§ Nothing in this Act shall compel men deemed to have duly enlisted in His Majesty's Regular forces and to have been transferred to the Reserve to work otherwise than as workmen engaged under ordinary conditions of employment for any private employer of labour; and any private employer who uses any part of this Act for the purpose of intimidating or coercing any workman of an age specified in Section one, shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, with or without hard labour.—[Mr. Anderson.]
§ Brought up and read the first time.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
166 This proposed Amendment raises the whole question of how far this new Act is going to be used for industrial purposes as apart from strictly military purposes. I am sorry, indeed, that this most important matter should be raised so late in the evening that it is not possible really to debate it. I think we shall have to try and put it down again for the Report stage for fuller discussion. I find that there is a great deal of uncertainty in working-class minds as to the real meaning and purposes behind this Bill. I have been speaking this week-end at very large meetings in Lancashire. I find the utmost anxiety there to know what is really involved. What they are saying is—
§ Mr. ANDERSONIt is really wrong that hon. Members should interrupt in the way the hon. Member does. The hon. Member is always interrupting. I was pointing out that what working people are asking is this: They are amazed at the statement of the Prime Minister that only 7 per cent. of the older people are going to be called up under this Act, and they are asking if only 7 per cent. are going to be useful what is going to happen in respect of the other 93 per cent. Are they all going to remain where they are now at their ordinary occupations or is this scheme in regard to military service going to be supplemented? I raised some of these points earlier in the afternoon, but I did not receive any convincing answer. Probably we shall be told what the intentions of the Government are, but we want to know more. We want to know what will happen and what will be done in respect of this measure. The granting of certificates of exemption, their renewal and withdrawal, are now going to be vested largely in the hands of a Government Department as to whether workmen can be called out of their turn. Suppose you call up groups of forty-four or forty-five years of age, and suppose you have a workman of forty-six years of age who takes an active part in trade union work, who heads deputations to voice the grievances of his workmates, will the employer be able to withdraw his certificate of exemption and compel him to go into the Army, although 167 he is out of his age turn altogether? If men between forty-one and fifty-one have little or no military value, are they going to be used in some other way; are they going to be taken into the Army, found to be unfit for real military work, and sent back into industry again, practically as soldiers under military conditions? That has been happening with regard to the younger men, and is that principle going to be enormously extended with regard to men between forty-one and fifty-one who, admittedly, are of no military value. Are we going to have an increasing number of workmen told they are unfit and sent back into industry to work under military rule and subject practically to military discipline?
Here is something which has constantly happened with regard to younger men, and I want to know whether it is going to happen with regard to the older men. A man is brought before a military service tribunal. His medical grade is very low, perhaps he is C2 or C3. The military service tribunal can give him conditional exemption and practically impose any condition. Under the Regulations that are going to be drafted there can be no limit to the conditions imposed upon this man. Are the new tribunals which are going to be hedged in on every side by Regulations drafted by the bureaucracy itself, to say to him, "your medical grade is low, you will not make a good soldier, but you must leave what you are doing now to go to another job as a reason for being exempted from Army service" That is being done now. If it is being done in regard to the younger men, how much more will it be done with regard to the older men? People will say, "Why should it not be done?" Why should we not have industrial compulsion as well as military compulsion? I do not think that you can have military compulsion without forms of industrial compulsion. No form of words that we can put into the Kill will safeguard that danger. But even if it were right to say to men, "You have got to work at munitions," or to work here or there, they at least ought to be as much in the service of the State as the soldier, and they ought not to be asked to work for a private employer making private profit and gain out of their labour. The whole situation is complicated by the fact that you have private employers of labour seeking their own gain in this matter. 168 Therefore, in so far as this is true, you are introducing a most dangerous principle when you compel men, on the strength of the Military Service Acts, to work for private employers seeking their own profit and ends. All these matters go to the very root of the Bill. It is no good the Minister of National Service giving us vague pledges. We have had more than enough pledges. The Government make a clean cut of their pledges, as we said the other day. We want to know definitely what the position is going to be. I am very glad that the Home Secretary is here, because the last time I mentioned this matter he did not happen to be present.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI am not responsible for the right hon. Gentleman. The Home Secretary will remember that I brought to his attention a leaflet circulated among the agricultural labourers of Cheshire by a private farmer warning his men that if they took any action against him they would be liable, if of military age, to be called up immediately. I am not in favour of strikes, and never have been, especially during the last three or four years, but when strikes come the blame does not necessarily rest with the men. These farmers may be using the power they have in this military weapon to make their labourers do things that they have no right to ask them to do. If the labourers rebel they bring out a leaflet, which says, as this leaflet does: "Warning.—If you do not do this, or if you do anything against me, you are eligible to be called up for military service." That is industrial compulsion. That farmer has not been punished. The Home Secretary knows who the farmer was. He had the matter investigated by the local police. He has a copy of the leaflet in his possession, but he has taken no action against the farmer, although the man used the Acts of Parliament passed by this House for his own personal purpose and private ends.
