrial disputes, for the double purpose which we have already mentioned, yet, as one can easily see from the feeling in the country, the present Government will not always be in control of the Army. This Government will not always be able to use the Army on behalf of the capitalists. One can see there is going to be a change in this country, and I believe that after the next. Election, the Members sitting on these benches will be on the other side of the House, and this party will be in charge of the Army. The Government have used the Army on behalf of the capitalists, but if we use the Army against the capitalists and on behalf of the workers, 88 then they will protest that it is not fair. I ask them now to be fair, and to agree that the Army should be left altogether out of the arena of industrial disputes. I ask the Government to agree that soldiers are not to be used either as blacklegs, or for the purpose of fighting the workers. With industry organised as it is to-day, some people think we are nearing an end of industrial disputes, but, considering that there is so much poverty and misery in the country, I believe we shall still see industrial disputes in the future. Before those disputes occur, and while we are able to take a calm view of the question—before the heat and bad temper of the dispute arise—the Government should look at the matter calmly and accept our proposal.
§ Mr. GROVES
I support the proposed new Clause, as a result of our experiences in the borough which I represent not only during the general strike, but in previous disputes. A very unpleasant experience for us was in 1921 when the railwaymen threatened to cease work, and our railway station was paraded by soldiers with fixed bayonets. Then in the calm moments of peace in industry, we realised what could happen when any Government lost its head at a time when there was a possibility of an industrial dispute. I am very suspicious about the degree of technical training which is being given in this country with regard to recruits for the Air Force and the Army. I suspect that it is not due just to the ordinary march of technical events, but is the result of cool and calculated policy, so that the authorities will be prepared at any given moment to place in industry an equivalent number of men to those displaced whenever an industrial dispute arises.
That being so, I appeal to the Secretary of State to remove the soldiery altogether from this invidious position. Having listened to the whole of this Debate, I am quite prepared to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is further from his mind than to use soldiers in industrial disputes, but those of us who have read the history of Featherstone realise that sometimes circumstances come into existence, probably without any evil designing on the part of the Secretary of State for War, in which soldiers are so used. Would it 89 not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to be able to raise a fence—to erect a barrier as it were—which in future will protect his own Department against possible abuses in this respect? During the general strike we had many very interesting Debates in this House with regard to this particular matter. I then pointed out that the introduction of a foreign element called the special constabulary had been responsible for a certain change of psychology in West Ham. We must try to anticipate what may happen in any future dispute. I agree that we cannot look forward to the extinction of industrial disputes. I wish that, by reason and common sense, we were in a position to visualise that day, but it is not with us yet, and we must be prepared to recognise that everything paints to further clashes in industry, be they large or small. We must prepare ourselves for the future according to what has happened in the past. It. is true that in past industrial crises military forces have been used to coerce those members of the working class who ceased work with a definite end in view. This is a constitutionally-governed country and we have no right to use the soldiery on one side in an industrial dispute. No man would defend such a course, and therefore I think it behoves the British Parliament to lay down the condition that there shall not be intervention by military forces at the time of a mere industrial dispute. I am aware that the proposed New Clause excludes the possibility of a state of national emergency. Somehow we on these benches seem to think that military forces should be used at such a moment. Personally, I do not think so.
§ Mr. GROVES
The hon. Member supported it. What I am sure of is that in this country we are made of such material that even if we are going through a great psychological anxiety like the general strike, there seems to be little fear that the people will need the physical protection of military forces. Those who went through the 1926 episodes realise that the only way in which the soldiery were used—in the East End anyhow—was to create an impression, to strike forceful attitudes, in order that the convoys should not be affected in their exodus from the docks. That in some 90 measure can be understood, but it is a different matter if it comes to repeating what took place at the West Ham electricity generating station. I expect I am in order in including naval forces in a general reference to Crown forces in connection with this argument. There, forces of the Crown were sent down, without any consultation with the local authorities, to take charge of the West Ham electricity station. There is no justification for such an action as that. Our men were working there loyally, and performing good service, but because there was a great national dispute these forces were sent in and men who were not competent technicians, in the same sense as our electricians, took over the work there. That is an interference with the ordinary constitutional rights of the industrial classes of this country, and I trust the Secretary of State for War will give us some satisfaction and prove a little more kind to us in this matter than he has been in the previous discussions. I do not expect him to accept the New Clause literally, because it is not his habit to do things like that, but perhaps we can get a tacit understanding that he will use his influence, in the few remaining months of the life of this Government, to get his friends and comrades to agree to, this proposal.
§ Captain GARRO - JONES
Having listened to the speeches of the Mover and the hon. Members who support this proposed New Clause, I find myself in some difficulty. The New Clause proposes that troops shall not be used in any trade dispute. We all remember that during the discussions on the Trade Disputes Act, this House was quite unable to decide what was a trade dispute. That question, however, is not relevant to the present proposal, because the second part of the proposed New Clause says:Provided that, in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a state of emergency exists, this stipulation shall not apply so long as such state of emergency exists.In what cases in recent years have troops been used where a state of emergency has not been declared by His Majesty to exist?
