§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
§ Mr. LANSBURYI desire to move the rejection of the Bill. I do so because it is primarily concerned with the perpetuation of an Army and an Air Force in the country, and I wish to oppose the establishment of both, and I think I shall be able to show some reasons for that. For centuries armies and navies have been established in the world for the purpose of preserving peace. We are continually told, and we were told before the last War, that to be thoroughly prepared for war was the greatest guarantee that peace would ensue. This country had the biggest Navy—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)I gather that the hon. Member is wishing to move that there should not be an Army in this country at all. But it has been decided by a Vote of this House that so many men and so much money on account shall be granted to His Majesty, and that has been confirmed by the Consolidated Fund Bill. The only question before the House on this Bill is whether the Army shall be a disciplined force, or a force without discipline.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIf I am to choose whether I am to argue for no Army at all, or for an Army without discipline, then I will argue for an Army without discipline as the lesser of two evils, and then, as I think Mr. Speaker Lowther once said, it would be no Army at all. If, as he ruled, it would be in order 1022 thus to argue, I propose to do so this evening. The Army as at present constituted is a disciplined body. It is disciplined mainly by fear. Everyone who knows anything about the Army, either from the inside or from the outside, is perfectly aware that the one thing which holds it together, and makes men submit to the iron discipline, is the fear of death. During times of war it is the death penalty that keeps men up to the scratch, so to speak, to endure all that they have to endure during the hell of war; arid, further, the Army is recruited also by economic fear, fear of men's livelihood. I think an Army is futile, anyhow the purposes of an Army are futile, and I think, further, that, supposing a country is in need of defence, the people who should defend it are those who really love it so much that they feel they are ready to give their lives for it, and I think the armies as at present constituted are armies that are built up (me fear and are kept in being through fear. Then I think, instead of having an Army of the age that we have it nose, the Army should be a much older one.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn a point of Order. Is not the hon. Member infringing your riding, that there cannot be any question as to whether or not we ought to have an Army? is he not now saying that if there was no discipline there would not he any Army, and is that not technically art argument which results in there being no Army at all?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI was waiting for the hon. Member to connect his argument with my ruling. I was giving him a certain measure or time.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I put it to you, Sir, that the right hon. Baronet is not quite right in his submission? Are we not now discussing 1023 the measure of discipline to be allowed in the Army and the means for ensuring it, and is not that quite in order? It does not raise the question of the existence of the Army.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERFrequent rulings have been given that any such matters of detail must be reserved for Committee. The question on Second Reading is not whether the present discipline of the Army is the most perfect discipline or whether there should be an Army. The question is whether, as there is an Army, that Army should he a disciplined or an undisciplined force.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODCould we understand why it is that on this particular Bill the debate on the Second Reading is so circumscribed? In the case of any other Bill anything in the Bill is open to discussion on the Second Reading. You have alluded to previous rulings. On what grounds have they been given? Is it not because previously it has always been accepted that an Army should be in existence and that it should be disciplined? Is it not possible, now that hostility to that position is taken up, that we should get back to the normal position of being entitled to discuss on the Army (Annual) Bill everything that is in the Army (Annual) Bill?
§ Mr. LANSBURYBefore you reply to that, Sir, being almost a new Member again, not having been here for so many years, I did not feel quite qualified to raise the question on the point of Order. I have studied, as far as I can, the rules here given us to guide us as to what we may or may not do, and I find on page 146 that on the Second Reading of a Bill a Member may do so and so, and I am told the Second Reading stage of a Bill is the proper stage for discussing the principle of the Bill as distinguished from its details, and an argument which at this stage enters into the details of a Bill further than is necessary to explain its principle will be stopped as irregular. I should like to ask, can the Speaker of this House, by giving a decision, override the printed rules of this House? Then I should like to call your attention to what appears in May's "Parliamentary Practice"—
