HC Deb 19 April 1920 vol 128 cc155-83

(1) His Majesty may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council, and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaties, and for giving effect to any of the provisions of the said Treaties.

(2) Any Order in Council made under this Act may provide for the imposition, by summary process or otherwise, of penalties in respect of breaches of the provisions thereof, and shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council, and shall not be deemed to be a statutory rule within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893: Provided that, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any Order in Council made under this Act has been laid before it praying that the Order or any part thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or such part thereof, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.

(3)Any expenses incurred in carrying out the said Treaties shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "appointments "["His Majesty's Government may make such appointments"], to insert the words " other than the appointments of representatives to serve on the Council and on the Assembly of the League of Nations."

I need hardly say that His Majesty's Government means the Executive The Foreign Office makes these appointments, or, if not the Foreign Office, that strange machine consisting of the Prime Minister and Mr. Philip Kerr. In any case, as the Bill is now drawn, this House has no sort of say in the appointments. The ordinary appointments under an old fashioned treaty before the new and better world in which we now live were not of very great moment, but the present appointments are, and my Amendment at once draws attention to the new order of things in which I hope we are shortly to enter. It would mean that the appointment of representatives to serve on the Council and on the Assembly of the League of Nations would have to come to Parliament to be approved I think I have the sense of the House with me that that is very important indeed This is the proper place for this Amendment, because both the Treaties of Peace which we are now discussing include the Covenant of the League of Nations in full and word for word as it was included in the German Treaty. It is true that the Member of the Council of the League of Nations who will represent His Majesty has already been appointed, but I suggest that the Assembly of the League of Nations will be the most important body. It will be the more democratic body and the more popular assembly, and to that no appointments have yet been made. It is, I submit, most desirable that these appointments should have the approval of Parliament. That will commend itself to the supporters of the idea of the League of Nations. They will be aware of the criticism which has been made that the League is a League of Officials and not at all representative of the people. Indeed, the Lord President of the Council, in one of his outbursts of cynical candour, declared that the present Council of the League of Nations is only the Peace Conference under another name. If public opinion is not reassured these appointments will go far to stultify the whole idea of the League of Nations. We know the position taken up by the Die-Hards in the American Senate. They will not have one tittle of their sovereign authority transferred to the League. A similar objection has been put forward in our own Parliament. There is a great deal in it, and I feel sure the opponents of the League of Nations will support this Amendment. I think I have made out a case for the change, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. It will not delay the passing of the Bill into law, because I am sure hon. Members will not object to the Report Stage being taken quickly.


I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this Amendment. He was good enough to give me notice of his intention to bring it forward, and while I sympathise very warmly with the ultimate object he has in view, I am not at all clear that such an object will be served by putting such an Amendment into the Bill. In the long run these appointments, it seems undoubted, will have to be made by the Cabinet. They are not Foreign Office appointments, and they are not in the same category as any of the other appointments mentioned in the Bill. As they must be Cabinet appointments, the Cabinet is, of course, responsible to this House, which can deal with it if the appointments are not satisfactory. My hon. and gallant Friend referred, humorously, of course, to the League as a League of Officials, and he also stated that my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) had so referred to it. As I understand, however, there is only one official of the League of Nations at the present time, and that is the Secretary-General, who was appointed by the Peace Conference in Paris with the unanimous assent of the chief Allies and the Associated Powers. There is another difficulty in the nature of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. I do not see how Parliament is to register its decision in this matter. I think the House, on the whole, will be satisfied to leave these appointments to the Executive, which, after all, must be responsible for them. I had the advantage of a short conversation with the Leader of the House this afternoon on this particular point, and he also asked me to say, if I thought it necessary, that, naturally, in regard to the appointment of nominees, the utmost care would be exercised by the Government to see that the people who were appointed carried the full sympathy and concurrence of the countries concerned. Under the circumstances, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press the Amendment.


Really the Amendment is of the great possible importance. The question is whether the Assembly of the League of Nations will consist of nominees of the Governments concerned or whether they will be representatives of all the different parties in this House of Commons and in the different Parliaments. As the Treaty stands at the present time, the representatives of this country on the League of Nations will consist of simply the nominees of the Executive, and what we want is that they should be appointed just as an ordinary Select Committee is appointed by the Government with the consent of Parliament, and that they shall represent, not merely the Government side of the House, but also the Opposition side. If the representative is going to be simply a Government representative, then any change in the Government will mean a complete change in your representation on the League of Nations. What we want is that our representatives shall represent all parties in the House, because then the representation will be far more permanent than any mere Government representa- tion. But, apart from that, the really fundamental question is whether the League of Nations is to be a Parliament of Men, the Federation of the World, or whether it is to consist of nominees of the different Executives. It seems to me the success or failure of the League of Nations depends upon our decision and upon the ultimate decision of the Government as to whether the nominations are to be made by them without the authority of Parliament or whether they shall be made with the authority of Parliament. If they are made with the authority of Parliament after a vote of this House they will be representative of all parties, they will be permanent, and they will voice on the League of Nations the views of the whole of England, instead of merely those of the Foreign Office or of the Cabinet for the time being. That is one of those really fundamental questions which may make or mar the League of Nations. I have heard the criticism up and down the country moving, perhaps, more among extremists than hon. Members opposite-that this so-called League of Nations is really only a clique of nations, simply representing the old-fashioned Governments who are anxious to carry on in the future as they have in the past. We want to see the League of Nations a real embodiment of democratic feeling in all the countries of the world, and, if it' were possible to carry this Amendment, we should have the beginning of the creation of a League of Nations of that description. It is true that, when we are dealign merely with the Austrian Bill, it is difficult to put this principle into practice, but if my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to go to a Division, in order to emphasise the essential need of democratic instead of autocratic representation on

the League of Nations, I shall certainly go into the Lobby to support him.