§ Captain GARRO-JONES
The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) appealed to the Secretary of State not to allow the use of troops at all in industrial disputes, but that is not what the New Clause proposes. The New Clause will allow the use of troops the moment a state of emergency is declared. In these circumstances I do not see why the Secretary of State for War cannot accept it. I hope, when he is dealing with the Amendment, he will tell us why we cannot vote for an Amendment which prohibits the use of troops unless His Majesty has declared a state of emergency to exist.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans)
The Amendment has been supported in speeches that had very little relevance to it, and the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones), who has just sat down, has fallen into the same fault as those who supported the Amendment. He has quoted a few words of it, and not quoted it quite accurately, and he has not seen that the Amendment is designed to prevent the use of troops to take duty in aid of the civil power. That is a duty which falls upon each one of us. It is a Common Law duty which each one of us, to the best of his ability, is bound to carry out whenever he is called upon, if the civil power does need support; and, of all people in the world, the soldier is not only to be exempted from that duty, but it is to be part of the contract of his employment that he shall not take part, which he would if he were not a soldier, in aid of the civil power. That is not necessarily a time of emergency. Rather illogically, if I may say so, as soon as a time of emergency arises the limitations suggested in the Amendment are no longer to avail, but the mere going to the aid of the civil power is a thing which might arise at any moment, not in an emergency that could be foreseen at all.
Let us take a case. Supposing that trouble arose out of a football match, and not out of a trade dispute, and the civil power, which means, first of all, the attendants on the football ground and the police, were overpowered, and there was a real scrap. It would be the duty of the civil power, in order to protect those who were present—not workmen or employers, but all—to call in the military if necessary to aid them. When the hon. Members who support the Amendment say the 92 soldiers are never called out except to aid the capitalists, that really is not true, for the capitalist as a rule is not in the street, and it is not his head that is likely to be cracked in the course of a row. It is much more likely that the workers and their relations would be in the street, and, if there was a row, they themselves might suffer; and if the civil power was being overcome, it might well be that the soldiers' only duty would be to support the civil power in protecting those who were in the street at the time. It is wrong to look at this from a class point of view. It is not a class question. It is the duty of all of us, to whatever class we may belong, to go to the aid of the civil power. It is the duty of the soldier to do the same thing, and I have no hesitation in saying that this Amendment cannot be accepted.
There is another branch of the Amendment, namely, that no soldier shall be used to blackleg. No soldier is used to blackleg. Even that prohibition is not to take effect after an emergency is declared. Instances were given of what occurred during the general strike. The soldier was used to protect the food supplies, to see that the life of the nation was carried on, and I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are prepared to say that he should not be used in that case. On whose behalf is he being used? On behalf of the capitalist? Not at all.
§ Mr. GROVES
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I think the soldiers should not be used. I say it was not necessary that they should be used.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
That is not the Amendment. The Amendment is to prohibit them being used, and the question I was asking—I do not press the hon. Member to reply, if he prefers to take refuge by replying to a question which I did not ask—was, Was it right or was it not right to see that the food supplies of the nation were to be continued to be supplied to the nation?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
That is another matter. We did it, of course, and we protected the food supplies by troops, and no one was injured by it, not a single man. Not a single rifle was fired, and not a single soldier came into conflict with a civilian, and when the hon. 93 Member says the soldier was used in the wrong way, I say that the rightness of the way is proved by what I am saying.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
The food supplies were continued, and no one was a penny the worse. Of course, it is not a job that the soldier likes or that the military authorities put on the soldier if they can possibly avoid it; but there is the liability to go to the aid of the civil power, there is the national necessity of continuing the life of the nation, and as long as those two things exist, it will be impossible to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. GROVES
Has it struck the right hon. Gentleman that his argument in favour of the utilisation of the military in aid of the civil authorities dealt with an occasion that actually existed in this country a few years ago at Wembley, when he did not come to the aid of the civil power?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
We were not called upon. We do not volunteer. The hon. Member should realise that the military never volunteer, but wait until they are called upon, to execute this disagreeable duty.
§ Mr. KELLY
I had not intended to speak on this Amendment until listening to the right hon. Gentleman and his suggestion of the use of the military in the event of conditions arising at a football match. I have read reports in recent weeks of something approaching what he called a riot at football matches in certain parts of the country, but I have not heard of anyone suggesting that any of the armed military forces should be called in. I have no doubt there were members of the forces present as spectators at those matches, but the civil force were able to deal with the situation. I submit to the Committee that in industrial disputes the civil force is quite capable of dealing with any situation which may arise, and it is unfair and unjust to the man in the Army that he should be called upon—not asked, but commanded—to take part in an industrial dispute. He has not the opportunity, as other citizens have, of refusing to enter into such a struggle, 94 but he receives a command from his superior officer that he must go into a particular factory and undertake any piece of work that his commanding officer instructs him to perform. He has no free will at all with regard to it. It is unfair, and it is lowering the position of the members of the Army that they should be called upon to take part in industrial disputes.