§ Sir G. CAVEI do not know the man at all. As a matter of fact, he is a small miller and not a farmer. He had a small number of these leaflets printed, and he distributed some ten of them. The rest were destroyed. No man was in the least affected by the leaflet.
§ Mr. FLAVINWas his machinery ceased, and was the mill stopped?
§ Mr. ANDERSONI am sorry if I have mistaken a miller for a, farmer. I understood that it was a farmer. This miller, for his own ends, printed this leaflet, and they were circulated. I have one in my possession. Are other men going to be allowed to adopt the same method and tactics?
§ Sir G. CAVENo.
§ Mr. ANDERSONAre they going to be allowed to do it under this Act? That is one of the points involved. Unless you eliminate altogether the element of private profit, a workman, if he goes before a tribunal, should have this question settled, and should either be a soldier serving the State or should be a free, unfettered workman in industry, working under ordinary conditions. That is the clear issue I put before the Committee and the Minister of National Service. I am sorry that I have not time to deal with this matter at greater length, because it is a vital matter and touches the root of this Bill, but I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman and others an opportunity to develop the matter. I ask the Minister of National Service to give us some light and guidance in regard to a matter which is causing the greatest anxiety, especially among the older workers from forty-one to fifty-one years of age.
Mr. THOMASIn the case of all previous Military Service Acts the question of industrial compulsion has not only occupied a considerable amount of Parliamentary time, but from the standpoint of the Labour movement has been one of the most important. It is not sufficient for the Minister of National Service or the Home Secretary merely to say that employers ought not to do this. The fact remains that it is done. Whatever may have happened with regard to agricultural labourers, it has repeatedly, even on the railways, with their strong organisation, that where the men have had a grievance, and have complained, the foremen and others have said to them, "Well, if you don't like it, remember there is the Military Service Act." Then the chief official says, ''But I am not responsible for what a subordinate says." Then the subordinate says, "I did not mean that I wanted to drive them into the Army. I was only drawing attention to the fact that there was a Military Service Act," which, of course, is perfectly true. As a matter of fact, at the present time there is a 170 special tribunal set up in order to protect men from what the Railway Service Department takes power in this Bill to do. The arrangement is that, just as the Minister of National Service has now the power himself to choose who shall and who shall not go into the Army, so the railway companies have that power, as he knows. Not one or two but at least hundreds of cases have been dealt with since the Military Service Act was passed, not to determine who should go into the Army, but in order to prove that under the very powers now obtaining the railway companies have sent men they ought not to have sent. I submit, and I am quite sure the Minister will recognise that there ought to be some protection. It ought not to be possible for any individual to say, "You shall go into the Army if your work is not satisfactory to us." It may not be a question of his work. That may be the excuse, but advantage may be taken of a thousand other things. That is my first point. The second is in regard to the tribunals. It ought not to be necessary, indeed it ought not to be within the power of any tribunal to say to a man, "You shall be exempted from military service on the condition that you do something else," because immediately you do that that is industrial compulsion in its worst form. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a definite answer on the point and to keep in mind that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long), in reply to a question, said his view on the matter was that once a man, although a soldier, went into a factory he should for all purposes be absolutely independent of the military authority. We demand that if he is a soldier he is subject to military law, but immediately he goes into a factory he ought to be as free and independent as if he was never in the Army.