I cannot help thinking that my hon. and gallant Friends opposite are making a very old and historic mistake in assuming that a legislative body and an executive body are the same. Surely it is for the Executive for the time being to decide who are to be the representatives of this country on the Council of the Assembly of the League of Nations.


On the Council, yes.


I speak as a warm supporter of the League of Nations, and I have just returned from Bristol, where I have been speaking in support of it. I know the objection which has just been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). It is often said by the extremists that this is a league of governments, and not a league of peoples. That might have been perfectly true before the last War, when we had three great autocratic military powers in Europe; but where are those Powers now? They are swept away, and, practically speaking, we have governments representing the people in all those countries. Where you have representative governments, and the governments represent the people, it seems to me that it is not the business of the legislative assembly but of the Government representing the people, who may be turned out by the people whenever they choose, to make these appointments, since the Government is the executive body.

Question put, " That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 168.

Division No. 88.] AYES. [9.35 p.m.
Billing, Noel Pemberton- Hirst, G. H. Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
Brace, Rt. Hon. William Hogge, James Myles Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas Holmes, J. Stanley Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bromfield, William Irving, Dan Royce, William Stapleton
Carter, W. (Not-tingham, Mansfield) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Lawson, John J. Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir 0. (Anglesey)
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.) Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Mills, John Edmund Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Galbraith, Samuel Morgan, Major D. Watts
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-
Grundy, T. W. Myers, Thomas Lieutenant-Commander Kenworthy
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Newbould, Alfred Ernest and Colonel Wedgwood.
Hartshorn, Vernon O'Connor, Thomas P.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Harris, Sir Henry Percy Oman, Charles William C.
Atkey, A. R. Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Parker, James
Baird, John Lawrence Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Baldwin, Stanley Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Perkins, Walter Frank
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. Pickering, Colonel Emil W.
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Barker, Major Robert H. Hinds, John Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Barrie, Charles Coupar Holbrook, Sir Arthur R. Purchase, H. G.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Ramsden, G. T.
Bennett, Thomas Jewell Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Borwick, Major G. O. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Reid, D. D.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) Remer, J B.
Brackenbury, Captain H. L. Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Renwick, George
Breese, Major Charles E. Howard, Major S. G. Richardson, Alexander ('Gravesend)
Broad, Thomas Tucker Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Kurd, Percy A. Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Butcher, Sir John George Inskip, Thomas Walker H. Rodger, A. K.
Campbell, J. D. G. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Jameson, J. Gordon Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Carr, W. Theodore Jephcott, A. R. Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Chadwick, R. Burton Jellett, William Morgan Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Coates, Major Sir Edward F. Jesson, C. Seager, Sir William
Coats, Sir Stuart Jodrell, Neville Paul Seddon, J. A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Johnson, L. S. Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives) Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey) Stewart, Gershom
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) Kidd, James Strauss, Edward Anthony
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy) Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) Sturrock, J. Leng
Dawes, James Arthur Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) Sugden, W. H.
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. Lister, Sir R. Ashton Sutherland, Sir William
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry Lloyd, George Butler Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Doyle, N. Grattan Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)
Edgar, Clifford B. Lonsdale, James Rolston Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Edge, Captain William Lort-Williams, J. Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.) Loseby, Captain C. E. Tryon, Major George Clement
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Lowe, Sir Francis William Vickers, Douglas
Fell, Sir Arthur Lyle, C. E. Leonard Waddington, R.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue Lyon, Laurance Wallace, J.
Foreman, Henry M'Curdy, Charles Albert Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Gardiner, James M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Glyn, Major Ralph Maddocks, Henry Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Goff, Sir R. Park Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Grant, James A. Mallalleu, F. W. Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrighton) Martin, Captain A. E. Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Green, Albert (Derby) Matthews, David Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Winterton, Major Earl
Greenwood, William (Stockport) Morison, Thomas Brash Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato
Gregory, Holman Morris, Richard Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L,
Gretton, Colonel John Murray, John (Leeds, West) Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Gritten, W. G. Howard Neal, Arthur
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hailwood, Augustine Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.
Hancock, John George Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. Dudley Ward.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I shall certainly have to vote against this. I should never hold up my head again if I did not. I took the responsibility of moving the rejection of the German Peace Treaty, and I was treated somewhat lightly by my hon. Friends. Since then, in another place, Lord Curzon has admitted that many of the Clauses of that Treaty will have to be considerably modified. I hope hon. Members will wait a few months. Our objection to these Treaties is that the whole principle on which they have been put together, especially in the case of Austria, is wrong. That principle has been that on one side of an imaginary line marked by painted posts, in other J words, a frontier, all the people are angels, and on the other side they are all devils, although they are all parts of the same country and although, in 1914, they all entered the War against us. Take the example of the parts of Poland which were former parts of the Austrian Empire. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) indicted the Bulgarian people for allowing themselves to be led away by a bad King and joining against us in the war. Bulgaria was on the fence for some time. She was finally brought over on the side of the German Alliance as the result of a very powerful diplomatic mission headed by Prince Hohenlohe. He took with him the most prepossessing and best looking of the Prussian officers with whom to influence the ladies of the Bulgarian Court, and he took a trunk full of decorations and a cold million in cash with which to influence the men. But the real diplomatic work was done by an extremely able Polish diplomat attached to the Austrian Diplomatic Service. This Polish Noble is now our faithful ally, and yet it was his brains that induced the Bulgarian Court to throw in the lot of Bulgaria against the Allies. This man is allowed to keep the War Loan which he took up with his profits made out of the war. He is now actually at Dantzig negotiating with our representative with reference to Polish interests. He will presently go to attend the Peace Conference between Soviet Russia, still our Ally in theory, and Poland. This man, up to the middle of 1918, was an enemy alien. He was struggling for the success of the Austrian cause— honestly. I do not blame him at all. Now he is a faithful and devoted Ally— all in six months. What would hon. Members say if Prince Hohenlohe the Prussian, who went with him as the head of the mission, were allowed to escape his share of the reparation which Germany, we all hope, will be made to pay?