A complete code of military law was formerly re-enacted by each sessional Mutiny Bill, but in the year 1879 this legislative 1024 necessity was obviated and a permanent Act was passed for the discipline and regulation of the Army, though to secure the right of Parliament "—The rights of Parliament are vested in us individually and collectively, and what is the privilege of Parliament is the privilege of an individual Member—though to secure the right of Parliament to give or withhold its assent to a standing Army the permanent Act is inoperative unless it be put in force by an Annual Act, to which under established constitutional usage only twelve months' duration is given. By this limitation, the Commons. in addition to their control over the number of the naval and military forces, and the yearly sums to be appropriated to their support, reserve to themselves the power of determining whether a standing Army shall he kept on foot. On the Second or Third Reading of an Army (Annual) Bill, debate on the general purposes of the Army and the policy by which it is administered, the enforcement of the existing Army Regulations, or of the conduct of troops in war is out of order.The first part of this statement by Sir Erskine May quite definitely says that Parliament, by compelling us to come year after year to this House with a smaller Bill in order to make the bigger Act operative has reserved to individual Members and to Parliament collectively the right on this occasion of saying whether or not it will have a standing Army.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member has shown that he is not quite so inexperienced in arguing this question as in his modesty he has led the House to suppose. I have to say in reply, that there is an unwritten as well as a written volume and body of rulings whereby the procedure of this House is governed. When I say unwritten, I mean that it is not expressed in any Standing Order but, as I presume is the case in common law, by a number of previous decisions.. On this point it has been made perfectly clear that neither the existence of the Army nor its existing administration, can be called into question on the Second Reading of this Bill. I think hon. Members fail to note the distinction between the question whether there should be an Army, which is decided in the first place in Committee of Supply and confirmed by the Consolidated Fund Bill and ultimately by the Appropriation Bill, and the question whether the Army should be a disciplined force. The House has already decided that there should be an 1025 Army. By this Bill it provides for its discipline and by a long series of rulings details of that discipline must be discussed on the Committee stage.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI am afraid that I must ask if you will kindly tell me when the point that I have endeavoured to raise was decided by the Speaker. I have gone through the rulings on this question, and if I have missed one, I am perfectly willing to try and make my speech on the other aspect of the question. There are lots of rulings to say that we may not discuss discipline on the Second Reading of this Bill, and that we may not discuss the kind of discipline; but there is no ruling dealing with what Erskine May lays down as the safeguard which this Bill gives to Parliament, of saying whether or not it will have a standing Army. So far as my knowledge and investigation goes, there has never been any ruling given on that point, and I think it ought to he given to-night.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe ruling is to be found, by implication, at any rate, in the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lowther, to which the hon. Member referred. But apart from that, the House has already this Session confirmed the existence of an Army, by granting to His Majesty a certain number of men and a certain amount of money to maintain those men. That is provisionally confirmed by one Act of Parliament, and it will in due course be confirmed again by the Appropriation Act at the end of the Session. If it were possible now to review that decision, it would completely stultify the former decision of the House.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWe are entitled, I take it, to divide against this Bill.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERYou are.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIf we can get a majority, we can upset everything which we did a fortnight ago in reference to men and money.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIf this Bill were defeated, His Majesty would still be entitled to the services of a certain number of men and to the money to maintain them, but there would he no power, except that, I presume, of persuasion, to maintain discipline over the forces.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODAre you quite correct in saying—[HON. MEMBERS: 1026 "Order!"]—that we have actually voted the money for the Army? Is it not a fact that we have only passed the Committee stage? [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] Have we passed the Report stage, too? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes! "]
§ Mr. LANSBURYIt may be true that we have voted the money and the men, but am I not right in saying that if this Bill by any accident were not passed, none of that would become operative? [HON. MEMBERS "No! "] Sir Erskine May says that that is so, and he is a greater authority than anyone on that side or this side of the House. It would be wise for you to allow me to move the Adjournment of the House. This is a Constitutional point that ought to be settled. if I am entitled to vote against a Measure, I am entitled in this House to give reasons why I vote against the Measure. We are not to be governed by unwritten rules in a matter of this kind. I can understand unwritten rules in regard to the courtesies and amenities of this place, but it is a most extraordinary position to take up to say that unwritten rules are to override the written rules of this House.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt is not my business to justify the traditional procedure of this House. It is my business to enforce it. I must ask the hon. Member if he has any further observations to make, to make them in accordance with the ruling which I have given.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThat may be right, but I do not think that even you, Sir, ought to talk of tradition in this matter. It is not a matter of tradition. It is quite a recent innovation in the arrangements of this House. Mr. Speaker Lowther is not a traditional Speaker. He was the predecessor of the present Speaker in that Chair. This is something, apparently, which has grown up. Formerly there was a Mutiny Bill. It came forward year after year. In order to expedite business—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIf the hon. Member wished to make a protest against the existence of a standing army, his opportunity was on the Committee stage and the Report stage of Vote A of the Army Estimates. The question was then settled, as far as this Session is concerned.