§ Sir A. GEDDESThe first point I want to deal with is that raised once again by the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson)—the 7 per cent. and the 93 per cent. That seems to be raising trouble. Seven per cent. is the number between the ages of forty-three and fifty whom we expect to call up and to post for service in the Forces—Army or Air Force—during this year. The 93 per cent. will remain in civil life under conditions precisely similar to those under which the men from thirty-five to forty-three who are in civil life are. That is to say, some of them will hold certificates of exemption from tribunals, some will hold 171 protection certificates, and some will hold certificates for colliery recruiting courts, and so on. There will also be among the 93 per cent. the men who are physically unfit. Their position will be equally similar to that of the men in civil life at present, and I can say with absolute definiteness that there is no intention whatever of compelling these men who remain in civil life industrially. It is true that wherever a certificate of exemption is granted on conditional grounds there is a difficult problem at once. If a man is exempted by a tribunal conditionally upon his remaining engaged in a certain occupation obviously the man who accepts that has to place himself in. the position of being under an obligation to his employer unless he is willing to go into the Army. That is inevitable, and it was to meet that very difficulty that the system of protections under the Schedule of Protected Occupations was devised in its present form, because then there is no obligation on a man to remain with any employer, and there is no obligation on men even to remain upon munition work, provided they remain liable to be moved anywhere on munition work, as the State requires. But the men who hold conditional exemption from tribunals on occupational grounds are inevitably under an obligation to their employers, and there is no doubt that, in spite of all our efforts to the contrary, that position has been abused on both sides—abused from the point of view of the men by their accepting lower wages on condition that they were kept on in their protected position, in other words, playing for conditional exemption by accepting a smaller sum of money, and also there is no reason to doubt that some of the cases which have been brought to my notice show that employers have taken advantage of that position. The Government throughout has set its face absolutely against either of these actions: either action on the part of the employer or on the part of the employé.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWhy not punish them if you are against it?
§ Sir A. GEDDESThe next point raised was whether the employer would be able to withdraw a certificate. No employer can withdraw a certificate of exemption. A certificate of exemption is a certificate 172 necessarily granted either by a tribunal or a Colliery Recruiting Office, or a Government Department. No private employer can touch this certificate in any way whatever.
§ Mr. ANDERSONBut the employer by discharging a man can vary the conditions under which the certificate was granted.
§ Sir A. GEDDESIt is not competent for a tribunal to grant a certificate of exemption conditional upon a man remaining employed by any specified firm or individual. The tribunal can devise a safeguard, which has been inserted long ago, and is regularly in force, that the exemption must always be upon the ground that the man is engaged in a certain occupation, without specifying the employer who employs him. That is a perfect safeguard, and the best safeguard you can get in connection with these conditional certificates of exemption.
I want to say generally that there is not the slightest intention to make use of these powers in this Act to compel men to do things in civil life. There is not the slightest intention of devising a scheme of industrial compulsion in regard to the 93 per cent. who join the Colours. There is not the slighest intention to depart from the general lines of procedure that we have followed throughout the last two years. There is not the slightest intention to treat these older men except with the greatest possible consideration. There is no ground for the statement that all these men are without military value There is a percentage of these older men who are of military value. The whole purpose of this Bill is that we shall be able to expand the field from which we can draw men who are of military value, and by expanding the field that we can reduce the pressure upon the men of the lower ages who are urgently required for essential War work. We want to take every young man we can take before we draw upon the old men: but, at the same time, we do not want to destroy the civil side of the War by drawing away younger men who cannot be spared for work in the Army or the Royal Air Force which older men can well do. It is said that the older men are of no value to the Forces. They are of comparatively small value for front-line trench work. I want to impress upon the Committee 173 that this is a real measure to increase our effective man-power strength; that these men are of enormous use in connection wth the ground work of the Royal Flyng Corps, for balloon purposes, and in connection with transport; that they are of enormous use in connection with the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Ordnance Corps, and those rearward services, and they will also be of great use in connection with the Garrison Artillery, whether in mounting for defending forts or mounting for anti-aircraft. There is no trick or catch in this measure, and there is no trying to get a large number of men for civil work. It is a direct, honest, open measure to get the men by raising the age who will be useful for military purposes, and who are required. I want to assure the hon. Member for Attercliffe and those for whom he speaks that there is no hidden trick, no catch. We had this question of industrial conscription raised throughout various Debates which we had upon different portions of this matter. We had various views about the 7 per cent. I hope that we have got the point cleared up now. The 7 per cent. of the men from forty-three years old will join the Air Force and other branches of the Service, and the 93 per cent. will remain in civil life under the various conditions which I have described.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe right hon. Gentleman has described this Bill as a perfectly honest attempt to deal with this matter without industrial conscription. I am grateful for the concessions which he has made, but may I remind him that the War Office and the Ministry of National Service insist on men who have been discharged from the Army for disability performing work of national importance, as otherwise they will be recalled for service? What is that but industrial conscription?