In the settlement of Europe we should have been absolutely just, and I take the strongest exception to the policy put forward, I am sorry to say, from both Front Benches. We have no enemies in Europe to-day, as Shaw says, under the age of eight years, and it is these people who suffer by our mistakes and blunders. We ought to have been absolutely just, and we ought to have allowed no questions of strategy or racial pride to enter into the delimitation of the frontiers. If that example is not sufficient, might I point to the case of Greece and Bulgaria? Greece is getting everything—more than she deserves. What prevented King Constantine, when he had driven Venizelos into exile, when every follower of Venizelos was being beaten and hunted in the streets of Athens and Patras—what prevented Constantine, the traitor, with his German wife, who gave up his frontier fortresses to Bulgaria, from bringing Greece into the War on the side of Germany? Simply the terror of the British Fleet and the guns of the British Fleet. Nothing else. Yet because Bulgaria was away from the sea, and because that argument was not accessible to the Bulgarian Court, the Bulgarians were brought into the War against the country that in the days of Gladstone befriended them, and even created them as a State. They are treated now as beaten enemies to be crushed down. We do not wish to crush them, but the Serbs do, and Greece is treated as a spoilt darling, to have not only those parts of Bulgaria inhabited by Bulgarians, but probably parts of Asia Minor inhabited by other nationalities as well. This is what history will point to as an utterly wrong policy to pursue. What is the excuse? The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his extremely able speech, excused what even he admitted was a blot in handing over the Tyrolese to the Italians. He said it was for strategical reasons.


I did not describe it as a blot. I admitted that there were 250,000 Germans within that region, but I spoke of strategical necessity as being sometimes quite as important as self-determination.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I thought I had quoted the hon. Member correctly as saying that it was not quite what it might be. At any rate, he excused it on the ground of strategy. In other words, in these treaties abstract right does not come in; strategy does. Boundaries are arranged for strategical reasons. There is no regard to abstract right. We deny the right of some higher power over the little pigmies who arrange these treaties and attempt to barter the lives of men. These are treaties of agnostics, and so they will be reckoned in history. Our grandchildren will laugh at the elderly generals who thought that they could preserve their frontiers by mea0ns of mountains. The next war will be fought in the air, and aeroplanes will fly over frontiers whether they are marked by painted posts or whether the frontiers are the tops of alpine mountains. The outraged feelings of the people who have been sacrificed to strategical necessities will remain in the hearts of gallant people like the Tyro-lese, who have never yet been subdued, and who will never be subdued, and who, if this matter is not rectified, may yet plunge us or our children into another war. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about our grandchildren?"] I do not remember that the National Democratic party took part in this Debate, and I should be glad if they will allow me to have my say.


On a point of Order. If the hon. Member refers to me, I am not a member of the National Democratic party.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

I have noticed that the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) interrupts, and he ought not to be quite so sensitive.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Perhaps I was led away, and I withdraw at once. If the Committee pass this Bill to-night, will it preclude us later from discussing the future settlement of the Adriatic coast? We have had this discussion because it was necessary to pass the Bill. Shall we have an opportunity, if we pass the Bill, of discussing the final settlement in regard to the Adriatic? This is a matter of some importance. It has held up the settlement of the peace of the world for nearly a year, and we ought to have an opportunity of discussing it. I should also like to know whether the settlement of Albania will be brought before the House for discussion. Shall we have an opportunity of discussing that question? If we pass this Treaty with Bulgaria, shall we leave Bulgaria alone to choose her own form of government? We prevented the setting up of a republic in Bulgaria by British troops after the Armistice with Bulgaria. The Bulgarian people wished to have a republic, but that was contrary to British policy or to French policy, or some other policy, and British bayonets were used to prop up that discredited, detested dynasty of Ferdinand of Coburg, King of Bulgaria, and his people were not permitted to get rid of him. There was a glorious opportunity of getting rid of one of these offshoots of the German Royal House who was misgoverning and oppressing one of the small peoples of Europe. But that did not suit the foreign policy of the Allies. Rightly or wrongly, I suppose the explanation was that we wished at all costs to get some sort of settled government in Bulgaria, and apparently we thought that a government from above was more settled than a government chosen by the people of Bulgaria in the form of a republic. I should like to know whether, having ratified the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, we are going to leave the Bulgars to choose their own form of government freely, without molestation from us, or undue pressure.