§ Mr. LANSBURYYou, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, continually say that one thing, 1027 and I continually put to you the fact that, according to the rules of the House, when a Bill comes up for Second Reading, we are entitled to discuss the principle of the Bill. I am told now that, because of custom, I am not allowed to do so. I have a great respect for some custom, but I have no respect for custom that overrules the law. The rules of this House say that you can discuss the principles of the Bill.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is now making an attack on the settled procedure of this House. That would not be in order. I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the question whether or not there should be
| Division No. 74.] | AYES | [11.50 p.m. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hardie, George D. | Phillipps, Vivian |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hastings, Patrick | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Barnes, A. | Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) | Pringle, W. M, R. |
| Berkeley, Captain Reginald | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bonwick, A. | Herriotts, J. | Ritson, J. |
| Bread, F. A. | Hirst, G. H. | Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) |
| Buchanan, G. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Saklatvala, S. |
| Buckle, J. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Simpson, J. Hope |
| Burgess, S. | Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) | Snell. Harry |
| Cape, Thomas | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Sullivan, J. |
| Collins, Pat (Walsall) | Lansbury, George | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Lawson, John James | Warne, G. H. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Leach. W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Foot, Isaac | Linfield, F. C. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gosling, Harry | Lowth, T. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | McLaren, Andrew | White, H. G. (Birkenhead. E.) |
| Greenall, T. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Whitetey, w. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Maxton, James | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Millar, J. D. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Groves, T. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Newbold, J. T. W. | Wright, W. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton) | Nichol, Robert | |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn. |
| Harbord, Arthur |
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Button, H. S. | Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Cadogan, Major Edward | Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Campion. Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Eyres-Monsell, Cam. Bolton M. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Fawkes, Major F. H. |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Furness. G. J. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Clarry, Reginald George | Garland, C. S. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Clayton, G. C. | Goff. Sir R. Park |
| Banks, Mitchell | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. |
| Barnston, Ma)or Harry | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Gwynne, Rupert S. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Cope, Major William | Halstead, Major D. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Cory, sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) | Harvey, Major S. E. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Curzon. Captain Viscount | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Brown, J. w. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Du Pre. Colonel William Baring | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Bruford, R. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Ednam, Viscount | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Hiley, Sir Ernest |
| Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) | Ellis, R. G. | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. |
| Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
§ discipline in the Army; otherwise I shall have, to request him to resume his seat.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I move the Adjournment of the House? This is so important a matter that the House ought to take time to discuss it, but not at this late hour.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member wish to move the Adjournment of the Debate?
§ Mr. LANSBURYI beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ Mr. NEWBOLDI beg to second the Motion.
§ Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 73 Noes, 155.
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Newman, Colonel I. R. P. (Finchley) | Russell, William (Bolton) |
| Hood, Sir Joseph | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. |
| Houfton, John Plowright | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Sandon, Lord |
| Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C, K. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Skelton, A. N. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. | Parker, Owen (Kottering) | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Hume, G. H. | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Sparkes, H. W. |
| Hume-Williams, sir W. Ellis | Penny, Frederick George | Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. |
| Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Stott, Lt.-Col. w. H. |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Perring, William George | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Kinloch-Cooke, sir Clement | Philipson, Hilton | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Raeburn, Sir William H. | Sutcliffe, T. |
| Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. | Raine, W. | Sykes, Major-Gen, sir Frederick H. |
| Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Lorimer, H. D. | Remer, J, R. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Lumley, L. R. | Rentoul, G. S. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Manville, Edward | Reynolds, W. G. W. | Winterton, Earl |
| Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. | Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. | Wise, Frederick |
| Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Richardson, Lt -Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) | Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.) | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Molloy, Major L. G. S. | Rogerson, Capt. J. E. | |
| Morden, Col. W. Grant | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. | Colonel Gibbs and Captain King. |
| Nail, Major Joseph | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI should like to explain to the House—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)I would remind the hon. Member that his speech on the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate does not, entitle him to speak again on the Main Question.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI should like, for one moment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I only rose to say, Captain FitzR.oy, that I Was not going to argue the proposition, but to reserve what it had to say.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
§ Mr. LANSBURYThat is all I wanted to do. I wished to say that I was not attempting to try to make a speech for an undisciplined army. I wanted to make a speech against any army, any air force, or any fighting force at all, I hope, before the Session is through, to find another opportunity of doing so. I do not take back at all anything I have said as to my right to discuss it now, but as Mr. Deputy-Speaker has decided against me, I must submit to his ruling.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe Under-Secretary for War moved the Second Reading of this Bill by a slight inclination of his head. I must say that I was very disappointed. I had hoped to hear him give us a few reasons for the changes in the Army Act which are en- 1030 shrined in this quite considerable Bill. As he omitted that, I think I am in order in asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for an explanation on one or two points—
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn a point of Order. Is not that contravening the ruling which was given in April, 1914, by Mr. Speaker Lowther? This is his ruling:
The general purposes and the policy which administers the general purposes of the Army could not be discussed on this Bill. That is a matter of administration which must be discussed upon a suitable Army Estimate. Whether it be the Army Council or any particular point which any hon. Member wishes to raise, it is a matter of administration. This simply continues to enact military low which governs the Army.That being so, the hon. and gallant Member cannot raise the point which he has just endeavoured to make.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYOn the point of Order. I think I am entitled to say a word, because the right hon. Baronet is a little previous. He did not wait to hear what I was going to say. It has just been ruled by Mr. Deputy-Speaker that the question of whether we should have a disciplined Army is in Order. That main question I do not propose to discuss, but I think I am in order in referring to the question of discipline in the Army in reference to Section 14, and in asking, quite briefly, for some explanation of this Section, which deals with that very point, which we are in order in discussing.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt ought not to be necessary to explain to the House that the object of this Bill is to give legal authority to the military law which governs the discipline in the Army for a further 12 months. That military law, which governs the discipline of the Army, it is not in order to discuss on the Second Reading of this Bill.