§ Sir A. GEDDESIt is conditional exemption.
§ Mr. HOGGEBut it means that they must perform work of national importance even if they have served. Labour is represented in the War Cabinet by the right hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes). Why cannot he have a death-
§ bed repentance and tell us what the War Cabinet thinks about this question of industrial conscription? Why is he not here? The right hon. Gentleman the Pensions Minister is here. He represents the men after they have been disabled, but the right hon. Member for Blackfriars represents them before they are disabled. Why has he been absent from all these Debates. Why has not the one man who is responsible to this House and to the Labour party in the country not had the courage to come to that bench and make a statement with regard to the Labour position in the Cabinet?
§ Mr. FLAVINHe has been stopped !
§ Mr. HOGGEDoes it mean, as my hon. Friend suggests, that somebody has prevented him from making a speech on this question? Does it mean that he is in favour of industrial conscription?
§ The CHAIRMANThere was a, misunderstanding on the part of my colleague, who was in the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman rose to speak at the same time as the hon. Member from Ireland who wished to make his maiden speech. I think that I ought not to allow that misunderstanding to remain unexplained.
§ Mr. HOGGEI am not referring to that. He was deprived of the opportunity of speaking before, but here is an occasion on which he could speak. Here is an Amendment on which we are entitled to have the view of the Cabinet as affecting labour, and the right hon. Gentleman is not here, and he leaves the question to my right hon. Friend the professor of anatomy. We are entitled to know the view of the Labour representative in the Cabinet on this matter.
§ It being Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 11th April, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 271.
177| Division No. 23.] | AYES. | [11.0 p.m. |
| Alden, Percy | Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Black, Sir Arthur W. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Bliss, Joseph | Buxton, Noel |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Boland, John Pius | Byrne, Alfred |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Leary, Daniel |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hudson, Walter | O'Malley, William |
| Clough, William | Jacobsen, Thomas Owen | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Rushcliffe) | O'Shee, James John |
| Cosgrave, James (Galway, E.) | Jowett, Frederick William | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Crean, Eugene | Joyce, Michael | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Keating, Matthew | Ponsonby, Arthur A W. H. |
| Cullinan, John | Kelly, Edward | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. | Kilbride, Denis | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Dillon, John | Kiley, James Daniel | Reddy, Michael |
| Donelan, Captain A. | King, Joseph | Redmond, Capt. W. A. |
| Donovan, John Thomas | Lambert, Richard (Cricklade) | Rowlands, James |
| Donnelly, Patrick | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Doris, William | Lundon, Thomas | Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool) |
| Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B. | ||
| Duffy, William J. | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Esmonde, Capt. J. (Tipperary, N.) | M'Ghee, Richard | Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir Charles (Mansfield) |
| Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Sheehy, David |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Maden, Sir John Henry | Smallwood, Edward |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Meagher, Michael | Snowden, Philip |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Fitzpatrick, John Lalor | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampten) |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Molloy, Michael | Watt, Henry A. |
| Guiney, John | Molteno, Percy Alport | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Worrell, Philip | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Harbison, T. J. S. | Muldoon, John | Whitty, Patrick Joseph |
| Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, South) | Nicholson, Sir Chas. N. (Doncaster) | Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Nolan, Joseph | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Nugent, J. D. (College Green) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Healy, Maurice (Cork City) | Nuttall, Harry | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Healy, Timothy M. (Cork, N.E.) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Hearn, Michael L. (Dublin, S.) | O'Doherty, Philip | |
| Helme, Sir Norval Watson | O'Donnell, Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Anderson and Mr. Thomas. |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H | O'Dowd, John | |
| Hogge, J. M. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) | Fisher, Rt. Hon. William Hayes |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Carille, Sir Edward Hildred | FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A. |
| Agnew, Sir George | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Cator, John | Fletcher, John S. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm. | Cautley, Henry Strother | Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William |
| Archdale, Lt. Edward M. | Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | Foster, Philip Staveley |
| Archer-Shee, Lt.-Col. Martin | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gastrell, Lt.-Col. Sir W. H. |
| Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.) | Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, North) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Cecil, Rt. Hen. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Gibbs, Col. George Abraham |
| Baker, Maj. Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cheyne, Sir William W. | Goldman, Charles Sydney |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City London) | Clyde, James Avon | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick | Coates, Major Sir Edward F. | Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred |
| Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.) | Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon) | Grant, James Augustus |