The hon. Member seized upon what, with him, I think is a weakness of the Amendment. I would not have put in this proviso at the end of it, because I see no justification at all for the armed forces being called in in an industrial dispute, which means at all times, despite all that was said by the right hon. Gentleman, that they are called in to assist the employers.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS indicated dissent.
§ Mr. KELLY
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. For what other purpose are they called in in an industrial dispute than to assist the employers? I have known of a case where they were called in while the civilians were undertaking the work, but owing to the fear of the superiors, who had lost their heads at a particular moment, these men, who dared not refuse to undertake the work, had to blackleg the rest of their fellows. I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the incidents of 1926. The Amendment deals with industrial disputes that people would not interpret as the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues interpreted the dispute of 1926. I say it is wrong. These men join the forces for certain purposes, and yet when an occasion arises on which it appears to someone at the War Office that they should be called upon to undertake work in the factories, they are asked to perform this work, which they ought never to be compelled to do. Despite the weakness of the Amendment—I wish the latter part of it were not in—I am prepared to vote for it.
§ Captain GARRO-JONES
The night hon. Gentleman said that I had fallen into a trap, but nothing that he said has released me from that trap. Tie appeared to me to be side-stepping the issue raised by the Amendment, which, 95 as far as I understand it, seeks to provide that in minor trade disputes, before a state of emergency has been declared, it shall be unlawful to draft in soldiers to do the work which has been done by strikers. I cannot see any objection to that, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that soldiers and civilians are in the same position of being compelled to assist the civil power he is rather losing sight of the fact that civilians are not compelled to assist any one side in an industrial dispute. All that this Amendment asks is that in
§ trade disputes, before a state of emergency has been declared, soldiers shall not be drafted in to help one side or the other or to help the civil power. Why cannot this Amendment be accepted? I sincerely hope we shall have some less ingenious but more enlightening answer than we have yet had from the right hon. Gentleman, or, speaking for myself, I shall vote for the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 223.97
|Division No. 75.]||AYES.||[7.0 p.m.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hardie, George D.||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hayday, Arthur||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Baker, Walter||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Scurr, John|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hirst, G. H.||Sexton, James|
|Barnes, A.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Batey, Joseph||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Shinwell, E.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Broad, F. A.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Smillie, Robert|
|Bromley, J.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kelly, W. T.||Snell, Harry|
|Cape, Thomas||Kennedy, T.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kirkwood, D||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lansbury, George||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lawrence, Susan||Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Compton, Joseph||Lawson, John James||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Connolly, M.||Lee, F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cove, W. G.||Lowth, T.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lunn, William||Viant, S. P.|
|Day, Harry||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Dennison, R.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)|
|Dunnico, H.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondde)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||March, S.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Gardner, J. P.||Maxton, James||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Montague, Frederick||Welsh, J. C.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Westwood, J.|
|Gillett, George M.||Murnin, H.||Whitelev, W|
|Gosling, Harry||Oliver, George Harold||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Palin, John Henry||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Greenall, T.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Wright, W.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Potts, John S.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Groves, T.||Purcell, A. A.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Ritson, J.||Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Blades, Sir George Rowland||Burton, Colonel H. W.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Boothby, R. J. G.||Butler, Sir Geoffrey|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Campbell, E. T.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Carver, Major W. H.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Cassels, J. D.|
|Atkinson, C.||Briant, Frank||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Briggs, J. Harold||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)|
|Balniel, Lord||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Chapman, Sir S.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Christle, J. A.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Clarry, Reginald George|
|Bethel, A.||Buckingham, Sir H.||Clayton, G. C.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Burman, J. B.||Cohen, Major J. Brunel|
|Colfox, Major William Phillips||Huntingfield, Lord||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hurd, Percy A.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)|
|Cope, Major William||Hurst, Gerald B.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Couper, J. B.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Salmon, Major I.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Jephcott, A. R.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Sandon, Lord|
|Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Knox, Sir Alfred||Savery, S. S.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Lamb, J. Q.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Dixey, A. C.||Livingstone, A. M.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Drewe, C.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Loder, J. de V.||Simon, Rt. Hon Sir John|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Long, Major Eric||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Looker, Herbert William||Smithers, Waldron|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Lougher, Lewis||Somervillie, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||MacAndrew Major Charles Glen||Strauss, E. A.|
|Fermey, Lord||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|Fielden, E. B.||MacIntyre, I.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||McLean, Major A.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Frece, Sir Walter de||Macquisten, F. A.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Galbraith, J. F. W||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Malone, Major P. B.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Gates, Percy||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Margesson, Captain D.||Waddington, R.|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Morris, R. H.||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph||Wells, S. R.|
|Hamilton, Sir George||Nelson, Sir Frank||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Nuttall, Ellis||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur p.||Oakley, T.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Hills, Major John Waller||Perring, Sir William George||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hilton, Cecil||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Withers, John James|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Pilcher, G.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Womersley, W. J.|
|Holt, Captain H. P.||Price, Major C. W. M.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Raine, Sir Walter||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.|