§ 12 M.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThank you, Sir. At first sight it might not appear necessary to explain Clause 14, until one looks more closely into it. I put it to you, Sir, and to the Under-Secretary, that there is a new principle raised here altogether. We have had, in this Army Bill on previous occasions, no question raised at all about Mandates. It is here stated that in order to maintain discipline in the Army it is necessary to pass Clause 14, which gives the same power to enforce military discipline in Mandated territories as in British Protectorates. This Clause is quite superfluous, because we have to-day in time of peace armies outside the British Empire altogether and outside mandated territories in which discipline, for all we know, is successfully enforced. There is the Army of the Black Sea, at present mostly stationed at Constantinople or at the entrance to the Dardanelles.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn a point of Order. Is not what takes place in Constantinople a question of administration, and therefore should it not le raised, according to Mr. Speaker Lowther's ruling, upon Votes in Supply or upon another occasion?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I put it to the right hon. Baronet that he is not correct on this occasion? This is not a question of administration at all. I am not criticising the stationing of the Army in the Black Sea or at Chanak or at Constantinople, nor am I raising a question of the internal order of that force, but the question of whether it is possible to enforce discipline in that force in the Black Sea without special amendment of the Army (Annual) Act. I am arguing that this Clause is unnecessary for the reasons I shall presently give.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)In explaining the principles of the Bill, I ought to have added that the 1032 various clauses deal with amendments to the existing military law which governs the discipline in the Army and Air Force. It would be in order though not customary on Second Reading to discuss the actual amendments with which the different Clauses in this Bill deal.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThank you, Sir. I will therefore explain why Clause 14 is unnecessary. We have had no question at all, so far as I know, about the possibility of enforcing discipline in the Army of the Black Sea. At present it is stationed on territory outside the British Empire, and not even in a mandated territory. Why is it suddenly discovered, in the year 1923, after we have been exercising a mandate in some cases for three and a half years, with large bodies of troops stationed in mandated territory, that we need to extend the special provisions of this Act as applied to the British Empire to the mandated territory? Has some legally-minded defender in a court-martial raised this point on behalf of his "friend "? Anything that touches mandates should be looked upon, late as the hour is, with very great circumspection. The whole system of mandates is suspect., and if we are going to attempt to bring the discipline of the Army in mandated territories in the same purview as special arrangements for preserving discipline within the Empire, which I do not discuss at all, we again open ourselves to the attacks that are made upon us with reference to our mandates altogether. This is a point of great substance, and I think it is my duty to raise it and to press for an answer.
§ Mr. MAXTONI would like, if I am in order, to raise the question of the prices laid down under the Schedule to be paid to persons who have to billet soldiers.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I draw attention to the ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker on 12th April, 1920, as follows:
It has not been the practice upon the Second Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill to have general discussions. No question on the general purposes of the Army can be debated. No question as regards the policy and administration of the Army or with regard to courts-martial can be raised. All these matters should be discussed, and always have to he discussed. in Committee and not on Second Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1920; col. 1480, Vol. 127.]1033 Therefore, I maintain that what the hon. Gentleman is going to raise cannot be raised now.