| Barnett, Capt. Richard W. | Collins, Sir William (Derby) | Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Colvin, Col. | Greig, Colonel James William |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.) | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Gretton, John |
| Barrie, H. T. | Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis Jones |
| Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc. E.) | Coote, William (Tyrone, S.) | Guinness, Hon. R. C. L. (Essex, S.E.) |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Haddock, George Bahr |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Cory, James H. (Cardiff) | Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Courthope, Maj. George Loyd | Hambro, Angus Valdemar |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Cowan, Sir William Henry | Hamersley, Lt.-Col. A. St. George |
| Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth) | Craig, Ernest (Crewe) | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry | Craig, Col Sir James (Down, E.) | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Hardy Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford) |
| Bird, Alfred | Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S. |
| Blair, Reginald | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beat) |
| Boles, Lt -Col. Fortescue | Denison-Pender, Capt. J. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester. E.) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith- | Denniss, Edmund R. Bartley | Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S) |
| Boyle, William L. (Norfolk, Mid.) | Dixon, Charles Harvey | Haslam, Lewis |
| Boyton, Sir James | Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Otley) | Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire) |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Du Pre, Maj. W. B. | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Edwards, A Clement (Glam., E.) | Hewins, William Albert S. |
| Brocklehurst, Col. William B. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. |
| Brookes, Warwick | Eyres-Monsell, Bolten M. | Hills, John Waller (Durham) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Faber, George D. (Clapham) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John |
| Bryce, John Annan | Faber, Col. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Bull, Sir William James | Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray | Hope, Harry (Bute) |
| Burn, Col. C R. (Torquay) | Fell, Sir Arthur | Hone, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Butcher, J. G. | Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) | Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian) |
| Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Liverpool) |
| Hunter, Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk. | Morgan, George Hay | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H. | Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | Morrison-Bell, Colonel E. (Ashburton) | Stanler, Capt. Sir Beville |
| Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Mount, William Arthur | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Aston) |
| Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.) | Newman, Major John R. P. | Staveley Hill, Lt.-Col. Henry |
| Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Stewart. Gershom |
| Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Nield, Sir Herbert | Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Norman, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Swift, Rigby |
| Kerry, Lt.-Col, Earl of | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford) |
| Keswick, Henry | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend) | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford | Parker, James (Hallfax) | Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.) |
| Lane-Fox, Major G. R. | Parkes, Sir Edward | Thomas-Stanford, Chas. (Brighton) |
| Larmor, Sir Joseph | Pearce, Sir Robert (Leek) | Thompson, Rt. Hon. Robert |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse) | Tryon, Capt. George Clement |
| Layland-Barratt, Sir F. | Pease, Rt. Hon. H. P. (Darlington) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton | Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding) | Walker, Col. W. H. |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Perkins, Walter Frank | Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince) |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Peto, Basil Edward | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Lindsay, William Arthur | Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester) | Ward, A. S Herts, Watford) |
| Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) | Warner, sir Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Lonsdale, James R. | Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. | ||
| Lowther, Claude (Eskdale) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert | Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.) |
| McCalmont, Brig -Gen. R. C. A | Randles, Sir John | Weston, John W. |
| MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon) | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Rees, Sir J. D. | Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich) |
| Macleod, John M. | Remnant, Col. Sir James F. | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Macmaster, Donald | Roberts, Rt. Hon. Geo. H. (Norwich) | Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (York) |
| McMicking, Major Gilbert | Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs.) | Wilson, Col Leslie (Reading) |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Eccresall) | Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth) |
| McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Robinson, Sidney | Winfrey, Sir R. |
| Macpherson, James Ian | Rothschild, Major Lionel de | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Royds, Major Edmund | Wood, Hon. E. F. L (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel- | Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen) | Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge) |
| Malcolm, Ian | Rutherford, Sir W. Watson (W. Derby) | Wood, S. Hill (Derbyshire) |
| Marks, Sir George Croydon | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) | Worthington Evans, Sir L. |
| Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) | Younger, Sir George |
| Meysey-Thompson, Col. E. C. | Scott. Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | |
| Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Captain Guest and Lord E. Talbot. |
| Mitchell-Thomson, W. | Shorn, Edward |
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Eleven of the clock this day.