In the previous Debate reference was made to the results of economic warfare between the 10 races and nationalities which previously formed the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and it was said by the Lord Privy Seal that it was impossible for us to dictate to these peoples what tariff barriers they should or should not put up between each other. We have not yet produced the Hungarian Treaty. It may have been before the Hungarian representatives, but it has not been before this House. It has not been signed or ratified. It is still in the melting pot. Would it be possible— I do not see why it should not be possible—to insist that there should be no economic barrier between Hungary and Austria? Hungary is one of the great wheat-growing countries of Europe, and from Hungary the workers of the Viennese factories received their wheat and were fed. We have an opportunity to put into the Hungarian Treaty a clause preventing economic war between Hungary and Austria. May I again make a suggestion which was made by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) and myself, but which was not taken up by the Lord Privy Seal, with reference to the international credits which will have to be given, and in regard to which we are making a start by the Bill which will come before the House shortly? Could not those credits be given on the condition that there is disarmament, or a reduction of armaments, rigid taxation, and good government on the part of those States which are to benefit from these international credits? Can we set an example? It is all very well our talking in the councils of the nations and advising disarmament on the part of these small peoples, but we are spending enormous sums on armaments ourselves, although we have never been safer than we are at the present time. The sea surrounds us, our prestige is tremendous, and, as the Secretary of State for War says, the terrors of our arms make for our safety. We could well afford to reduce our armaments greatly. We could then put this into the Treaty and tell them that they will not have credits until they mend their ways and settle down to work and trade with each other.

10.0 P.M.

The argument of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Chelsea, and others was that if we defeated the Government on these treaties we should delay peace, but that would be preferable to another war, and that is what these treaties mean. It would be better to remodel these treaties now before we have another war than afterwards, and it is because I believe that, and to save the certain bloodshed and revolution in these parts of the world, that I propose to vote against these treaties and to make it quite clear that the parties with which I vote are going to remodel these treaties as soon as there is a change of Government in this country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members treat this lightly, but I may remind them that a very distinguished man (President Wilson) is reported to have said that the treaties produced so far in Europe are bad and will not be altered until there is a complete change of Government in the countries that made them. The only question is whether the dissolution and despair of the democracies, the proletariats, concerned, and the agony and suffering which these treaties will cause to them will not drive them like blind Samsons to pull down the pillars of society.


I wish to join with my hon. and gallant Friend in opposing these treaties. Nine months ago we passed the German Treaty. We were told then by the Prime Minister that the conditions prevailing in Europe necessitated the rapid passing of that treaty through this House in order that Europe might become tranquil. That treaty was passed because the House took the Prime Minister at his word and believed that unless the German Treaty was passed immediately conditions in Europe would grow very much worse than they were. That treaty was passed, and what has happened since then in Europe? Chaos and revolution all over Europe as a result of the treaty which was passed without proper examination by this House. The vicious example of the treaty with Germany is repeated in this treaty, in which we have the vicious principles that after nine months of operation have produced chaos in Europe. We talk of the conditions of chaos in other countries, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon placed before us the financial conditions in this country, and pointed out the necessity for laying heavy burdens of taxation upon the people of this country merely because the treaties that have already been passed by this House have not brought Europe back to what might be called normal conditions, and it is only now—not during the War period, when our people came forward and made their great sacrifices—that we are beginning to realise what the actual cost of the War is, and we are beginning to protest, as we have had the landlord's chorus this afternoon when they heard that the land taxes should be repealed, though there was utter silence, except on the part of one individual who protested, when it was pointed out that it was intended to keep the Valuation Department going so that we might be able to place taxation on estates that fell to heirs through the death of the original owner.

Conditions in this country are merely the reflection of the conditions in Europe. During the whole of the last nine months we have been told how those conditions would improve. What has happened? For months past, the Government has been putting pound to pound that has been subscribed in this country. What for? To save the starving people of Austria. The very fact that you are splitting up their country and taking away from them their resources will keep them in conditions as bad as those which exist now, and it will necessitate giving them alms all the time. They will become the parochial institution of Europe, and you and other countries will have to subscribe. And all so soon after the time when you were told from recruiting platforms, from political platforms, even from the pulpits in churches and chapels, that these people were our deadly enemies and must be crushed into the mire, some even going so far as to maintain that there were no good Austrians or Germans, not even the newly-born children. Those statements were made from public platforms and from the pulpits and in the Press—the very Press, the very politicians, the very Ministers who were denouncing these people, are now issuing appeals to this country for subscriptions to save starving Austria. Such a ridiculous position has never been known in the history of this country. The Peace Treaty in itself is a ridiculous treaty, and, as has been stated by some hon. Members on the other side, all the treaties will require to be revised. All sane opinion outside this House and sane opinion inside the House is agreed that the Treaty which is passed already with regard to Germany will require revision. General Smuts himself made that statement, and General Botha was in agreement with him.




Immediately after the Peace Treaty was signed.


Give us a date.


I think it is something else you want given to you.


I want to know when General Smuts said that.