§ Mr. J. JONESThey shun the light, because their deeds are evil.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI submit that any quest-ion as regards the policy and administration of the Army is out of order on this occasion.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt is quite clear that matters of detail in regard to prices and Schedules in this Bill would not be in order on Second Reading, but would be suitable for discussion on the Committee stage.
§ Captain BERKELEYIt is very important that we should have some kind of an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for War on the point that has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It really is a point of substance, this question of the inclusion of provisions with regard to mandated territories, because it seems to me that it involves a further extension of the principle, which I regard as a somewhat pernicious one, of dealing with offences against military discipline by field general court-martial. I am aware—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThis particular Clause removes any doubt that may have existed beforehand, so that it does not appear to me that any detailed discussion can arise on it here.
§ Captain BERKELEYSubject to your correction, as I understood the proposi-
| Division No.75.] | AYES. | [12.11 a.m. |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Button, H. S. | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Cadogan, Major Edward | Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. |
| Baird Rt. Hon. sir John Lawrence | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Fawkes, Major F. H. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Clarry, Reginald George | Foot, Isaac |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Clayton, G. C. | Furness, G. J. |
| Banks, Mitchell | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Garland, C. S. |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Col fox. Major Wm. Phillips | Goff, Sir R. Park |
| Berkeley, Captain Reginald | Collins, Pat (Walsall) | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Colvin, Brig. General Richard Beale | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Cope, Major William | Gwynne, Rupert S. |
| Bonwick, A. | Craig, Capt. C, C. (Antrim, South) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) | Halstead, Major D. |
| Boyd Carpenter, Major A. | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) |
| Brass, Captain W. | Darbishire, C. W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempsteadl | Harbord, Arthur |
| Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Harvey, Major S. E. |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Hawks, John Anthony |
| Bruton, Sir James | Ede, James Chuter | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) |
| Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) | Ellis, R. G. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
§ tion, it was to extend the provisions of the Act to these mandated territories, which, by their very nature, are overseas, and it is to overseas territories that the particular kind of court-martial to which I refer has specific reference under Section 49 of the Army Act. Under that Section it is laid down that where corn-plaint is made to any officer in command of any detachment or portion of troops "in any country beyond the sea," and so on. I take lit that the object of this Clause in the Bill is to clear up any doubt that may exist as to the legality of field general courts-martial being held in these mandated territories now that peace has been concluded and that their normal necessity may be said to have disappeared. I only put this point in order that the Under-Secretary of State for War may clear the matter up.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare)I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I suggest that the matter would be better raised in the Committee stage. He need have no anxiety as to any sinister motive being behind this Clause. It is merely to give the High Commissioner in Palestine alocus standi that he does not possess already. It is to bring the administration more under the civil power than it is at present. I suggest that with that single explanation he should allow the discussion to remain over until the Committee stage.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 33.
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. |
| Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Hilder, Lieut. Colonel Frank | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Russell, William (Bolton) |
| Hiley, Sir Ernest | Nail, Major Joseph | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney |
| Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon, Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. |
| Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Sandon, Lord |
| Hood, Sir Joseph | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Simpson, J. Hope |
| Hopkinson, A, (Lancaster, Mossley) | O'Nellt, Rt. Hon. Hugh | Skelton, A. N. |
| Houfton, John Plowright | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) | Parker, Owen (Kettering) | Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. |
| Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Hudson, Capt. A. | Penny, Frederick George | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. |
| Hume, G. H. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. |
| Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) | Philipson, Hilton | Sutcliffe, T. |
| Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul | Phillipps, Vivian | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| King, Capt. Henry Douglas | Pringle, W. M. R. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Raeburn, Sir William H. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Raine, W. | Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement |
| Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. | Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Winterton, Earl |
| Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Remer, J. R. | Wise, Frederick |
| Lorimer, H. D. | Rentoul, G. S. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Lumley, L. R. | Reynolds, W. G. W. | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Manville. Edward | Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Richardson, Lt.-CAI. Sir P. (Chertsey) | |
| Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. | Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Millar, J. D. | Rogerson, Capt. J. E. | Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston. |
| Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| NOES. | ||
| Barnes, A. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Saklatvala, S. |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Buckle, J. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J, M. | Sullivan, J. |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawson, John James | Warne, G. H. |
| Graham: D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Leach, W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lunn, William | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. d. (Rhondda) |
| Groves, T. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Whiteley, W. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Newbold, J. T. w. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) | Nichol, Robert | Wright, W. |
| Herriotts, J. | Ponsonby, Arthur | |
| Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silver-town) | Ritson. J. | Mr. Lansbury and Mr. Maxton. |
§ Bill accordingly read a Second time.
§ Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. J. Jones.]