I am speaking without notes. If my hon. Friend wants to know, I can refer him to the Foreign Office Vote, when I read to the House the actual statement from the document signed by General Smuts, and the date upon which it was published. I cannot carry all the dates in my head, but I make the hon. Member a fair offer. I am carrying more in my head at the present moment than he is, at any rate. Dr. Sarolea, an eminent Belgian, Belgian Consul in Edinburgh, a man who stated in a letter announcing his views, that he of all men had no reason to love the Germans, that he had lost his all in the War, that his wealth had gone, and his property had been destroyed, appealed on behalf of Europe, not on behalf of Germany, for support in restoring the conditions in Europe, and he pointed out that the terms of the Treaty must be revised. Therefore, we say to the Government with this opinion forming outside, and in the Press, and being advocated from public plat- forms, and with the democracy of this country at large conferences with practical unanimity demanding the revision of the Peace Treaties with Germany—[HON. MEMBERS: " No, no! "]— it is an insult to ask this House to pass a Treaty which bears on it the hall mark of the vicious principles which are contained in the German Treaty already passed. I know we can be defeated by the Government rolling up their large majority on the same condition as some Members of the House already are to vote this Treaty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] Withdraw what? Mr. Deputy-Speaker will know if I transgress the rules and will ask me to withdraw anything against the rules, and I prefer to abide by his decision than by the decision of some hon. Members who are here to-night. We ask that these Treaties be revised and that this Treaty to-night should, if at all possible, be amended. The Government should amend it, and by passing it they are insulting the democracy who demand its revision. This Treaty, like those already passed, will require to be revised, and hon. Members who laugh to-night and who think this is merely a joke and treat the matter lightly will realise by ever-increasing taxation placed on them that the only men in the House who have visualised the situation correctly are the Labour Members and those members of the Liberal party who took a sane outlook upon this question.


As certain statements, or rather misstatements, have been made in the Debate with regard to my views and as to what I said with regard to Vienna, perhaps the House will permit me to make a personal explanation. I should like to contradict the statement that I said that the British officials at Vienna were attempting to trade. I still think that the British Mission to Vienna was run in a most satisfactory way. I never heard a single suggestion from anybody there that they were attempting to trade. If they were criticised at all it was that they were not doing sufficient in that direction, and not because they were doing too much. Representatives of other nations were, I know, doing a good deal in the commercial line, but no one ever suggested that the British representatives in Austria or in Vienna were doing anything in the way of trade or anything they should not do. I may say that my principal reason for criticising some inhabitants of Vienna was because I considered they were having a bad effect by their example of extravagance and were creating a false impression. There were a certain number of people, probably about five hundred thousand, who had money to spend, and were spending it freely in every kind of riotous extravagance, and the Austrian Government was doing nothing to prevent them doing so. The hotels are full of people spending money freely and putting up prices, and in my opinion the Austrian Government ought to stop that. Until they do take steps to stop it and to put their own house in order, it is useless our advancing them money, or people here subscribing to help them. It is impossible to help people who refuse to help themselves, and hitherto the Austrian Government, and the Viennese authorities in particular, have done nothing to help themselves. I object most strongly to the propaganda which is being advertised in this country. We see full-page advertisements of a starving woman standing amidst the ruins and holding a dead child in her arms. There are no ruins in Vienna, there are not even slums. I could point out worse slums in Mayfair than in Vienna, and the ruins are not in Vienna; the ruins are in France and Belgium, made more frequently than not by Austrian guns manned with German gunners.

Amongst the maze of misstatements which we have heard during the Debates on Vienna, two criticisms stand out predominantly. First of all, they are these, that this Peace Treaty is responsible for the dismemberment of Austria, and is causing the suffering and the misery which at present exist in Central Europe. I do not believe that if they were inquired into either of those criticisms would hold good. The misery which exists in Central Europe is not caused by the Peace Treaty, it is the direct outcome of the War. Few people, even in this country, where the democracies are supposed to be well educated, realise yet the amount of accumulated wealth which has been destroyed by five years of war. If they did realise it. I think we should hear much less talk about and much fewer demands for a higher standard of living for any or every class of the inhabitants. The fact that the people of this country are no worse off than they were before the War is due first of all to the fact that we have won the War, and therefore our credit is to all intents and purposes unimpaired, and the shortage of money and of the necessities of life which is so apparent in Central Europe is no doubt aggravated by the fact that this country as a whole is getting more than its fair share of the necessities and the comforts which still exist in a very impoverished world, but there is no truth at all in the statements and the criticisms which have been made that the Peace Treaty is responsible for the dismemberment of the former Austrian Empire. Allied propaganda during the War undoubtedly contributed to the break up of the Austrian Empire, but then we did not win the War by such a large margin that we could afford to neglect anything that we could turn to our advantage, and we know now that one can win a war better by causing discontent amongst the civilian population than you can by defeating their armies in the field. For more than a century past the Austrian Empire has been like a charged mine, like a loaded shell. The Allied propaganda was the detonator which actuated the explosion, and once that explosion had taken place the Peace Conference at Versailles could no more put the Austrian Empire together again than they could reassemble the fragments of an exploded shell. The Austrian Empire never was a homogeneous entity. It was never anything better than an ill-assorted community of nations, which had been forced into some semblance of unity by Turkish oppression five, six or seven hundred years ago. When the danger of the Turk passed away, the tendency to disintegration began at once. The Austrian Empire, 120 years ago, was on the verge of dismemberment. The Napoleonic Wars and the rise of the French Republic checked that for a time, but for fifty years now the only two things that have held the Austrian Empire together have been the prestige of the army and the personality of the late Emperor. One is shattered and the other is dead. A common danger perhaps may force them into union again. It can never be done by Treaty. Any attempt to force countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Jugo-Slovakia, now free from Austria, into union with Austria, again, would only lead to an immediate civil war.

The principal difficulty with which Austria is confronted now is economic. The Government, as I said before, is a monument of incapacity, and I very much fear it is corrupt. But it is the fall in the Exchange; it is the fall in the value of the Austrian currency that has caused and is aggravating so many of their difficulties. As things stand at the present time, they cannot buy anything from abroad. No one will take their money. They are not economic barriers which stand in their way; it is simply that of cash. We hear of Czecho-Slovakia having 200,000 tons of surplus sugar and refusing to sell it to Austria. That is absolutely inaccurate. They were prepared to sell that sugar to anybody for money, but they were not prepared to give it away. They were prepared to sell it for gold, but to sell it and take Austrian notes in exchange was to all intents and purposes giving it away. The Czecho-Slovakian exchange was depreciated to an extent about half as much as Austria, and it was absolutely necessary for their own economic salvation to sell what goods they had in the market, where they could either get the money or the commodities they required in exchange. From Austria they could get neither, and therefore they rightly, in my opinion, refused to give away goods, which they needed for their own economic salvation, to another country. It is the same with other commodities. They will sell, but not give away. Conditions in Austria at present are so bad that money is worthless, and the Government are making it worse by all sorts of artificial and useless restrictions. They are driving the peasantry on the borders to sell their cows to the Swiss, because they have fixed the maximum price of milk so low that it is infinitely below the cost of production itself. The industrial worker in the town is having his wages raised twenty or thirty times, and he brings out paper money to purchase goods which is utterly worthless. At present the peasant works from dawn to dusk, and in towns they have passed a law limiting the hours of labour to seven. The peasant has made up his mind and told the Government in no measured terms that he is not going to work sixteen hours a day to enable the industrial worker in the town to work seven, and I do not think anyone can reasonably blame him

There is one very serious defect in the Peace Treaty, and that is that the amount of the indemnity has not been fixed. I cannot urge upon the Government too strongly to correct that omission at the earliest possible moment. It is impossible to expect the people to work and do their best until they know how much of the fruits of their labour they are to be allowed to keep themselves, and how much they are to give up in the form of indemnity. Until they do their best both in the factory and the field we cannot hope to see any material improvement in the economic conditions. Until that is done they will not set to and seriously work. What they need before everything, or as much as everything else, is to get the peace ratified, and then they will know where they are. They want to know-how much they are expected to pay, and they will know it when the amount is settled, and it is this I am endeavouring to impress on the Government. Once that is done there is some chance of there being an improvement in the state of affairs which at present exists in Central Europe. I give my most cordial support to the Government on the understanding that at the. very earliest moment the amount which Austria has to pay towards the indemnity is definitely decided and announced.


I think it will suit the convenience of the House if at this stage I reply in a very few sentences to the speeches which have been made on the Third Reading. If I am exceedingly brief it will not be out of any discourtesy to hon. Members who have spoken, for in point of fact most of the points raised this evening are similar in character to those raised on the Second Reading Debate. [AN HON. MEMBER: "And not answered! "] For myself, I have very little to add to what I said the other day. I am very glad that my hon. Friend who has just sat down has had an opportunity of correcting an impression that I am afraid I created, in supposed derogation of the British Mission in Vienna. It was an entire error on my part, and I am very-glad he has had the opportunity of making the situation clear. May I address myself for one moment to the speech of the hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite (Mr. N. Maclean)? I myself find it very difficult to follow the kind of reasoning that underlay his speech this evening. He said in one part of his speech that the ratification of the terms of the Peace Treaty was followed by chaos and revolution in Germany. Those, perhaps, are not the exact words, but that was his meaning. Surely he would not say that the chaos and revolution that have prevailed in Germany lately have had any relation whatever to the Peace Treaty?


When I spoke of responsibility for these conditions, I did not mean the terms of the Treaty itself, or the wording of the Treaty. I referred to the conditions which accompanied the putting into operation of the Treaty, the economic conditions were responsible for the. feeling of unsettlement that gave rise to the attempts at revolution in various parts of the country.


But surely the economic conditions in Germany and Austria are due to the fact that those countries have been conducting for five years a gigantic War in which they have not come off victorious. That, after all, is the main cause. The Peace Conference, as it seems to me, was confronted with an immeasurable difficulty in the state of Europe. Really, they did not create worse economic conditions. On the whole they endeavoured to correct them. The people of this country are in an advantageous position in this respect. We have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day, and on other occasions, that we are at present economically in a more prosperous state than any of the belligerents in the late War. I wonder what the democracy of France feel with regard to the revision of the German Peace Treaty. I have studied that question, and I see the French press, and I do not read of any suggestion in France that the terms of the Peace Treaty with Germany should be revised. I think we ought to be extremely careful what we say on this question. It is all very well to assume a ' generous air, and say that we can afford to be generous, but there are other parties to this immense transaction who have suffered more than ourselves and even more than the Germans themselves. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) asked me one or two questions. He asked whether we should be able to discuss the Adriatic settlement and Albania. Those two subjects are amongst the topics that have now come up for settlement at San Remo. I do not suppose the House will have any opportunity of discussing those questions before the settlement is announced, but we can feel quite sure that they are receiving the fullest attention.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Shall we. by passing this Treaty, abrogate our right to discuss the settlement with those parts of the Austrian Empire not included in the Treaty?


I should say not, but I am not an authority on the forms of the House. A question has been raised about interfering with the form of the government in Bulgaria. I have never heard the suggestion that His Majesty's Government should interfere with the form of government suited to Bulgaria. Another suggestion made was that in framing the terms of the Hungarian Treaty we should either persuade or compel Hungary to enter into free trade relations with Austria. In the discussion the other day that point was raised, I believe, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). In the first place, I observe that any compulsion on such a question would be a very serious trespass on any kind of principle of self-determination, and I cannot imagine anyone compelling them to adopt a system of tree trade.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Are we not dictating a peace to them? We have insisted upon the principle of self-determination in the case of other countries, and why not in this instance?


We do not over ride sovereign rights in those countries. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that we have had a great deal of discussion in regard to the Irish people, who have very peculiar views in regard to this principle. Another suggestion made was that inasmuch as credits are being provided by the Allies and Associated Powers, and I hope by neutral Powers, for the relief of Central Europe, that the money power should be used to persuade or compel these small new States to disarm. As a matter of fact, as the Leader of the House pointed out, the Allies and Associated Powers are making use of those credits in that way. Where, for instance, one of those States is disposed to deprive German Austria of her ligitimate trade, then the Allies have said they will not give them any credit until they have made their way in this respect. The Leader of the House stated that specifically the other day. Here, again, I would venture to remark that to compel, or to seek to compel, a Sovereiga State, however desirable the consummation might be, would be a grave infraction of the law and principle of self-determination. Indeed, I find it difficult to understand how it is that hon. Gentlemen, who set almost a superstitious value on that principle, are so swift to invade it when it suits their argument. The Allies and His Majesty's Government have been blamed for many things in connection with these extremely difficult transactions, but they would have incurred, and they would have earned, the combined condemnation of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, if they had ventured on these wild experiments in the direction of compelling Sovereign States to do things which no, doubt would be very good for them, but which they do not happen to regard with favour at the present time. I understand that there is important business to follow, and I venture, very respectfully, to ask the House to give us this Bill now.


I have listened with considerable interest, not only to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but also to the hon. and gallant Member sitting below me (Colonel L. Ward). I happened to enter the House when he was giving the reasons for the present condition in Austria, and I really thought that it was a discussion on a Bill much nearer home. He told us that the men in that country refused to work more than a certain number of hours, and he said that one of the main reasons of the trouble was that Austria was flooded with paper money. That equally applies to our own country. We are all in this world suffering from the same disease, and it is the Government of the country that, taking courage in both hands, endeavours to enforce what, in their opinion, is in the best interests of civilisation in general, which, being egoists, all naturally believe to be the policy that is best for their own country, that will eventually come out of the present chaotic world conditions best. All these treaties suffer from one fault. Every Prime Minister and every Government that sits down and endeavours to make any terms for a world settlement has on the one hand capitalism and on the other Bolshevism, and they fall between those two alternatives.


It is a pity you are not Prime Minister.


It may be that there is some truth in the hon. Gentleman's statement. No Government can exist without the capitalist principle. They must appeal to the capitalist to get their munitions of political war. They must have their party funds, and they must make a direct appeal either to the landlords or the great commercial men. They make their appeal to the large landlords by considering their interests, and they make an appeal to the nouveau riche by giving them positions of alleged honour in the State. Under these circumstances when any question of a Peace Treaty arises they have to give this matter grave consideration and they feel this. In the case of Austria and Germany we have taken power and very rightly so as victors in the War, because no matter whether we have lost the peace or not we may take unction to ourselves that we have won the War, not through political righteousness or integrity or foresight, but through the efforts of our rank and file—we have taken power to consider whether we should press Austria and Germany to pay. They may eventually pay, but it is felt that if they are pressed too hardly they may turn round and say, "It is not worth while." Even the capitalists of Austria and Germany may lose heart and there will then arise that great reactionary spirit of unrest that is passing over all the nations of the world, and it will foster Bolshevism—or, in other words, democracy gone mad. It is for this House to decide whether we shall play into the hands of capitalism and support the Government in not pressing too hardly on the countries which rightly should pay for the War. Hon. Members who were here in this House last Parliament will remember that while the War was in progress the universal feeling was that if we could insist on the strength of right Germany and Austria must pay, because, unprovoked, they threw the world into this state of chaos and caused the sacrifice of millions of lives for their own political and commercial aggrandisement. They ought, no doubt, to pay. But then we are faced with the fact that neither Germany nor Austria can possibly pay as at present situated. They are both economically bankrupt. A wave of depression is passing over those countries. After all, Germans and Austrians, as nations, are far harder workers than we are. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no! "] Yes; and so, too, are the Belgians and the ' French. Prior to the War, man for man, they were greater producers than we were. Anyone who has travelled in Belgium knows that before the War Belgian mechanics used to work seven days a week. Did the British mechanic work twelve hours a day? I am not suggesting that he should; I am stating the fact. But if the country had come to such a state that, unless we produced we died, then it would be simply a question that the British mechanic must work twelve hours a day—


May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Gentleman is entitled to discuss the working hours of Belgians and Germans in connection with a Treaty between Austria and this country?


The hon. Member is being allowed a great deal of licence.


The point I was endeavouring to make was as to the capacity of the country, the Peace Treaty with which we are now discussing, is capable of paying or not. I suggest to the Government and to hon. Members of this House that we must not be led away by the propaganda which is appearing in the Press as to the inability of Austria to pay. I am sure there are many old ladies of both sexes who read these full-page advertisements of " Starving and destitute Austria " who, were they asked, would say, " How can she pay?" I saw a photograph in the " Sunday Pictorial " of a little dying child, which represents Austria; and they will return a Member to this Parliament pledged to betray us in our Peace Treaty. We must fight that with all our strength, and make up our minds that Germany and Austria have transgressed the law of nations, and have proved guilty in this War. The Peace Treaty now, in the case of Germany, is being enforced with a lax hand, because—


We are not now discussing Germany.


The danger in the case of Austria is that there is a tendency in the Government to suggest that she is utterly unable to pay for the damage she has done to the world. I am confident that Austria will be able to pay. I do not think she will be able to pay to-day or to-morrow, but that she will be able to pay eventually there is no possible doubt, and we should not permit ourselves to be led aside by any false ideas. If Austria suffers, she must suffer; but I would sooner see her suffering and paying 10s. of every £ she produces, so that the Prime Minister might not be able to have an excuse to say that he cannot provide for the widows and orphans of the men who died fighting her in the interests of the freedom of the world. We are absolutely bankrupt, but we do not admit it. Our paper money stands higher, possibly, than Austria's, but there is no reason why we should give way in these matters, or why we should not be able to redeem our pledges to the men who have fought and beaten Austria, and should offer her terms of peace which are not compatible with the victory we have won or the crime she has committed. We said all these things about Austria before the War, and to-day any questions as to what terms we should offer Austria and how we should offer them find scant attention either in the country or in the House. We all concentrate now on how we ourselves are going to make good. I make this appeal to the Government that in their desire not to disturb the capitalist principle in this world, in their desire not to tax too heavily the patience or the ability of these people to whom we are now dictating—it is quite useless for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that we are not dictating, because if we are not we ought to be, because dictators, as a rule, have the right to dictate—and to these people to whom we are now dictating terms of peace do not continue to give the capitalist point of view too much consideration. Do not be frightened by the bogey of Bolshevism which presumably will sweep through Austria in the event of making your terms too hard or insisting on their fulfillment. There is something even worse than Bolshevism, and that is failing to apprecite the obligations which exist to the men who have fought and suffered in this War and surrendering the great principle that is involved to-day. Capitalism has had its run.


Is the hon. Member speaking from the point of view of a capitalist or a Labour Member?


I am neither a capitalist nor a Labour Member. I make this final appeal to the Government not to give

too much weight to the point of view of capitalist interests in the question of peace terms, because if they do they may yet find their effort abortive, and they may find that, not in the country they are considering, but even in this country, where the feeling of Labour is very strong in these matters, although not quite so demonstrative as it is in the nation to Which we are referring, they may breed Bolshevism.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time"

The House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 26.

Division No. 89.] AYES. [10.55 p.m.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Hallwood, Augustine Oman, Charles William C.
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Hancock, John George O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Atkey, A. R. Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) Parker, James
Baird, John Lawrence Harris, Sir Henry Percy Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Baldwin, Stanley Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Perkins, Walter Frank
Banbury, Bt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Barker, Major Robert H. Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Hinds, John Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Bennett, Thomas Jewell Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Prescott, Major W. H.
Borwick, Major G. O. Holbrook, Sir A. R. Purchase, H. G.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon, Charles W. Holmes, J. Stanley Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Brackenbury, Captain H. L. Hood, Joseph Reid, D. D.
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Remer, J. R.
Breese, Major Charles E. Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) Renwick, George
Broad, Thomas Tucker Hopkins, John W. W. Robinson, s. (Brecon and Radnor)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Butcher, Sir John George Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Rodger, A. K.
Campbell, J. D. G. Howard, Major S. G. Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Carr, W. Theodore Hurd, Percy A. Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Chadwick, R. Burton Inskip, Thomas Walker H. Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Coates, Major Sir Edward F. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Seager, Sir William
Coats, Sir Stuart Jameson, J. Gordon Seddon, J. A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Jephcott, A. R. Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Jodrell, Neville Paul Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Johnson, L. S. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Stewart, Gershom
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives) Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Sturrock, J. Leng
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey) Sugden, W. H.
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) Kidd, James Sutherland, Sir William
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy) Lister, Sir R. Ashton Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Dawes, James Arthur Lloyd, George Butler Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Doyle, N. Grattan Lort-Williams, J. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Edge, Captain William Loseby, Captain C. E. Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.) Lyle, C. E. Leonard Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Lyle-Samuel, Alexander Tryon, Major George Clement
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Lyon, Laurance Vickers, Douglas
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. Waddington, R.
Foreman, Henry Mallalleu, F. W. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Galbraith, Samuel Marriott, John Arthur Ransome Weston, Colonel John W.
Gange, E. Stanley Matthews, David Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.
Gardiner, James Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert
Glyn, Major Ralph Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Goff, Sir R. Park Morrison, Hugh Winterton, Major Earl
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) Murray, John (Leeds, West) Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato
Green, Albert (Derby) Murray, Major William (Dumfries) Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Neal, Arthur Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Greenwood, William (Stockport) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Younger, Sir George
Gregory, Holman Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Gretton, Colonel John Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Gritten, W. G. Howard O'Connor, Thomas P. Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Billing, Noel Pemberton- Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Brace, Rt. Hon. William Entwistle, Major C. F. Hartshorn, Vernon
Bromfield, William Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Hirst, G. H.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Grundy, T. W. Hogge, James Myles
Lawson, John J. Morgan, Major D. Watts Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Lunn, William Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin) Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.) Royce, William Stapleton Lieutenant-Commander Kenworthy
Mills, John Edmund Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) and Mr. Myers.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Forward to